PRIVACY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 26
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 10, 2002
• Sequence Number: 90
• Publication Date: November 21, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

Ap oved For Release 2002/01/28: CIA-RDP76M00527Ri1Q D150090 ~ 1 ~`j
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -DAILY DIGEST
?ate Federal Government, and examination
'id local governmental regulatory agencies
-,f nteract with the Federal system (S. 704, 770,
,4, and 4155), receiving testimony from Roy L. Ash,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive
Office of the President; Lewis A. Engman, Chairman,
Federal Trade Commission; and Miles Kirkpatrick,
Washington, D.C.
Hearings continue tomorrow.
PROJECT INDEPENDENCE
Committee on Interior and Insular Agairs:~ Committee
received a briefing on "Project Independence"- from
Dr. john C. Saw' hill, federal Energy Administrator.
D 1283
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: Subcommittee
on Employment, Poverty, and Migratory Labor held a
hearing on labor market policy, receiving testimony on
such policy in Sweden from Ingemund Bengtsson,
Secretary of Labor, Stockholm.
Hearings were recessed, subject to call.
Committee on .Public Works: Subcommittee on En-
vironmental Pollution resumed consideration of pro-
posed legislation on solid waste management, but did
not conclude action thereon and recessed, subject to call.
House of Representatives
Chamber Action
Bills Introduced: 13 public bills, H.R. 17488-17500;
2 private bills, H.R. 175oi and 17502; and 7 resolutions,
H.J. Res. t 169, H. Con. Res. 686, and H. Res. 1471-1475
.were introduced. Pages H 10928, H 11003-H 11004
Bill Reported: One report was filed as follows:
Conference report on H.R.15580, Labor-HEW appro- '
priations for fiscal year 1975 (H. Rept. 93-1489).
Page H 11003
Late Report: Conferees received permission to file. a
conference report by midnight tonight on H.R. 15580,
Labor-HEW appropriations for fiscal year 1975.
Pages H 10923--H 10926
Supplemental Appropriations: House disagreed to
the Senate amendments to H.R. 16900, making supple-
mental appropriations for fiscal year 1975; and agreed
to a conference asked by the Senate. Appointed as con-
ferees: Representatives Mahon, Whitten, Evins of Ten-
nessee, Boland, Flood, Steed, Slack, Hansen of Wash-
ington, McFall, Casey of Texas, Cederberg, Michel,
Robison of New York, Shriver, McDade, and Talcott.
Page H 10928
Committee Elections: Read and accepted a letter from
.epresentative Latta wherein he resigns as a member
)f the Committee on the judiciary. Subsequently, agreed
:o H. Res. 1471, electing Representative McCloskey to
he Committee on the judiciary. Page H 10928
ommittee To Sit: Committee on Merchant Marine
nd Fisheries received permission to sit during the 5-
ninute rule of today's session of the House.
Urban Mass Transportation: By. a yea-and-nay vote
of 288 yeas to tog nays, the House agreed to the con-
ference report on S. 386, to authorize certain grants to
assure adequate commuter service in urban areas; clear-
ing the measure for the President.
H. Res. 1470, the rule waiving points of order against
the conference report, was agreed to earlier by a recorded
vote of 241 ayes to 154 noes. Pages k 10929-H 10950
Late Report: Committee on Ways and Means received
permission to file a report by midnight Tuesday, No-
vember 26 on H.R. 17488, to provide a windfall profits
tax on oil, to phaseout percentage depletion on oil and
natural gas, to increase the low income, to make changes
in the treatment of foreign income, and to make certain
other adjustments in the tax laws. Page H 10950
Page H 10929
=arm Labor Contractor Registration: The Presi-
ent's veto of H.R. 13342, Farm Labor Contractor Regis-
?ation, was referred to the Committee on Education
17;.d Labor. Page H 10929
Privacy: By a yea-and-nay vote of 353 yeas to i nay,
the House passed H.R. 16373, to safeguard individual
privacy from the misuse of Federal records and to-pro-
vide that individuals be granted access to records con-
cerning them which are maintained by Federal agencies.
Agreed to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as amended.
Took the following action on the committee amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute:
Agreed to:
An amendment that exempts records of law enforce
ment agencies from the prohibition on maintaining
records of an individual's religious beliefs or political
activities;
An amendment that restricts disclosure of medical
records by an agency to those instances in which the life
of the individual would be endangered if the requested
information was withheld;
An amendment that assures that individuals who re-
fuse to disclose their social security account numbers
will not lose any Federal benefits or services. to which
they are entitled;
Approved For Release 2002/01/281: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 I)1284
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-DAILY DIGEST N
An amendment that includes valid court subpenas
among those items for which disclosure of records
Would be allowed;
An amendment to the section on access to records
d,at prohibits individuals from gaining access to infor-
mation compiled in a civil action or proceeding;
An amendment that exempts information compiled
by investigating agencies such as the FBI from the pro-
vi:;ions of the bill except for cases iii which the with-
hclding of information would cause: an individual to
lo:.e his rights and benefits under Federal law; and
An amendment that requires annual publication in
the Federal Register of all rules and notices promul-
ga.ed by Government agencies.
tejected:
!fin amendment that sought to insure redress for dam-
ages in all cases in which an agency violates the civil
remedies provisions of the bill rather than only in cases
in, which the agency is shown to have acted in a willful
or capricious manner;
An amendment that sought to strike language ex-
empting records maintained for an agency by the CIA
from the disclosures provisions of the rill.;
An amendment that sought to establish a Federal
Privacy Commission (rejected by a division vote of
9 ayes to 29 noes); and
An amendment that sought to strike language ex-
empting records maintained in connection with pro-
tection services provided to the Pre;ident from the
provisions of the bill. Pages H 10950-H 10972
Late Reports: Committee on Ways and Means received
permission to file a report by midnight Friday, Novem-
ber 22, on H.R. 17045, to amend the Social Security
Act to establish a consolidated program of Federal
financial assistance to encourage provision of services
by the States; and
Objection was heard to a request that conferees have
until midnight tonight to file a conference report on
S. 425, to provide for the cooperation between the Sec-
retary of the Interior and the States with respect to the
regulation of surface mining operations, and the acqui-
sition and reclamation of abandoned mines.
Page H 10972
Legislative Program: Majority Whip announced the
program for the week. beginning Monday, November
25. A;);reed to adjourn from Thursday to Monday.
Page H 10972
Referrals: Three Senate-passed measures were referred
to thc appropriate House committees. Page H 11002
Quorum Calls-Votes: One quorum call, two yea-
and-nay votes, and one recorded vote dereloped during
the proceedings of the House today and appear on
pages Hro929, Hro938, HIo949-Hro95o, and H1o971.
Program -for Monday: Met, at noon a
5:20 p.m. until noon on Monday, Novem
day, when the House will consider H.R. 171
Counsel for D.C. Public Service Commission;
Sider the following:
H. Res. 1387, Place for Amendments in Congressi
ecord;
H.R. 16609, AEC Supplemental Authorization (open
ule,1 hour of debate) ;
H.J. Res. 1161, Entry into Foreign Ports of U.S. Nu-
clear Warships (open rule, i. hour of debate) ; and
H.R. 16074. Nuclear Information for Congress (open
rule, i hour of debate).
Committee Meetings
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS
ommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Agri-
ulture held a hearing on budget rescissions and
eferrals.
EFENSE COMMUNICATIONS
ommittee on Armed Services: Special Subcommittee
n Defense Communications continued executive hear-
gs with testimony from Rear Adm. J. L. Boyes, Direc-
or, Naval .Communications Division; and Col. Philip
. Walker, Director, Telecommunications Division,
.S. Marine Corps.
ENFORCER-T'PE AIRCRAFT
Committee on Armed Services: Subcommittee No. r
met for briefing by Department of Defense on their
findings concerning the requirement for an Enforcer-
type aircraft.
SELECTED PROGRAMS
Committee on Armed Services: Subcommittee No. I
met in executive session for discussion on selected Air
Force, Navy, and ' Army programs.
FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION
ACT-TRUMAN MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM
Committee on Education and Labor: Met and ordered
reported favorably to the House the following bills:
H.R. 17474, Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act
of 1974; and
H.R. 17481 amended, Harry S. Truman Memorial
Scholarship program.
SOVIET ACTIVITIES IN CUBA
Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Inter-
American Affairs held an. executive hearing on Soviet
activities in Cuba. Witnesses heard were Maj.. Gen.
Lincoln I). Faurer, U.S. Air Force, Deputy Director
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 H 10'9'50
'Approved-For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE November 21, 1974
Fountain
Long, Md.
Rousselot
Goodling
Lott
Ruppe
Gross
McCollister
Ruth
Hammer-
McEwen
Satterfield
schmidt
McKay
Scherle
Henderson
McSpadden
Shuster
Hicks
Mahon
Spence
Holt
Mallary
Steed
Hosmer
Mann
Steiger, Ariz.
Huber
Martin, Nebr.
Stubblefield
Hutchinson
Mathis, Ga.
Symms
Ichord
Mayne
Taylor, Mo.
Jarman
Miller
Taylor, N.C.
Johnson, Calif. Mizell
Thomson, Wis,
Johnson, Colo.
Montgomery
Treen
Johnson, Pa.
Nichols
Waggonner
Jones, Ala.
Passman
W ampler
Jones, Okla.
Price, Tex,
Whitten
Jones, Tenn.
Quillen
Young, S.C.
Ketchum
Randall
Young, Tex.
Landgrebe
Roberts
Zion
Latta
Robinson, Va.
Armstrong
Harsha
Rarick
Bergland
Hebert
Riegle
Boggs
Heckler, Mass.
Roncalio, Wyo.
Brasco
Jones, N.C.
Roncallo, N.Y.
Camp
Kuykendall
Rooney, N.Y.
Conable
Landrum
Runnels
Crane
Lui an
Sarbanes
Dulski
Luken
Sebelius
Eshleman
Minshall, Ohio
Sikes
Giaimo
Patman
Staggers
Grasso
Poage
Wyman
Griffiths
Pddell
Hanna
Powell, Ohio
So the
to.
pairs:
Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Dulski.
Mr. Hebert with Mrs. Grasso.
Mr. Sikes with Ms. Luken,
Mr. Riegle with Mrs. Griffiths,.
Mr. Rooney of New York wi
Mr. Giahno with Mr. Rarick.
Mr. Staggers with Mr. Kuyken
Mr. Sarbanes with Mr. Crane.
Mr. Roncalio of Wyoming with
able.
Mrs. Heckler of Massachusetts
Lujan.
Mr. Runnels with Mr. Minshall of
Mr. Sebelius with Mr. Patman.
of Ohio.
The result of the vote was ann
as above recorded. _
A motion to reconsider was laid
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, I ask uilani-
mous consent that all Members may ave
5 legislative days In which to revis -and
extend their remarks, and to inclu ex-
traneous material, on the conference re-
port to accompany S. 386, the Urban
Mass Transportation Assistance Act of
1974, 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
WAYS AND MEANS TO HAVE UNTIL
MIDNIGHT, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER
26, 1974, TO FILE A REPORT, ALONG
WITH MINORITY AND/OR SEPA-
RATE VIEWS, ON H.R. 17488
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I- ask unani-
mous consent that the Committee on
Ways and Means may have until mid-
night, Tuesday, November 26, 1974, to
file a report on the bill, H.R. 17488, the
Energy Tax and Individual Relief Act of
1974, along with any minority and/or
separate views.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ark-
ansas?
There was no objection.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. RONCALIO of Wyoming. Mr.
Speaker, I wish to state that I would
like the record to show that on the vote
on the conference report on S. 386, the
Urban Mass Transportation Assistance
Act of 1974, just completed, I was unable
to return to the floor in order to record
my vote. I was in conference on the strip
mine bill.
Had I been present and voted, I would
have voted against the conference report.
SENATE OVERRIDES PRESIDENTIAL
VETO ON FREEDOM OF INFORMA-
TION ACT
(Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania
asked and was given permission to ad-
dress the House for 1 minute and to re-
vise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MOOR IEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
body has followed the leadership of the
House and has voted to override the veto
on the Freedom of Information Act.
PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Speaker, I move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the
further consideration of the bill (H.R.
16373) to amend title 5, United States
Code, by adding S section 552a to safe-
guard individual privacy from the mis-
use of Federal records and to provide that
individuals be granted access to records
concerning them which are maintained
by Federal agencies.
'The SPEAKER. The question Is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD).
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Chair requests the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. FULTON)
to assume the Chair temporarily.
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 further
consideration of the bill H.R. 16373, with
Mr. FULTON (Chairman pro tempore) in
the chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When
the Committee rose on yesterday, the
amendment In the nature of a substitute
to the bill was subject to amendment at
any point.
Are there further amendments?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MOORHEAD
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MOORHEAD- of
Pennsylvania: On page 31, strike lines 5
through 9 and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
"(3) In a suit brought under the provi-
sions of subsection (g) (1) (B) or (C) of this
section in which the court determines that
the agency failed or refused to comply with
any provision of subsection (g) (1) (B) or
(C) of this section, the United States shall
be liable to the individual In an amount
equal to the sum of-"
(Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania
asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, the purpose of this amend-
ment is to insure that persons who are
actually damaged by the failure of the
Government agency to comply with the
provisions of subsection (g) (1) (B) or
(C) are compensated for their losses.
The amendment does not contain a
provision for punitive damages, which
was objected to yesterday. There is noth-
ing in this amendment, therefore, which
subjects the Government to an undue
burden. The burden is on the citizen. The
citizen must prove that there was a vio-
lation of the provision of this act, He
must, then prove that the adverse deter-
mination which damaged him was caused
by the above violation. He must finally
prove the damages caused by the viola-
tion.
With this substantial burden already
placed on the litigant, I see no reason
to require that proof also be offered of
willful, arbitrary, or capricious action by
the defendant agency.
This amendment was suggested as a
reasonable compromise by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. ECKHARDT), and I now
yield to him.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the distinguished subcommittee
chairman.
It will be recalled by those who heard
the debate yesterday that the primary
objection to the Fascell amendment was
that the Government should not be
subjected to punitive damages. I think
that that was the major ground upon
which that amendment was defeated.
Frankly, had I thought that the Gov-
ernment would practically be so jeopar-
dized, I would have voted against it too.
I did not think that it was a practical"
danger, but this amendment completely
removes that proposition.
However, the amendment does afford
a correction of what seemed to me to be
a, very bad defect in the existing lan-
guage, and that is that even though a
person may not be able to get a job be-
cause his record falsely indicated ' his
having been discharged when he had, in
fact resigned, if an agent of Government
made an innocent mistake in failing to
go through with the procedure provided
in this bill and the person whose record
was falsely stated lost a job and there-
fore lost the money that he would have
made on that job, he could still not sue
because he could not show that the ac-
tion was willful, arbitrary, or capricious.
It seems to me to be a matter of basic
justice to permit a person who is actually
injured by some act of an agent of the
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R00?70015,0090-9
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE Ii 10949
jurisdiction in this respect was compel- the time-honored method for he two
lingly stated in the select committee re- bodies to produce the type of legislation
port: our Nation requires and deserves. It also
With its experiencein highways and roads provides a legislative history which pro-
transportation re- merts.
thieve the select i submit that the old adage that haste
integrated ap- makes waste is applicable to that which
pu a policy. we are being asked to do today. We have
Han package the opportunity to utilize proper pro-
H
s ils wit Com- cedures and to provide a proper legisla-
and He But tive history. That is why we asked you
w
s ration was to turn aside this restrictive rule and
in respect the support the opportunity of having our bill
considered in the other body.
How many Members of this distin-
)n Public Wor g- fished body have been offended in the
sst when the Senate has returned leg-
Igtion with nongermane amendments
-the
preach to this important
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the Com-
mittee on Public Works has in gradual
and orderly fashion expanded its con-
structive role on the urban public trans-
A great matter of principle is involved
in what happens today. We are witness-
ing a procedural end-run around our
committee that will come back to haunt
ing our Public Works Committee to help
straighten out this expedient "mess"
ment can do no wrong though it may do
several things that look pretty odd. I
from Albemarle who left his most im-
portant procedures on the. House of Rep-
late to the judicial and executive
branches. I submit to you that we will
continue to lose our influence unless we
thoroughly our action. This includes
thorough hearings, extensive debate in
the committee, preparation of thorough
committee reports, debate of the merits
ences of the two bodies In conference, and
review of the conference report. This is
0
ation at
we are -
ur.
isal in the ot
Lprehensive an
se by an overwhe
submit if we allow w
his type to be drafte
conference we shall
on
sure if we allow the
am
wi
rrevall we shall be faced
situation in the future.
tively simple parliamentary pro
bring about a conference on the
h the
rela-
to
which was approved in the other body
this week.
I strongly urge my colleagues to sup-
port the Public Works Committee efforts
to retain, for the House, the time-hon-
dred procedures for providing The mass
transit legislation our Nation deserves.
Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the conference
report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
conference report.
The question was taken: and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were order..?ed.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-yeas 288, nays 109,
'zot voting 37, as follows:
I Roll No. 6401
YEAS-288
Abzug Bell Brown, Calif.
4dams Biaggi Brown, Mich.
Addabbo Biester Brown, Ohio
Alexander Bingham Broyhill; Va.
Anderson,. Boland Buchanan
Calif. Bolling Burgener
Anderson. nl. Brademas Burke, Calif.
Annunzio Breaux Burke, Fla.
Ashley Breckinridge Burke, Mass.
Aspin Brooks Burton, John
Badillo Broomfield Burton, Phillip
Carney, Ohio
Horton
Carter
Howard
Roe
Cederberg
Hudnut
Rogers
Chamberlain
Hungate
Rooney, Pa.
Chisholm
Hunt
Rose
Clancy
Jordan
Rosenthal
Clark
Karth
Rostenkowski
Clay
Kastenmeier
Roush
Cohen
Kazen
Roy
Collins, nl.
Kemp
Roybal
Conte
King
Ryan
Conyers
Kluczynski
St Germain
Corman
Koch
Sandman
Flood Minish Talcott
Flowers Mink Teague
Hawkins
Hays
uie
ailsback
Wylie
Yates
Holtzman
RobisoY N.Y.
Andrews, N.C.
Brinkley
Daniel, Dan
Andrews,
Broyhill, N.C.
Daniel, Robert
N. Dak.
Burleson, Tex,
W., Jr.
Archer
Burlison, Mo.
Davis, Ga.
Arends
Butler
Davis, S.C.
Ashbrook
Byron
Davis, Wis.
Bafalis
Casey, Tex.
de la Garza
Baker
Chappell
Denholm
Bauman
Clausen,
Dennis
Beard
Don H.
Devine
Bennett
Clawson, Del
Dickinson
Bevill
Cleveland
Evans, Colo.
Blackburn
Cochran
Evins, Tenn.
Blatnik
Collier
Findley
Bowen
Collins, Tex.
Fisher
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
demanded their passage? How many
has this House been offended by
rtures of the Senate suggesting
' our rules.
ach of us has seen the other
t to impose its poorly strut
this body. Admittedly, the
1% time is slightly different.
faced with a gross de-
ormal rules as well as,
body to consider the
tailed mass transit
approved in this
g vote.
jor legislation
a committee
the day. I
o r body to
a simila5?
 ? Approved for Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
November 91, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 111109-31
Government which is in violation of this
subsection to recover on ordinary bases,
that is, by showing that the .act was vio-
lated and that he sustained injury.
There is nothing in this that would
provide for any damages beyond his ac-
tual out-of-pocket expenses because of
the flaw.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr: Chairman, I would
like to ask the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. ECKHARDT) as to what is the stand-
ard of conduct that would cause the
Government to be liable? Would the
Government be liable? I would ask the
gentleman from Texas this question: If
there was an innocent mistake made in
violation of this bill, would the Govern-
ment be liable?
Mr. ECKHARDT. I do not know what
"innocent mistake" means. As the gentle-
man knows, the act provides that if I ask
for information concerning what is in my
record I am entitled to have it. Having
received that, and finding something
that is erroneous in that information, I
may then submit the. correction. The
agency must then either correct or must
file reasons why it does not correct it.
Let us assume, for instance, that the
agency, after I request the information,
misplaces my letter and does not send me
the information and, in. the meantime, I
seek a position with another government
agency, and I am denied employment on
the grounds that I have been discharged,
when in fact I was not discharged. I
think I am entitled to recover even
though the action of the governmental
agency may not have been willful; it is
just a question of determining what the
fact was.
Mr. ICHORD. There would be an ele-
ment of negligent conduct, or unreason-
able conduct, would there not?
Mr. ICHORD. I think so; yes.
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
think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
IcxoRD) has asked a very good question
as to standards of conduct. There are
no standards of conduct required under
this amendment. This amendment would
make the Government a guarantor of
the accuracy of everything that it has in
its files.
The -amendment says that any suit
brought under subsection (g) (1) (B);
(C) of this section does not have to re-
fer to any standards of conduct. What
do (g) (1)' (B) and (C) require? (B) re-
quires that the agency maintain any
record concerning any individual with
such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and
completeness as is necessary to assure
fairness.
Now, if there is any inadvertent in-
accuracy in a government file, a suit
could be filed under this amendment,
and damages asked and recovered.
(C) says:
. fails to comply with any other pro- reviewable in court. Certainly the Gov-
vision of this action, or any rule promul- ernment should do the things that are
gated thereunder, in such a way as to have required under the standards here. Cer-
an adverse effect on an individual, the indi- tainly the Government should supply the
vidual may bring a civil action against the material. Certainly the Government
agency.... should give the reasons, if it refuses to
Again, this . provision prescribes no correct an asserted error.
standard of conduct. If a Government If the Government does all of those
agency inadvertently violated any rule- things and acts in compliance with the
whether a mistake be inadvertent or language of the bill, the Government is
willful-a suit could be brought under not subjected to any liability whatsoever.
this -amendment for damages. This ex- There is no requirement of an assurance
poses the Government to undue liability. that the Government be absolutely cor-
It makes the Government the guarantor rect with respect to every fact which is
of every piece of information that it has listed In a person's record. The Govern-
In every one of its files. It is not even ment need only be fair, and it need only
prospective; this would be retroactive- comply with the standards of the act.
Government employees would have to go Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
through and clean up all their files so gentleman yield?
that they would not expose themselves Mr. ECKHARDT. I yield to the gentle-
to such liability. man from Virginia.
I am surprised that the gentleman Mr. BUTLER. I thank the gentleman
from ? Pennsylvania would offer this - for yielding.
amendment at the last minute, without As I understand, in the proposed
any warning. This was not reported out amendment there is an addition to the
by the committee. This was not sup- discretionary authority which is in the
ported by the committee: Even though court to assess reasonable attorneys' fees
the gentleman is the manager of the where the plaintiff substantially prevails;
bill, the gentleman does this on his own, is that correct? So this would provide for
and I am sure that he would tell the actual damages in those situations as a
Members that that is correct. matter of right, knowing that the law has
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. If not been complied with. Is there a prec-
the gentleman will yield, I would not edent in other legislation by this auto-
like to leave the Inference in the record matic assessment of actual damages by a
that this is a committee amendment. It citizen against the U.S. Government?
is an amendment that was proposed by Mr. ECKHARDT. Yes, there are sev-
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ECK- eral. I do not have bills in which this
HARDT) as a reasonable compromise be- comes to mind immediately, but I know
tween the bill language on page 31- that we have had several here recently
"willful, arbitrary, or capricious." I feel out of the Committee on Interstate and
this compromise is necessary since puni- Foreign Commerce. I believe there was
tive damages are not authorized in this a provision of that nature with respect
bill because of the defeat of the Fascell to citizens' suits regarding the products
amendment yesterday. safety bill. I am not absolutely sure of
This Is just to try to make a citizen that.
whole when the Government has dam- Mr. BUTLER. Is the Federal Govern-
aged him. ment obligated under the products safety
Mr. ERLENBORN. I am afraid the bill?
gentleman has just gone much too far on ' Mr. ECKHARDT. No, no.
this in making the Government liable. Mr. BUTLER. I am talking about the
I read yesterday a statement that the Federal Government. Is there a law say-
President flrully supports this bill with Ing that a citizen can recover damages
only one reservation, and that reserva- when- a minor clerk falls to perform his
tion was taken care of by the adoption of duties timely and completely, fairly ac-
the amendment I offered yesterday. But curately, and so forth? Is there a prece-
I am telling the Members if we adopt dent for that?
this amendment, we would be exposing Mr. ECKHARDT. I do not know
the Government to blanket liability as a whether there is or not, but I would an-
guarantor of every piece of personal in- swer the gentleman in this way. I would -
formation in its files, and I, - for one, say that if the Federal Government acts
would recommend to the President-as in violation of its own statutory obliga-
iryrportant as this bill might be-that he Lions, I can think of no agency that
veto it. We just cannot afford to have should be called upon more to pay at-
that kind of liability, leaving the Govern- torneys' fees, because the public pays the
ment, so exposed. I hope the amendment Federal Government attorneys' fees.
will be defeated. .. Mr. BUTLER. We are plowing new
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I ground, then.
move to strike the requisite number of Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. If
words, and I rise in favor of the amend- the gentleman will yield, when this was
meet. taken up yesterday, there was great ar-
I do not believe the gentleman's fears gument that punitive damages had no
are justified. This amendment does not precedent. I think that was one of the
require that the Government be the guar- reasons that that amendment was de-
antor of every fact determined. The Gov- - feated. But the inference is clearly left
ernmefrt need only comply with the that there are other statutes under which
standards set out in (g) (1) and (B) and actual damages can be awarded against-
(C). Certainly the Government ought to the Government.
assure fairness in any - determination. Mr. ECKHARDT. I might also say that
Surely the Government ought to be fair, we do not affect that portion of the bill.
and if it is unfair, the matter should be Attorneys' fees are provided in the bill,
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
1110,952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974
whether this amendment is passed or to make clear that such activities as are under the industrial security program.
not. If the gentleman wishes to strike pertinent to, and within the scope of, It could then transfer, use or maintain
that, he might still do it by amendment, duly authorized law enforcement activi- Information about individuals, or other-
even if this amendment is agreed to. ties are not meant to be excluded by the wise operate its industrial security pro-
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on broad terms of paragraph (4). It is sim- gram just as it has in the past. I trust
the amendment offered by the gentle- ply a clarifying amendment, so that we that this explanation answers the gen-
man from Pennsylvania (Mr. Moor- obviate any necessity for litigation on tleman's question.
READ). the reach of the paragraph. I trust that this explanation satisfies
The question was taken; and the (Mr. ICHORD asked and was given the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
cnairman announced that the noes ap- permission to revise and extend his re- Mr. ICHORD. I thank the gentleman
geared to have it. marks.) for his clarification.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I de- Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. I would also like to ask the gentle-
mand a recorded vote. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? man from Illinois, is that his under--
A recorded vote was refused. Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman standing or interpretation? The term
So the amendment was rejected. from Pennsylvania. "routine use" is rather ambiguous with-
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ICHORD Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania:. Mr. out further legislative clarification.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer Chairman, I understand that this Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will
an amendment. amendment should be construed in the the gentleman yield?
The Clerk read as follows, light of the colloquy we had yesterday, Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman
amendment offered by Mr. ICHORD: page that there was no intention to Interfere from Illinois.
28, line 16, strike out the period after the with the first amendment rights of citi- Mr. ERLENBORN. I agree with the
word "maintained" and add the following: zees* interpretation given the language by the
Provided, however, that the provisions of Mr. ICHORD. I state emphatically to gentleman from Pennsylvania. I think
this paragraph shall not be deemed to pro- the gentleman from Pennsylvania that it will be the obligation of each agency
hi-bit the maintenance of any record of ac- this amendment is not intended to hurt which maintains such a system to list
tivity which is pertinent to and within the in any way the exercise of the first what the uses of the records in that sys-
scope of aduly authorized law enforcement amendment rights. tem will be. The word "routine," then,
activity." Mr;MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. while itself a little ambiguous,
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, as :[ Chairman, I have no objection on this definitely clarified by pubilicationinlthe
pointed out in general debate this side of the aisle to the amendment. Federal Register of what actual uses
amendment can be described as a clari?? Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, before will be the routine uses to which each
fying amendment. The managers of the yielding back the balance cf my time, record is put.
bill have stated that they did not intend there is one further clarification that I . Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank
to do what I questioned they might be would like to have from the gentleman the gentleman for his explanation. I
doing, and this language was worked out from Pennsylvania as a matter of lcgis- move the adoption of the amendment.
in cooperation with the managers of the lative history. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
bill. It is really to make certain that I state to the gentleman that I have the amendment offered by the gentleman
political and religious activities are not expressed the concern that this measure from Missouri (Mr. IcxoRD).
used as a cover for illegal or subversive might adversely affect the operations of The amendment was agreed to.
activities. . the industrial security program or might
fn its present form paragraph (4) even destroy the operation of the indus- AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GUDE
would prohibit any agency from main- trial security program. The gentleman Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
taining any record concerning the "po- from Pennsylvania and the gentleman amendment.
litical or religious belief or activity" of from Illinois have assured me privately The Clerk read as follows:
any individual, unless "expressly author- that this was not intended, but I do think Amendment offered by Mr. GUDE: On page
ize=c by statute" or by the individual: The we should have some legislative history. 23, strike outlines 18 through 21 and insert
use of the terms "expressly authorized How will the provisions of this bill af- In their place the following: -
by statute" would seem to indicate, that fect the operation of the industrial serur- saving "(7) to a the person
in of who such i indiv aviduaidualet upon
unless the statute by specific terms- ity program? such disclosure , sf upon
vied
urather than 'by "implication"-author= s dis notification is tranmi
Mr. MOORHEAD of Penns;71vania. Mr. to the last known address of such indi
id-
ized the agency to maintain such a rec- Chairman, if the gentlemar. will yield, ual; or".
ord, maintenance would be prohibited, the gentleman has raised an important Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, the pur-
and that this would therefore have the questionand I am pleased to explain its pose of this amendment is to clarify one
effect of prohibiting the maintenance of application. This bill would not disturb item I believe to be ambiguous in intent.
records concerning Communist and oth- current procedures used in industrial in restricting the circumstances under
er subversive organizations on the theory security investigations, in the transfer which information on individuals could
that they are engaged in "political" of classified or unclassified information be disclosed by Federal agencies, it was
activities. in such matters, in security clearances,
the
We may well recognize that the pur- or other related industrial security needs, dude ihintention io n which the which wou in lde eo ex-
pose of the provision is commendable Our subcommittee recently conducted to the health ealth or sof an iv vital
and legitimate in prohibiting the dis- hearings on the industrial security f safety had niaua-
closure of such records with respect to gram as related to the security clasifica- dent, For nexample, if there been an needed
conventional political and religious be- tion system, so that we are quite familiar the and the medical ending doctor needed
lief; and activities, but that it can be with the program. ce ing with treatment rwhich hemight be
construed to cover activities which are Subsection (e) (2) (D) on page 27 of necessary to save his life, we woud not
prouerly within the scope of legitimate the bill permits any agency, Including an want the Federal Government to be for-
law enforcement. For example, the Com- agency involved in Industrial security bidden to transmit that information, nor
munist Party and similar groups may activities, to publish in the Federal Reg- would we want to require a time con-
claim that they are within the scope of aster a notice for each system of records suming approval process which might
the provision of this paragraph as a it maintains. This notice would list the result in the individual's death before
"political" activity. Similarly, certain "routine purpose" for which the records the information could be provided.
sects within the Black Muslim move- are usedor are Intended to be used. Thus, However, I believe the current lan-
ment, which are engaged in activities a Federal agency engaged in industrial guage of the bill is too vaguein this re-
described by the Director of the FBI security matters would state that one of gard, in that it would permit such dis-
as endangering the internal security, the "routine purposes" for which infor- closures without prior permission in less
may claim exemption as a "religious" mation about an individual is collected than emergency cases, and it does not
belief. and used for security clearances or other make clear to whom the information
It is the purpose of the amendment uses is to carry out its responsibilites could be discussed. My amendment
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090=9 H 10953
November;21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
would simply leave no doubt as to the they sight the threat the unrestricted the right of a citizen to protect his pri-
intent of the bill to restrict this kind of universal numeric identifier Poses to vacy and the need of the Federal Gov-
disclosure only to truly life-threatening the freedom and privacy of individuals. ernment to be a proper and effective
emergencies, and then only to disclose Private citizens resent the use of this servant.
the information to those actively en- number as an arbitrary precondition to Mr.MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
gaged in trying to save the life of the the receipt of services, privileges, and. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
individual in question. benefits that are essential to their daily Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield to the gen-
Mr. MOORHEAD. of Pennsylvania. lives and activities. The average citizen tleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? finds the use of the number dehumaniz- Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Mr. GLIDE. I yield to the gentleman ing and threatening. Even the Widely. Chairman, I want to commend the gen-
from Pennsylvania. - cited report of the Secretary of HEW- tleman for offering this amendment, the
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I entitled "Records, Computers, and Rights principle of which was certainly intended
thank the gentleman for yielding. I am of Citizens"-notes that there is no stat- by the committee, but the gentleman's
not sure the amendment is necessary. I utory authority, for the ever-growing amendment removes any ambiguity.
have no objection to the amendment use of this number as an identifier. They I want to commend the gentleman for
and, as far as I know, on this side of the point out that the average citizen has no his diligent work, cooperation, and as-
aisle we accept it. legal remedy for such a use of the num- sistance to the subcommittee and the full
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will ber. The report notes that the universal committee. As far as we are concerned
the gentleman yield? use of a numeric identifier permits the on this side, we will accept the amend-
Mr. GLIDE. I yield to the gentleman linking of files and the tracing of a per- ment.
from Illinois. son from cradle to grave. A soon to be Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the gen-
Mr. ERLENBORN. We have had a copy published ? report - "Roscoe-Pound- tleman from Pennsylvania.
of the amendment and we have no objec- American Trial Lawyers Foundation Re- Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
tion to it. port"-notes the negative psychological will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN, The question is on impact that has resulted from the un- league fOLDWAforR. I yield to my col-
the amendment offered by the gentleman regulated use of this number.
from Maryland (Mr. GUsE). In most cases, the use of this number (Mr. LAGOMARSINO asked and was
The amendment was agreed to. has been resorted to in the name of ei- given permission to revise and extend his
AMENDMENT. OFFERED BY MR. GOLDWATER ficiency. Little concern has been given remarks.)
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I for the human impact such a practice Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
offer an amendment, has. Everything distinctive, individual, I would like to commend the gentleman
The Clerk read as follows: or superior in terms of quality of a man's for his amendment, and assure him of
Amendment offered by Mr. GOLDWATER: On mind is not relevant. Everything centers my support. I would also like to com-
page 35, after line 20, insert the following on the quantitative, down with qualitive mend him for his work on the general
new subsection (m) to read as follows: dimensions or values. The use of this subject.
. "(m) (1) Moratorium on the use of the number has removed the individual from Mr. Chairman, last year a Presidential
social security account number. -no Federal the modern personal information trans- Executive order was issued allowing the
agency, or any state or local government action process. Records are exchanged Department of Agriculture to inspect the
acting in compliance with any Federal law without his knowledge and occasionally Individual tax returns of 3 million farm-
or federally assisted program, shall deny any to his serious detriment. Errors are per- ers-for the alleged purpose of compiling
individual any right, benefit, or privilege petuated and integrated with new rec- mailing lists and statistical information.
provided by law by reason of such indivity ords. And all of this is occurring because Although that order was eventually
acco refusal nsal to disclose his social security of administrative decisions which never rescinded after widespread public indig-number (2) This s sub. shall not apply-
a". analyze the larger implications of the nation, it is a good example of the type
(2) T
"(A) with respect to any system of records use of the number. Simply put, the use of of abuse we are trying to prevent with
in existence and operating prior to Jan- the number has not been subjected to this bill. Not every Member of this House
nary 1, 1975; and, the aggressive give and take that occurs has a large agricultural constituency, but
"(B) when disclosure of a social security in a legislative form. I ask the Members to consider that if the
account number is required by Federal law. Originally, the discussion draft of H.R. Department of Agriculture can obtain
"' (3) No Federal agency, or any state or 16373 contained language prohibiting the individual tax returns of 3 million farm-
with further use of the social security account ers by the device of an Executive order,
alocal ny federal law government Feder ally in compliance
assisted
any
shall use the social l security account ount program, number number as a universal numeric identifier. how many other agencies can get the
for any purpose other than for verification Objections were raised to that language. individual tax returns of housewives, or
of the identity of an individual unless such The objections centered on the follow- barbers, or truckdrivers, on the same
other purpose is specifically authorized by ing concerns: flimsy excuse of a need for mailing lists.
Federal law." First, outright prohibition would neces- The law provides that tax returns are
And, re-letter the -succeeding subsection sitate a total revamping of all Federal confidential, and the information they
accordingly. record systems at tremendous cost. contain is not to be disclosed without
Mr. GOLDWATER (during the read- Second, outright prohibition is not con- permission. Given the events of the past
ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous sistent with all the best interests of citi- few years, when tax returns become
consent that the amendment be con- zens as it would cause chaos in many weapons to be turned against individual
sidered as read and printed in the Federal programs. citizens or to punish political foes, I won-
RECORD. The amendment I offer today remedies der how on Earth we can expect the or-
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to these problems. My amendment does the dinar citizen to comply with our
taxation,me
the request of the gentleman from Cali- following things: tax fornia? First, prohibits the denial of rights, which we ask the individual to personally
There was no.objection. benefits, or privileges provided by law if report his income and compute his tax
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I a citizen refuses to disclose his social due, relies heavily on the voluntary coop-
offer this amendment dealing with the security number, with the following ex- eration and basic honesty of the in-
use of the social security number in an ceptions: dividual. In this respect, it is perhaps
attempt to bring it into proper perspec- The amendment exempts all systems unique in the world.
tive and to, in essence, put limitations in existence and operating prior to Jan- Where else would you find an entire
upon its further use. uary 1, 1975, and would not apply when nation of people willing to report the
Every major report on the subject of the Congress authorizes the use of the most intimate details of their income and
personal privacy and the collection, main- number. expenditures every year? If we had to
tenance, use and dissemination of per- The amendment restores to Congress resort to the European system of taxa-
sonal information has expressed concern the control over use of the number. tion, where an inspector comes by to
for the ever-growing use of the social This amendment will fill important check on your wealth and living situa-
security number as a universal numeric voids in the current legislation. It sights tion, or if we had to make a detailed
identifier. Almost without exception a reasonable, basic compromise between check of the basic facts of every income
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090,19
1410954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974
tax return filed in this country, we would
be spending as much collecting this tax
as we gain from it. Yet our entire system
of taxation is based on the Government's
assurance that individual tax returns wilt!
remain confidential-an assurance which
we have seen is not always truthful.
We all remember the story of the
golden goose. Well gentlemen and ladies.
if we are not careful, we are going to kill
the golden goose. If we do not act now to
insure the confidentiality of Government
records, including private income tax
returns, no one will ever again tell the
truth to their Government. We have
come dangerously close, I believe, to ex-
hausting the reservoir of good will and
basic honesty of the people toward their
Government. If we are not honest with
the public, the public will not be honest
with us. One way we can assure the
people that we will honor our commit-
ments of confidentiality whenever we ask
for necessary information, is to pass this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, over 2,400 years ago, the
Greek leader Pericles proclaimed one of
the signs of a free society to be "mutual
toleration of privacy." The right of priv-
acy finds expression in both the English
Magna Carter and the U.S. Bill of Rights.
I believe it is time for us to lend substance
to those guaranteeswith a statute such
as the one before us today. This bill will
not. hamper the operation of Govern-
ment, it will only make it work better,
because the individual citizen will be
more willing to cooperate if he knows
that his privacy will remain protected.
For the sake of good government, and
for the sake of the people we serve, I
urge an "aye" vote on this bill.
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York. -
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to
commend the gentleman, my good friend
from California. He has led the fight to
prevent the establishment of a universal
identifier number. To see that fight suc-
cessfully concluded on the floor today
must give him a great deal of pride and
pleasure. I take pride and pleasure in his
success and in having worked with him
on this legislation.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank my friend
for his support in this effort, and I urge
adoption of the amendment.
Mr. -ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee, in
considering the drafting of this bill, did
'consider taking under advisement
whether we should include the prohib-
iting of a universal numeric identifier. Of
course, the social security number is the
most commonly used universal numeric
identifier.
The problem is that to my knowl-
edge-and I think to the knowledge of
the subcommittee-there has been no
study as to how many local governments
or private agencies or, even, for that
matter, Federal agencies, which use the
universal numerical identifier or the so-
cial security number. We are not certain
what effect this sort of amendment would
have. I know, for instance, it is quite
customary to use the social security
number as the identifier on State driver's
licenses. Just what effect this amend-
ment would have, I do not think we really
know, and I do not think we should pass
it without knowledge I think it would
Mr. ERLENBORN. I do not believe
that is included within the definition.
Mr. COLLIER. I thank the gentleman.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BUTLER
be a mistake to do this, before hearings Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
have been held to get the facts on which
to base action. The Clerk read as follows:
One part of the amendment wouk al- Amendment offered by Mr. BUTLER: Page
low an exceptionfor systems of records 23, after linuer25, insert the following:
in operation prior to January 1, 1975. competent the order of a court of
That means if a new system were to be petenntt juris sdicct tion."
adopted by a State or local government, Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, this is
it might be wholly incompatible with an an amendment to the section of the bill
existing system which is the subject of dealing with conditions of disclosure. It
the exemption. I think we would be act- is introduced for the purpose of making
ing without sufficient knowledge if we it perfectly clear that a lawful order of
were to adopt the amendment now. a court of competent jurisdiction would
I think we all want to be knows: by be an appropriate condition of dis-
our names rather than by number so- closure.
and-so. Certainly the purpose of this Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania:.
amendment is worthy, but I am afraid we Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
are acting now out of emotion rather Mr. BUTLER. I yield to the gentleman
than knowledge. We have not had any from Pennsylvania.
hearings on which to base action on this Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
amendment; therefore, I think the pro- Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has dis-
posal should be defeated. We should hold cussed his amendment with us, and we
hearings on this subject in the near find no objection to the amendment.
future. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered
question is on the amendment offered by by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
the gentleman from California (Mr, BUTLER).
GOLDWATER). The amendment was agreed to.
The amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BUTLER
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I move Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
to strike the requisite number of words. an amendment.
I do so only for one question, if I may, The Clerk read as follows:
Throughout the bill, the word "agency" Amendment offered by Mr. BUTLER: On
is used, and I would like to know whether page 26, line 17, after the word "disclosure",
or not the word "agency" is interchange- strike out the period and add the following:
able with the word commission' and (5) nothing in this section shall allow
throughout the bill. an individual access to any information com-
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will piled in reasonable anticipation of a civil
the gentleman field? action or proceeding."
Mr. COLLIER. Yes, I yield to the Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, this
gentleman. amendment is directed to the section
Mr. ERLENBORN. As I understand he dealing with access to records. It is in-
gentleman's question, it is whether reiiu- troduced for the purpose of making it
latory commissions would be considered perfectly clear that an investigation of
agencies?
Mr. COLLIER. As well as any duly ap- an accident or other procedures incident
to problems
pointed commissions that were author- subject to inquiry nature will not be
ized by the Congress, whether through y o or access under this
Congress or through Executive a section.
ppoYut- The amendment says:
meat.
Mr. ERLENBORN. The definition of Nothing in this section shall allow an in-
dividual access to any information compiled
the word "agency" would be contained in in reasonable anticipation of a civil action
the basic Freedom of Information Act, or proceeding.
and this is the amendment to the Free-
dom of Information Act. My recollection Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr,
is that'the word 'a'gency" defined In the Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
act would include regulatory commis- Mr. BUTLER. I yield to the gentleman
sions. from Pennsylvania.
Such things as study commissions, in- Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
terim study commissions, or r:hort-term Chairman, again the gentleman has been
study commissions, I do not believe they good enough to discuss this- amendment
would be. with us, and we find no objection to it.
Mr. COLLIER. They would be ex- However, I would ask the gentleman
cluded, notwithstanding the fact that. this: What does he contemplate con-
they contain, in many instances
sub- cerning the third amendment we dis-
,
stantial confidential records of a per- cussed?
sonal nature? Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I do not
Mr. ERLENBORN. This is only my intend to introduce the third amendment
recollection, without having a copy of the the gentleman refers to.
law before me. I think regulatory cons- Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
missions would be included within the Chairman, I thank .the gentleman.
definition, something like the President's We have no objection to the amend-
Commission on Population Growth in ment.
America, on which I served. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will
Mr. COLLIER. That is not included? the gentleman yield?
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Aplroved for Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP7?gll~ 27R000700150090-9 H 10955
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - r~i
Ot contain any
Alrr T%TTTT.FR. I yield to the gentleman (Ms. ABZUG asked and was given Per-- _ other body's
exemption section. It pner
~iir ftl e
ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, as I marks.)
understand it, the purpose of the amend- Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, we are only two of the. specific ones we have, h by ment is to protect, as an example, the dealing in this bill before us today m tith bet the way, and that is for national
he
-
"
------
- -
defense of a suit against the United bill muss; be the exception tea
_t sensitive recor
That is the subject we there aret overwhelming societal nter amply protected byao her provisions aof
States of T TLER
this hill
.
l
ming --
Mr. ERLENBORN. I appreciate the What are the overwhe
concerna and that protection ought to be whichlwou that s Justify an infringement on uals tithe privacy rights protected byithis
bill
afforded. individual liberty?
The only problem I find with that Under other exemption provisions of Mr. Chairman, I urge that my amend-
amendment is this: It would presuppose this bill, we have already protected from ment be adopted.
we intended the defining of "record sys- disclosure information related to law en- Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, will the
tem" to preclude that type of record. i do forcement investigative matters an and na- ge~sew~ommn yield? I I yield to the gen-
not think we did. tional security.
If these sorts of records are to be con- I have agreed to support such specific tleman from Maryland.
sidered a record system under the act,, exemptions. But the general exemption 'Mr. GUDE. I want to commend the
then the agency would have to go as to all records, regardless of what they gentlewoman for this amendment.
through all the formal proceedings of de- contain, maintained by the CIA, goes too Certainly, there is no logic in gather
and the system, its routine uses, and far. By allowing the CIA to exempt all ing information, and regardless of its
publishing in the Federal Register. systems of records, even those which sensitivity, putting it off bounds merely
Frankly, I do not think the attorney's contain no sensitive data, we are un- because it happens to be stored within
files that are collected in anticipation of necessarily denying individuals the a particular agency.
a lawsuit should be subject to the ap- rights guaranteed by this bill and in- The gentlewoman's amendment makes
plication of the act in any instance, deed rights guaranteed by the Constitu- a great deal of sense, and I certainly urge
tion its adoption.
much concern in the the access access provision iIt is that our There is grave danger inherent in . Mr. KOCH.. Mr. Chairman, will the
e granting any such broad exemption. No gentlewoman yield?
mayy then m then presuppose it is covered in the
other provisions, and I do not think it agency should be given a general license Ms. ABZUG. I yield to the gentleman
should be. to exempt any and all of its records or from New York.
record systems. Mr. KOCH. I also want to commend
Mr. BUTLER' s Chairman, I share Rather than base exemptions on the the gentlewoman from New York, who
the gentleman's concern. When this functions of an agency which maintains has pointed out this particular defici-
was originally drafted, records, we should define exemptions, as ency of this legislation, which I hope
tated "access any
srt struck te word, record" and" and we we tried to in this bill, in terms of the will be corrected.
struhe word, "record," and inserted kind of data sought to be protected from Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
"information." the
disclosure. We have done this in sub- rise in opposition to the amendment.
made it perfectly clear we were
nd (1) (1 and (2) of th Mr. Chairman, there are many rea-
So
(k)
e
a
sections
lnot elevating an investigation with the sons why I would oppose this amend-
word, "record," to the status of recorrexemptio the records of the CIA contain sen- inent.
We did want to make it clear there ve material, these records will be pro- I think it is quite obvious that the
not to be such access, because that ed from disclosure by th e specific ctivities of the Central Intelligence
cess would be within the usual rules ns already referred to, informs- gency are not the sort of activities that
civil procedure. tion related to either foreign policy or re supposed to be conducted in a fish-
Mr. gentleman OR N. yield Mr. f Chairman if national defense or related to investiga- owl.
his is tory material which is being compiled for Let me make this one observation.
gentleman's will ion, f under further, it
gentleman's contention, n e r- law enforcement purposes. nder this bill we are allowing any In-
pretat visions of the act, that the other o- - diuidual access to records that are main-
visions would not apply to the attorn fished a precedent by allowing an agency tained by the Government relative to
as well is M
fil; LE R. torre to exempt itself entirely from require- himself. In other words, any person, any
Mr. . BUT; The gen t? ntleman is tor- ??a?+- +hn+ X,A?ldi nrntPet and reenforce individual can go to the agency that is
-
Mr. ERLENBORN. I wonder if the b1? .
privacy, copies of anything that you have relat-
gentleman would ask the gentleman from By setting up a general exemption ing to me."
Pennsylvania tha what his guaranteeing and allowing the CIA to in the committee we discussed
opinion is concerning g that, ju ust to clar- exempt even sensitive records from vir- whether, we would extend this right to
ify the record. tually every provision of the bill, the bill corporations. We decided we would not;
Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I will goes far beyond what is necessary to we would grant it only to individuals.
yield to the gentleman from Pennsyl- protect such records from disclosure. We did not limit this access to U.S.
soma for that purpose. Why should not the agency be required,
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. for example, to keep records which are
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the limits- accurate, timely, and relevant, whit
tion which has been placed on the are requirements of this bill?
amendment by the gentleman. Why should the agency be exempte
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The from a bar against maintaining politi
question is on the amendment offered by cal or religious data if other agencie
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. are not, and why should individuals b
BUTLER). - denied rights to civil remedies and tour
The amendment was agreed to review? .
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. ABZUG This is the effect of the "genera
FT
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an exemption" section of the bill, whit
amendment. goes far beyond the "specific exemption
The Clerk read as follows: section in allowing agencies to disregar
Amendment offered by Ms. ABzuG: Page the safeguard provisions of the bill.
33, line 3, strike out lines 3 and 4. I might tell the Members that thl
Agency prepares and maintains files
relative to people all over this country
who are our potential or actual enemies.
We are not limiting access, under this
law, to citizens so that Chou En-lai or
whoever it might be could come -over
here and knock at the door of the CIA
and say, "Under the new privacy bill,. I
want to see all the files that you have
maintained concerning me."
I think this situation would be utterly
ridiculous. The amendment ought to fall
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
1110956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, will the Ms. ABZUG. Even if that were not so, sidered. But I think in this legislation we
gentleman yield? if an individual seeks access to his or her must take a step at a time in a delicate
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen.. records and the CIA makes a determina- field like that involving the Central in-
tlewoman from New York. tion or the agency makes a determina- telligence Agency.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I just; tion that access to those records would Let me explain to the members that
want to refresh the recollection of the endanger our national security, then the the CIA is not entirely exempt under this
gentleman from Illinois about who i;, agency would have the right to assert bill. The agencies listed under general
covered under this bill. We have a very that reason for not providing access to exemptions are affirmatively subject to
specific definition of individuals who are the information.
granted rights under this bill and I will All I am suggesting i me major section discof the losure aofand the must
quote from subsection (a) (2) -Such an out one agency and exempt all tsrec- m the
sthe the conditions of act. disclosure,The CIA or I
individual "means a citizen of the United ords, just because It is this agency, ishould t enumerated
States or an alien lawfully admitted for say nondisclosure, as quite contrary to what our purposes are, in n subsection (b) of the bill. . Ths This is is a
permanent residence." As far as I know and to-what our intentions are in this major provision of the bill with which
Chou En-Lai is not a citizen of the United bill. I might also mention that the legis- the Agency must be in compliance-with
State or an alien lawfully admitted for lation in the other body has only the what the Agency may or may not do with
permanent residence. This is just an- specific exemptions that I mentioned their records.
other big, big red herring, before. A blanket exemption for any The CIA is also subject to subsection
Mr. ERLENBORN. Then maybe it agency-even or especially this one (e) (2), (A) through (F) to publish in
would be the Ambassador of Russia; who ~~+~IX19 3t ?----. -.- the Federal Register at least annually a
is to say? The fact is, we ought not limit Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, let notice of the existence and character of
the United States to carrying on they me add that this agency is charged Withl
f
.n..w
oreign policy, and LnereIore t ,,.?v.r.vllo, ultcy
kept under cellophane. important to the Unite Stat
n, _ i must do this.
e
a
f
.+ 1n
orm
tion on peo- 9 First, the Central Intelligence e cy
move to strike the last word, and I ris Re who are emissaries from those na- 1 Agency
in opposition to the amendment. tions that are here, and are acting in maintains various intelligence systems,
Is
o
t
it
l
s
sens
, 11 V111 re-
ive area ;.n the pro-
legislation that established the CIA i tection of our national security. There- leasing any detailed information on its
the Defense Department hill f- r ,,,n.+ bersannal
this i -
M Mr.
s Juan a nude v -- - ?.?.s ....r?.a.cu ulvla. .uC4
methods that they can develop for the me say also that there was an earlier col-
collection of information which happens r.
loquy between the gentlewoman from
MS. Mr.
to be favorable to their objectives
New York
Many like to ma nt
and the gentle
fh
f
~
,
.
man
o
rom Illi
ordel and I
-
do
times those objectives do not coincide so because I think this matter is of such nosy about who is covered by the act.
with the objectives of this country, so importance and such gravity that it On page 21, line 14, in the definitions:
than, we, likewise, in order to protect our- should not be disposed of by a handful The term "individual" means a citizen of
selves, are collecting information on of Members, and I note that there is not the United "States n re de c lawfully ad-
thee people overseas, or the emmisaries a quorum present on the floor. mitred for permanent residence .
who come into this country if it deals Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I make the So, Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of
with the national security of the United point of order that a quorum 1:3 not pros- the amendment.
States. I believe that the better part of Vent. Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, will the
valor right now is to leave this alone. The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum gentleman yield?
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, will the is not present. The Chair announces that Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
gentleman yield? he will vacate proceedings under the call yield to the gentlewoman from New
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the gentle- when a quorum of the Committee ap- York.
woman from New York. Pears. s. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I am very
M3. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman I would Members will record their presence.by disappointed that the gentleman from
just like to refresh the recollection of electronic device. Pennsylvania has to rise in opposition
the gentleman from California, and The call was taken by electronic de- to my amendment. I disagree with him.
since he is my honorable chairman 1 vice. I think this exemption is really out of
hesitate to do this, but, nevertheless, I QUORUM CALL VACATED line with the original purpose of the bill.
have pointed out that the bill provides The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mi. I had no recollection, by the way, Mr.
in section (k) (1) (2) for an exemption of MCFALL). One hundred and four Mem- Chairman, that
e
certain CIArtainly evot t snce
anything which would in any way affect hers have appeared. A quorum of the t exemption, the
no since the
the national rlcfon
1 ule .apps, clause a further security or foreign policy records about proceedings under the call shall be cols- Although the gentleman has indicated
which the gentleman from California sidered as vacated. what provisions the CIA, as an agency,
has expressed some concern would be The Committee will resume its bus'- might be subjected to, he has neglected
amply covered. No information which n ness. to mention the more significant and
anyway affects the national security or The Chair recognizes the gentleman meaningful provisions it will not be sub-
foreign policy of this Nation could, un- :'rom Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHHEAD). jected exemption. . a result oa having its general
der the specific provisions of section (k) (Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania some those I have Provs mentioned
of this act, be made available. asked and was given permission to re- some of me basic provisi ons, such maintain
My objection to this general blanket vise and extend his remarks.) accurate requirement t, and timely date, and
exemption for the CIA is that there is , relevant, and timely date, and
much information, and I am sure the * Mr. VIOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. I will not respect them all here.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the There are many others such as this, so
gentleman from California would agree Emendment offered by the gentlewomani I do not think it is fair, even though the
with this, that the CIA collects about from New York (Ms. ABZUG). I do so with gentleman may oppose my amendment,
individuals that is totally unrelated to considerable regret, because of the great for him, to suggest that a general ex-
the national security functions of the Contribution that the gentlewoman ha; emption doesn't deprive individuals of
CIA. made in the drafting of this legislation. basic rights provided by the act. In fact,
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I do not know that. 'I',he gentlewoman was one of the author, one very seriously deprived group of in-
I am not in possession of that knowledge. of the original privacy legislation we con- dividuals will be those on whom the CIA
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved-For Release 2002/01/28 CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
November, 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1110957
may be keeping records which have
nothing at all to do with the security of
this Nation.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in favor of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to clar-
ify that other provisions of this bill fully
take care of questions having to do with
security. The bill provides two types of
exemptions: First the general exemp-
tion of agencies. In fact, only one
agency is generally exempted, the Central
Intelligence Agency. This is in sub-
section (j), "General Exemptions."
But in (k), "Specific Exemptions," it
is provided on page 34, item (1) that the
records within the agency are exempted
from this section if the system of rec-
oi'ds is, (1) subject to the provisions of
section 552(b) (1) of this title."
Now, 552(b) (1) of this title is found
in the present act, and what that says
is:
This section does not apply to matters
that are, (1) specifically required by Execu-
tive order to be kept secret in the interests
of the national defense or foreign policy."
Executive Order 652, issued on March
8, 1972, and effective on June 1, 1972,
exempts 37 agencies with respect, to all
matters having to do with national de-
fenses or foreign policy. It includes, of
course, the CIA. It, includes the Atomic
Energy Commission. It includes the
State Department; it includes the De-
partment of Defense; it includes the Jus-
tice Department.
I cannot see, for the life of me, why
the CIA should be generally exempt from
all provisions having to do with access if
these other agencies, just as sensitive,
are not also generally exempt. They
deal with just as sensitive material in
the area of national security as the CIA
does. The point is, though, if we gener-
ally exempt the CIA from access, then
the CIA does not have to come out and
say that if they revealed the informa-
tion, that they refuse access to, it would
affect national defense or foreign policy,
that it has to do with the security of the
United States.
I happen to know of a case In which
an employee of the CIA has been shab-
bily treated. I think the particular case
did not have to do with security. It had
to do with a girl. Some boss did not
much like an inferior officer seeing her.
But I shall not assert that as a fact here
but as a hypothetical illustrating the evil
of giving the CIA complete exemption
from access . provisions of this Act. The
CIA can come in and say at any time,
"This affects foreign affairs." But let us,
at least, make them say that, because
many people working for the CIA are
subject to exactly the same discrimina-
tions as those working for other agencies.
The CIA is going to be believed when
they raise the contention that foreign
affairs are affected, but at least let us
make them come in and say it. Presum-
ably, there would be some reluctance to
lie about it. But if all they have to say
is, "We are blanketly exempt from any
access to the information which you
seek," we are absolutely protecting them
in matters in which the grossest discrim-
ination could occur.
Let me just say once again that I am
not talking in favor of opening up access
to CIA's files with respect to matters of
security, because the second exemption,
the specific exemption provisions pro-
vided for in this act, refers to 552(b) (1).
That says that notl_'ng may be obtained
which the Executive order requires to be
kept secret in the interest of national
defense or foreign policy and an Execu-
tive Order 652 has been issued and to-
tally, blanketly covers all such matters
pertaining to national defense and for-
eign policy.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.
McFALL). The question is on the amend-
ment offered by the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. ABzvG).
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ICHORD
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. IcxonD: On
page 34, strike lines 7 through 11 and insert
the following in lieu thereof:
"(2) investigatory material compiled for
law enforcement purposes, other than mate-
rial 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-
titled by Federal law, or for which he would
otherwise be eligible, as a result of the
maintenance of such material, such mate-
rial shall be provided to such individual,
except to the extent that the disclosure of
such material would reveal the identity of a
source who furnished information to the
Government under an express promise that
the identity of the source would be held in
confidence, or, prior to the effective date of
this section, under an implied promise that
the identity of the source would be held in
confidence."
(Mr. ICHORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. _ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, again I
wish to commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr,- ERLEN
BORN) , as well as the members of the
committee and the staff, for the very
superb job they have done In balancing
the rights of the Individual against the
rights of society in general and protect-
ing the privacy of the individual.
All this amendment does is to protect
the investigatory material of investi-
gating agencies such as the FBI from
being raided by thousands and perhaps
tens of thousands of persons for no legit-
imate purpose. '
I explained the amendment in gen-
eral debate, and, Mr. Chairman, the lan-
guage of this amendment has been
worked out in conjunction with the man-
agers of the bill, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLEN-
BORN).
The purpose of this amendment is to
protect our investigative agencies from
activities which I do not believe is an
exaggeration to say might seriously im-
pair if not destroy their function in
carrying out their vital work. The
amendment would both protect this work
and, at the same time, do so consistently
with the attainment of the purposes and
objectives of the bill. The provisions of
the bill, particularly subsection (b) , pro-
vides complete and adequate protection
against improper or injurious dissemina-
tion of information beyond the legitimate
uses of the Federal agencies maintaining
them. My amendment in no way affects
this laudable purpose, or those provisions
against disclosure which fully protect the
individual affected by prohibiting any
improper use of investigatory material. ,
All that the amendment does is to pro-
tect the investigatory material from be-
ing raided by thousands and perhaps tens
of thousands of persons for no legitimate
purpose. I assure the Members that the
investigative materials would be raided
by the host of persons, including subver-
sives, who would merely seek to ascer-
tain the extent of coverage and method
and adequacy of operation of our Intelli-
gence forces. This improper raiding of
the investigatory files will be prohibited
by my amendment, but at the same time
individuals who have the legitimate need
and purpose for the disclosure to them of
the information is preserved. The
amendment provides that in any case
where an individual Is denied any right,
privilege, or benefit that he would other-
vdse be entitled by Federal law, as a re-
sult of the maintenance of such material,
he will be entitled to the information,
to the extent, of course, that the identity
of confidential sources will be protected.
. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I understand that this
amendment is also subject to the collo-
quy we had in general debate concerning
protection of dissenters under the first
amendment; is that correct?
Mr. ICHORD. The gentleman is cor-
rect. This is meant in no way to harm
the first amendment rights of any Amer-
ican.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, with that understanding, I
have no objection to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.
McFALL). The question is on the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from Mis-
souri (Mr. IcleoRD).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GLIDE
Mr. GLIDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gum: Page 36,
line 6, after the period, insert the following:
"(n) Federal Privacy Commission
"(1) Establishment of Commission-
"(A) There is established as an independ-
ent agency of the executive branch of the
government the Federal Privacy Commission.
"(B) (i) The Commission shall be composed
of five members who shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, from among members
of the public at large who, by reason of their
knowledge and expertise in any of the fol-
lowing areas: civil rights and liberties, law,
social sciences, and computer technology,
business, and State and local government,
are well qualified for service on the Commis-
sion and who are not otherwise officers or
employees of the United States. Not more
than three of the members of the Commis-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150096-9
1110958 0 NGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974
Sion shall be adherents of the same political gress, and the General Service,, Admini:,tra- diately after "Securities and Exchange Com-
party tion where the duties of that agency are in- mission,'' the following: "the Federal Privacy
"(ti) One of the Commissioners shall be volved, and tothe Comptroller General when Commission."
appointed Chairman by the President. it deems appropriate; and "(C) The Commission may delegate any of
(iii) A Commissioner appointed as Chair- (C) develop model guidelines for the im- its functions to such officers and employees
m :n Shall serve as Chairman until the ex- plenrentation of this section and assist Fed- of the Commission as the Commission may
pfration of his term as a Commissioner of erai agencies in preparing regulations and designate and may authorize such successive
th:, Commission (except that he may con- meeting technical and admiristrative re- redelegations of such functions as it may
lit us to serve as Chairman for so long as he quirements of this section. deem desirable.
remains a Commissioner and his successor "(D) In addition to its other i'unctlonn, the "(D) In order to carry out the provisions
as Chairman has not taken office). An indi- Commission shall- of this section, the Commission is author-
viciual may be appointed as a Commissioner ' (i) to the fullest extent practicable, eon- ized
at the same time he is appointed Chairman. suit with the heads of appropriate depart- "(I) to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and
"(C) The Chairman shall preside at all ments, agencies, and instrumentalities oi the regulations governing the manner of its op-
m(stings of the Commission and aquorum Federal Government in carrying out the pro- erations, organization, and personnel;
fog, the transaction of business shallconsist visions of this section; "(ii) to adopt, amend, and repeal inter-
of at least three members present (but the "(It) perform or cause to be performed pretative rules for the implementation of
Chairman may designate an Acting Chairman such research activities as may be necessary the rights, standards, and safeguards pro-
who may preside In the absence of the Chair- to implement the provisions of this section vided under this section;
man). Each member of the Commission, in- and to assist Federal agencies :.n complying "(iii) to enter Into contracts or other ar-
ciuding the Chairman shall have equal re- with the requirements of this :section; rangements or modifications thereof, with
sponsibility and authority in all decisions "(iii) determine what specific categories any government, any agency or department
an'l actions of the Commission, shall have of information should be prohitited by stat- of the United States, or with any person,
full access to all information relating to the ute from collection by Federal agencies; on firm, association, or corporation, and such
pe, formance of his duties or responsibilities, the basis that the collection of such infor- contracts or other arrangements, or modifi-
and shall have one vote. Action of the Com- oration would violate an individual's right cations thereof, may be entered into without
mission shall be determined by a majority of privacy. legal consideration, without performance or
vote of the members present. The Chairman "(1) Confidentiality of Irrformatica- other bonds, and without regard to section
(or Acting Chairman) shall be the official "(A) Each department, agency, and instru- 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (51
spokesman of the Commission In its relations mentality of the executive branch of the U.S.C. 5) ;
with the Congress. Government agencies, per- Government, including each independent "(iv) to make advance, progress, and other
sor s, or the public, and, on behalf of the agency, shall furnish to the Commission, payments which the Commission deems
Commission, shall see to the faithful execu- upon request made by the Chairman, such necessary under this section without regard
tioi of the policies and decisions of the Coon- data, reports, and other information as the to the- provisions of section 3648 of the
Re- and shall report thereon to the Commission deems necessary to carry out. its vised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 528);
Commission from time to time or as the functions under this section. "(v) receive complaints of violations of
Commission may direct. "(B) In carrying out its functions and this Act and regulations adopted pursuant
"(D) Each Commissioner shall be com- exen ising Its powers under this section, the thereto; and
pensated at the rate provided for under see- Commission may accept from any Federal "(vi) to take such other action as may be
tion 5314 of title 5 of the United States Code, agency or other person any identifiable per- necessary to carry out the provisions of this
relating to level IV of the Executive Schedule. sonal data If such data is necessary tocarry section.
"C'E) Commissioners shall serve for terms out such powers and functions. In any case "(6) Reports--
of three years. No Commissioner may serve in which the Commission accel:ts any such "The Commission shall, from time to time,
more than two terms. Vacancies in the mem- information, it shall provide appropr_ate. and in an annual report, report to' the Presi-
bership of the Commission shall be filled In safeguards to insure that the confidentiality dent and the Congress on its activities in
the same manner in which the original ap- of such information is maintained and that carrying out the provisions of this section."
pointment was made, upon completion of the purpose for which Mr. GUIDE (during the reading). Mr.
" F) Vacancies in the membership of the such information is required it is destroyed Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
Commission, as longas there are three Com- or returned to the agency or person from
missioners in office, shall not impair the 'which it is obtained, as appropriate. the amendment be considered as read
power of the Commission to execute the "(5) Powers of the Commission- and printed in the RECORD.
functions and powers of the Commission. "(A) The Commission may, in carrying out The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there
"t G) The members of theCommission shall its functions under this section, conduct objection to the request of the gentleman
not engage in any other employment during such inspections, sit andact at such theses from Maryland?
their tenure asmembers of the Commission. and places, hold such hearings take Birch There was no objection.
" 2) Personnel of the Commission- testimony, require by subparts, the attend-
"4A) Mr. GLIDE. Mr. Chairman, this amend-
Executive The Commission shall appoint an ante of such witnesses and the production of sent establishes a Federal ,this
Executive Director who shall perform such such books, records, papers, corrrsponde=.ce, Privacy Com-
duties as the Commission may determine. and documents, administer such oaths, have mission which is a vital necessity if-pri-
Suca appointment may be made without such printing and binding done, and make vacy legislation is to become a meaning-
regard to the provisions of title 5, United such expenditures as the Commission deems ful statute. Clearly the key to the main-
States Code, advisable. Subpenas shall be Issued under the tenance of successful privacy standards
"(B) The Executive Director shall be com- signature of the Chairman or any member will be the degree of cooperation provid-
pcnsated at a rate not in excess of the max- of the Commission designated by the Chair- ed by federal agencies which have to im-
irnum rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule man and shall be served by any parson desig- element the This Commission.
under section 5332 of title 6, United States rated by the Chairman or any such member. program.
Code-. Any member of the Commission may ad- which would coordinate and assist in -
"(C) The Commission is authorized to ap- minister oaths or affirmations to witne? .es those efforts, will be an important toll
point and fix the compensation of such of. appearing before the Commission. for gaining the necessary agency cooper-
fleers and employees, and prescribe their "(l) In case of disobedience to a subpena ation.
functions and duties, as may be necessary to issued under subparagraph (A) of this atib- The Commission would be composed of
carr,F out the provisions of this section. section, the Commission may invoke the aid five full time members appointed by the
"(D) The Commission may obtain the serv- of any district court of the United States In President with the advice and consent of
ices of experts and consultants In accordance requiring compliance with such subpena. with the provisions of section 3109 of title 5, Any district court of the Un:.ted States the Senate. The functions of the Com-
United States Code. within the jurisdiction where such person mission would be to:
"(3) Functions of the Commission. The is found or transacts business may, In case First, publish annually a Directory of
Commission shall- of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena Information System containing data on
(A) publish annually a United States - issued by the Commission, issue an order : e- Federal agency information systems and
Directory of Information Systems containing quiring such person to appear and testify, the statutes which require the information specified to provide notice to produce such books, records, papers, cur- the collection
under subsection (e) (2) of this Section for respondence, and documents, and any failt,re of information;
each information system subject to the pro- to obey the order of the court- shall be Second, investigate and report agency
visions of this section and a listing of all punished by the court as a contempt there A. violations of this section of the bill;
statutes which require the collection of such "(ii) Appearances by the Commission un- Third, develop model
information by a Federal agency; der this section shall be in its own name. guidelines and
"(.3) investigate, determine, and report any The Commission shall be represented by s.t- provide assistance to federal agencies for
violation of any provision of this section (or torneys designated by it, the implementation of this section;
any regulation adopted pursuant thereto) to "(B) Section 6001(1) of title 18, United Fourth, provide consultation and re-
the President, the Attorney General, the Con- States Code, is amended by Inserting imme- search services to aid agencies in carry-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
November. 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 10959
ing out the provisions of this section;
and
Fifth, determine what categories of
information Federal agencies should be
forbidden to collect.
To fulfill these responsibilities the
Commission would have rulemaking au-
thority, the power to hold hearings, ad-
minister oaths and receive evidence, in-
cluding complaints of violations of pro-
visions of the Act, and subpena power.
Additionally the Commission could gain
access to any agency information system
and any identifiable information, so long
as appropriate safeguards are main-
tained to insure confidentiality.
The Commission's powers are more
limited than those provided in other
earlier proposals. For example, its activi-
ties are limited to concern with the pro-
visions of this act and not any other free-
dom of information legislation; and it
will not be able to issue orders directing
an agency to comply with the require-
ments of the act. However, the Commis-
sion will serve as a focus of attention for
information. and privacy issues and will
also be a watchdog over agencies which
are responsible for implementing the pro-
visions of the act.
In my view, this Commission would be
an essential element in the implementa-
tion of privacy legislation. As the bill
presently reads, it contains no provision
for the establishment of an administra-
tive body to oversee implementation of
the legislation. I know some say we should
take a "wait and see" attitude about a
privacy commission.
However, such a "wait and see" atti-
tude is exactly the opposite of what is
needed, because the major problems of
implementation and the inevitable ad-
justments in the ways agencies work are
going to occur at the beginning of the
program, not later on. At a minimum,
this Commission should be established
to oversee, monitor, and evaluate the
newly legislated safeguard requirements
and to offer information and assistance
to Federal agencies In their efforts to
comply with the act. As with any new
program, there will be problems and these
problems will occur in the beginning
when the program is being set up. A
central source of expertise and guidance
and a coordinated approach 'to these
problems should serve to reduce rather
than increase administrative costs over
the long run.
Moreover, we would be more than
naive if we failed to recognize that Indi-
vidual Federal agencies cannot be ex-
pected to take an aggressive role in en-
forcing privacy legislation. Enforcement
of the provisions of this bill will be sec-
ondary to each agency's legislative man-
date and will, of necessity, cause some
inconvenience. I . believe it,is clear that
making administration of privacy stand-
ards every agency's responsibility really
means making it no agency's responsi-
bility. Only by providing a separate in-
dependent agency to act as a focus for
privacy activities and concerns and for
Mr. Chairman, this Commission is very
much iii the interest of getting legislation
which affects the privacy of all Ameri-
can citizens and specifically Federal em-
ployees. I very much hope and, urge that
the committee will adopt this amend-
ment.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
(Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania
asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment with great regret, because
the gentleman from Maryland was one
of the most productive members of the
subcommittee in helping draft this legis-
lation.
I do have to oppose the amendment,
first, because it was considered in sub-
committee and voted down. Second, it
was considered in the full committee, and
it was voted down.
I can understand why the gentleman
from Maryland asked unanimous con-
sent to dispense with the reading of the
amendment, because it is a long, three-
page amendment. It is really a bill in and
of itself.
I do oppose this amendment to create
a Federal privacy commission for a num-
ber of important reasons.
First, as I say, it was voted down at
the markup session. It was overwhelm-
ingly defeated.
Second, it would add to the overall
cost of the bill and create another level
of bureaucracy between the citizen and
the Federal agency and his right to his
own personal records.
Third, it could impede the operation
of the various civil remedies afforded
to individual Americans in the courts.
Fourth, as President Ford stated in
his remarks referred to earlier in the
debate:
I do not favor establishing a separate
commission or board bureaucracy empowered
to define privacy in its own terms and to
second-guess citizens and agencies.
It seems to me that it would be better
to have an independent branch of the
Government, that is, the judicial branch,
oversee the Executive rather than an-
other branch of the executive overseeing
the Executive.
Finally, if, in this instance, the courts
do not do the excellent job they have
done under the Freedom of Information
Act, then we in Congress can always in
the future create a privacy board.
But if we create this commission it will
surely develop its own constituency, and
be extremely difficult to reverse if we
have made a mistake.
Instead, Mr. Chairman, this bill, pat-
terned after the Freedom of Information
Act, makes each agency directly respon-
sible, and publicly and legally account-
able for its faithful administration of
this law. I am sure that the courts will do
their duty. Vigorous congressional over-
sight will also help keep the bureaucracy
in line.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased with the statement made by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania. As the
gentleman has stated, this creates an-
other bureau to watch the watchers, one
might say, and it also gives this com-
mission some powers to make recom-
mendations, rules, and regulations on the
basis of their judgment rather than upon
the basis of the language of the bill,
which I think is adequate enough to give
the citizens a right.
It also would mean that undoubtedly
people who were dissatisfied would go to
the commission for relief, rather than to
let their wishes be known to the courts,
or if they did not want to go to the courts
to `go to the committee, which will have
continuing oversight over this.
This is a committee which has had the
interest to hold the hearings, and de-
velop this bill after a great many con-
sultations with people in the Department
of Justice and other departments of the
Government, and also with representa-
tives of the administration. The Presi-
dent even went out of his way in his mes-
sage on October 9 to say specifically that
we should not create a commission, as
the gentleman from Pennsylvania has
mentioned.
So, for that reason, as well as others,
I think this ought to be voted down. in
making that statement, may I add fur-
ther that I certainly do not want to dis-
parage the attitude or the industry of the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr: GUDE),
who has been a fine member of our com-
mittee.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
(MI'. ERLENBORN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
join the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. MOORHEAD) in opposing the amend-
ment. I think the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania has very well articulated the
reasons the amendment should be op-
posed. Therefore, I hope the amendment
will be defeated.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words, and
I rise in favor of the amendment.
(Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I really am
somewhat surprised to hear the gentle-
men oppose this Commission, since this
commission was modeled on a bill, H.R.
4960, which was introduced in February
1973, by Mr. HORTON, and cosponsored by
Mr. ERLENBORN, and of course Mr. GLIDE,
who is the author of the amendment,
Mr. HANRAHAN, Mr. MCCLOSKEY, Mr.
MOORHEAD, my distinguished chairman,
Mr. PRITCHARD, Mr. REGULA, and Mr.
THONE. It is basically the same Commis-
sion that was proposed in the legislation
originated by these gentleman, and I am
finding it very difficult to figure out why
they have changed their minds.
coordinating the privacy programs of the ? I can assure the Members that our
various Federal agencies can we be as- committee will fully exercise such au-
sured to uniform effective enforcement thority. Therefore, I urge the defeat of
of the rights guaranteed by this bill. the amendment.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
II 10960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will If we want to make this bill signifl- sert "and agency notices published under
the gentlewoman yield? cantly workable and effec-,ive, it deeds subsection (e) (2) of this section".
Ms. ABZUG. Well, I guess so. just such a commission. Without it, there Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I discussed
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I will be confusion; there will be chaos. this amendment with both sides of the
thank the gentlewoman for her gracious Each agency will act like a lord making aisle and if I understand it correctly it
yielding to me. different regulations come about iii dif- is acceptable to them, so I will not be-
The bill that the gentlewoman has re- ferent ways. This amendment would fur- labor the point. It merely requires that
forred to, of course, was not a privacy nish a mechanism which could really the Office of the Federal Register shall
commission because we did not have a help this act to become effective. annually compile and publish rules and
privacy bill before us at the time, or a I heartily support this amendment. notices as opposed to rules as now pro-
privacy act; that was a Freedom of In- Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, will the vided in the bill itself.
formation Commission. gentlewoman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Ms. ABZUG. I understand it was a Ms. ABZUG. I yield to the gentleman Chairman, If the gentleman will yield, we
freedom of Information commission, and from Maryland. I have no objection to the amendment.
the fact is that the same reasons that Mr. GLIDE. I thank the gentlewoman Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, if
it was proposed there are the same rea- for yielding. the gentleman will yield, we have no
sons it was proposed here. I believe we I want to thank the gentlewoman for objection. .
should have a commission which covers her remarks. Certainly there is no Mem- Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, will
both the Freedom of Information Act ber of Congress who is not aware of the the gentleman yield?
and this Privacy Act. But this Commis- variation of the agencies of the Federal Mr. KOCH. I yield to the gentleman
sion is being proposed by the gentleman Government as far as their interest in from California.
from Maryland (Mr. GUDE) only for the the sensitivity of citizens' rights. We can (Mr. GOLDWATER asked and was
privacy act, and there is good reasoi see some agencies going off in one direc- given permission to revise and extend
for this. tion, unconcerned about privacy, and his remarks.)
For example, the bill which Is before others complying with this :Dill. We need Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr. Chairman, I
the other body, which is the counterpart this commission desperately, rise in support of the amendment pre-
of our bill, provides for a privacy con- Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to sented by my colleague from New York
mission. We are charting an important strike the requisite number of words, and (Mr. KoeH). A directory describing each
course and, quite contrary to what m;7 I rise in support of the amendment of- personal information system is a vital
colleagues have suggested, we have not fered by the gentleman from Ma 'land tool for the citizen. Without it, he could
proposed any judicial or quasi-judicial
ftuictions for this Commission (Mr. GunE). search fruitlessly for particular data
We are not proposing a superagency The Federal Privacy Board was iricor- banks among the more than 850 In the
with enforcement powers over other porated into the original' legislation Federal Government. We must require
agencies. Quite to the contrary, what w.: which I first initiated, and I have always the Government to do more than end
are doing is suggesting that there be a supported that Board. I recognize that secrecy about the existence of personal
mechanism established which will help reasonable people can disagree on any information they keep. We must pull
us in the implementation of this very im ? matter, and I recognize the disagreement away the cloak of mystery about how
portant Privacy Act. One of the specific; here. Arguments have been given on both to get access to personal files or obtain
needs will be to insure that in develop- sides, and while I support the Federal a copy by mail.
ing rules and guidelines relating to per.. Privacy Board, I do not for a moment The legislation before us provides only
sonal information systems, agencies will believe that those who are in oppos`aion for printing the existence and character
have the benefit of some expertise and do so because they want to weaken the of these personal information systems in
wad achieve some degree of uniformity. legislation. It is a philosophical matter the Federal Register? This would mean
So it will really make it easier and as to whether or not we want to ir_tro- up to 900 different entries could be spread
more economical to implement this legis?? duce what some have called another layer over a 12-month period. Asking individ-
more . of Government. uals to wade through copies of the Fed-
VVhat I should like to- point out to the eral Register is foolhardy. Simply cata-
i find it very interesting that it was Members is that whether we call it a loging agencywide regulations will simi-
shggested that we had a full hearing on Federal Privacy Board and give it inde- larly frustrate the citizen searching for
this matter before our full committee. I1' pendent status, or pass the. legislation a specific system.
I may refresh the recollection of my sub?? without the Federal Privacy Board in Mr. Chairman, the corrective language
committee chairman, it is true that wt: accordance with the Gude amendment, proposed by Mr. KocH will give us the
raised it inthe subcommittee. It is true we must have some kind of a privacy directory of Federal data banks we need
it was defeated in the subcommittee. As board to regulate what will happen, and and I urge its adoption.
a matter of fact, when I pointed out that the functions of the Federal Privacy The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
this was patterned after the bill of the. Board will be executed probably by OMB. the amendment offered by the gentleman
members of the committee, they thought But they will not be able to execute from New York (Mr. KocH).
they would like to reconsider it. But thi., them as well, as efficiently, as ably as a
amendment was never considered in full. Federal Privacy Board given. the- powers The amendment was agreed to.
committee, because I was interested in. that the Gude amendment would give to AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. ABZUG
helping the bill get to the floor, and l it. I think it is a very important amend- Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
said we would bring these amendmentc ment. I am pleased that the Senate has amendment
up on the floor instead. that provision in its bill. The Clerk read as follows:
I am a little surprised, if I may have I would hope that ultimately what ver Amendment offered by Ms. ABzuG: Page 34,
the attention of the Chairman. I was legislation is enacted by both Houses of line 12, strike out line 12 and all that fol-through
,line contradicting him, and I thought he lows a 34, line 1 14.
should hear me contradict him. It would the this Congress will incorporate tips in Page 34, line r6, change "(4)" to ?(3)
be impolite of me not to .call it to his Federal privacy hill. (Ms. ABZUG asked and was
The CHAIRMAN. The question t`, on given per-
attention. We certainly did not have ac- the amendment offered by the gentleman mission to revise and extend her re-
tion on this in the full committee, but from Maryland (Mr. GUDE). marks.)
only in the subcommittee. In the full Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I object
committee, if the Chairman will recall, I The question was taken; and on a di- to this exemption for many of the same
yielded to the desire of everyone to bring vision (demanded by Mr. Guns) there reasons that I objected to the general
a bill to the floor, and we said we would were-ayes 9, noes 29. exemption for the CIA. Exemptions
bring up amendments on the floor. So the amendment was rejected. should be defined in specific terms and
As a matter of fact, I had the impres- AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. KOss in terms related to the societal interest
Sion that this amendment would be fa- 14Tr. KOCH. Mr.' Chairman., I offer an or public policy to be served.
vorably supported by the ranking mem- amendment. Yet, here again, we have defined the
bers of the committee, as well as the The Clerk read as follows: exemption In terms of the function of .
Chairman, when the gentleman from Amendment offered by Mr. Koca: Page 29, the agency rather than in terms of the
Maryland (Mr. Guns) propos `o t. line a 1~ r What sensitiv
Approvedr Release 1bdTff~/21 d -F 1 U ?27' 67V0 MA-
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 1110961
data are we seeking to protect by allow-
ing the Secret Service to exempt all its
records from the requirements of the
bill?
The committee report tells us on page
19 that:
Access to Secret Service intelligence files on
certain individuals would vitiate a critical
part of Secret Service work which was specif-
ically recommended by the Warren Com-
mission....
This is ridiculous. I read the Warren
Commission report. What did it recom-
mend? What it recommended was.that
there be maintenance of more selective
files in a more efficient and sophisticated
manner, specifically, for example, by con-
version to automatic data processing.
I am not convinced that the main-
tenance of some 84,000 files-which is the
number of files maintained by the Secret
Service, according to the Ervin Sub-
committee on Constitution Rights report
just issued-is any indication that the
Secret Service is now doing a better job
of "attempting to identify those persons
who might prove a danger to the Presi-
dent." The mere size of this group may
indicate quite the contrary; but that also
is not the point.
Even assuming that these files must be
maintained and perhaps there is justi-
fication for maintaining some 300 or 400
files I fail to see the Connection between
this exemption and the Warren Com-
mission recommendations. How would
access to one's -files Interfere with the
mandate of the Secret Service?
As a matter of fact, the Ervin Sub-
committee on Constitutional Rights made
a comment about this and they said that
withholding permission for revision of
files by individuals concerned would seem
to serve no valid purpose. Surely the
Secret Service has nothing to gain by
maintaining erroneous information that
can be corrected by individuals-and
that is one of the prime rights under-this
act. If we are trying to prevent acts of
violence, how does disclosure of informa-
tion defeat that goal? On argument could
well be made that such disclosure would,
in fact, act as a deterrent.
So before voting on this amendment,
it should be clear to all of you that the
striking of the proposed exemption, will
have absolutely no effect on the essential
work of the Secret Service, which is the
maintenance of accurate and selective
files. It will have no effect on its func-
tions. All I am saying is, if there are
Secret Service files, as indeed there are,
they have enough protection under the
exemption provisions of this act. But if
there are people's names listed galore, as
we know there are in their files, because
they said they disagreed with what some-
body in Government said, they have a
right to know what cranks are making
statements against them. They have a
right to correct their files. They have a
right to know whether their privacy is
being invaded.
I think it is shocking that we should
take a particular agency and give it a
blanket exemption, when there is ample
protection under the act. We are again
sacrificing basic individual rights of
privacy for some strange reason that is
mumbo-jumbo.
If one mentions the CIA, he cannot do
a thing. If one mentions the Secret Serv-
ice, he cannot do a thing. It is time we
stopped this mindless mentioning of
agencies and accomplish the real pur-
poses of this bill.
I urge support of my amendment.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment would
strike the specific exemption provision
on page 34, lines 12 through 14, of the
protective services of the President of
the United States.
This does not exempt particularly
from the operation of the bill the main-
tenance of these records. The sections
that could be under regulations ex-
empted are (c) (3), (d), (e) (1) (2) (G)
and (H).
Now, if I am interpreting this cor-
rectly, and I think I am, this still would
require an identification of the system
under section (e) (1), lines 11 through
24.
That would require that in the Federal
Register the following things be pub-
lished:
"(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 cate-
gories of users of the records for each such
purpose;
"(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 sys-
tem of records;
That means that many of the provi-
sions of the act, and I think also includ-
ing the prohibition of transfer to other
agencies, except for those purposes that
have been identified as routine uses, will
be applicable to these records.
I think the only real harm we could
envision would be transfer of this infor-
mation to some other agency where the
person would be harmed in his applica-
tion for employment'or some other right
or privilege under the laws of the United.
States.
Since these other provisions are still
applicable to the system, I think that the
specific exemption here providing that
access not be made available to the per-
sons who are named in the system is
a valid exemption, one that is necessary.
It falls under the same general category
of law enforcement where we already
have an exemption. Therefore, I think
the amendment should be defeated.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
(Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania
asked and was given permission to re-
vise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, there is much of the criticism
of the Secret Service by the gentlewoman
from New York that is correct. The list
of the protective service by the Secret
Service has gotten too broad. It does con-
tain names of people who are not a real
threat, but merely dissidents exercis-
ing the American right of dissent.
But, on the other hand, the list also
contains the names of people who are a
real threat, and they contain informers
and information about the techniques of
protection. We have to recognize that in
this day and age, unfortunately, assas-
sination, holding hostage and killing has
become too prevalent so that an amend-
ment which completely eliminates the
secrecy of the legitimate protective right
of the Secret Service just goes too far.
As I have discussed with the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) and
as we have said to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. ABZUC), we intend to
hold a hearing and hold the feet of the
Secret Service to the fire to weed out
and make this list really something small
so that they can be effective. If it is a
broad list, it really does not do the job
we want to have done to protect not only
the President, but other officers of the
Government and visiting dignitaries.
It seems to me that the amendment
goes too far. We cannot be sure they
would be exempt under other exemp-
tions, and I think the correct way to
proceed, as I have promised, is to hold
intensive, hard-hitting hearings next
year.
I would ask the gentleman from Illi-
nois if, as he told me in private, he would
cooperate fully in this endeavor.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
agree with the gentleman, and I hope
we will hold those hearings early in the
next Congress.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and
I urge the defeat of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.
BRADEMAS). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. ABZUC).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, before the Committee
rises, I wish to summarize briefly the
present situation on the privacy bill. On
October 9, President Ford issued a state-
ment, which I include at this point in the
RECORD, endorsing H.R. 16373, the
Privacy Act of 1974:
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Legislation to protect personal privacy is
making significant progress in the Congress.
I am delighted about the prospect of House
and Senate action at this session.
Renewed national efforts to strengthen
protections for personal privacy should begin
in Washington. We should start by enacting
uniform fair information practices for the
agencies of the Federal government. This will
give us an invaluable operating experience
as we continue to examine, and recommend
needed actions at the State and local level
and in the private sector.
The immediate objective should be to give
every citizen the right to inspect, challenge
and correct, if necessary, information about
him contained in Federal agency records and
to assure him a remedy for illegal invasions
of privacy by Federal agencies accountable
for safeguarding his records. In legislating,
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 1 110962
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - MOUSE November 21, 1974
the right of privacy, of course, must be bal-
anced against equally valid public interests
in freedom of information, national defense,
foreign policy, law enforcement, and in a
high quality and trustworthy Federal work
force.
Immediately after.I assumed the chair-
manship, as Vice President, of the Cabinet-
level Domestic Council Committee on the
Right of Privacy, I asked the Office of Man-
agement and Budget to work jointly with the
Committee staff, the Executive agencies slid
the Congress to work out realistic and effec-
tive legislation at the earliest possible time.
Substantial progress has been made by both
the Senate and the House on bills extending
personal privacy protections to tens of mil-
lions of records containing personal informa-
tioi in hundreds of Federal data banks.
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 eligibility
and promotion in the Federal service and
access to classified information. I strongly
urge floor amendments permitting workable
exemptions to accommodate these situations.
The Senate, also, has made substantial
progress in writing privacy legislation. S. 3418
paruilels the House bill in many respects, but
I believe major technical and substantive
amendments are needed to perfect the bill. I
do not favor establishing a separate Com-
mis~ion or Board bureaucracy empowered to
define privacy in its own terms and to sec-
ond guess citizens and agencies. I vastly pre-
fer an approach which makes Federal
agencies fully and publicly accountable for
legally mandated privacy protections and
which gives the individual adequate legal
remedies to enforce what he deems to be his
own best privacy interests.
The adequate protection of personal pri-
vacy requires legislative and executive initia-
tivee; in areas not addressed by H.R. 16373
and S. 3418. I have asked Executive branch
officials to continue to work with the Con-
gress; to assure swift action on measures to
strengthen privacy and confidentiality in in-
come tax records, criminal justice records and
other areas identified as needed privacy ini-
tiatives by the Domestic Council Committee
on the Right of Privacy.
He made two points on which this en-
dorsement was conditioned-
First, adoption of what has been em-
bodied in the Erlenborn amendment;
and
Second, defeat of any amendment call-
ing for creation of a so-called Privacy
Commission:
Mr. Chairman, both of these condi-
tions have been met. While I personally
opposed the Erlenborn amendment and
voted against it, it was nevertheless
adopted yesterday on a 192 to 177 re-
corded vote. The amendment to estab-
lish a Privacy Commission, offered by the
.gentleman from Maryland (Mr. GUDE)
earlier today, was defeated.
Mx. Chairman, this bill, as now be-
fore us, therefore meets the specific cri-
teria, set forth for privacy legislation by
President Ford last month. I urge Mem-
bers on both sides of the aisle to give it
the same enthusiastic support as that
expressed by President Ford and by
many others from all parts of the politi-
cal spectrum. We do not claim that will
"for a routine use described in any The words "head of the agency" de-
rule * * *." serve elaboration. The committee recog-
It would be an impossible legislative nizes that the heads of Government de-
task to attempt to set forth all of the partments cannot be expected to per-
appropriate uses of Federal records about sonally request each of the thousands of
an identifiable individual. It is not the records which may properly be dissemi-
purpose of the bill to restrict such ordi- nated under this subsection. If that were
nary uses of the information. Rather required, such officials could not perform
than. attempting to specify each proper their other duties, and in many cases,
use of such records, the bill gives each they could not even perform record re-
Federal agency the authority to set forth questing duties alone. Such duties may
the "routine" purposes for which the be delegated, like other duties, to other
records are to be used under the gud- officials, when absolutely necessary but
ante contained in the committee's re- never below a section chief, and this is
port. what is contemplated by subsection (b)
In this sense "routine use" does not (6). The Attorney General, for example,
encompass merely the common and will have the power to delegate the au-
ordinary uses to which records are put, thority to request the.thousands of rec-
but also includes all of the proper and ords which may be required for the op-
necessary uses even if any such use oc- eration of the Justice Department under
curs infrequently. For example, individ- this section.
ual income tax return records are rou- Mr. Chairman, "agency" is given the
tinely used for auditing the determina- meaning which it carries elsewhere in
tion of the amount of tax due and for the Freedom of Information Act, 5
assistance in collection of such tax by United States Code, section 551Q), as
civil proceedings. They are less often amended by H.R. 12471 of this Congress,
used, however, for referral to the Justice section 552(c), on which Congress has
Department for possible criminal pro,e- acted to override the veto. The present
cution in the event of possible fraud or bill is intended to give "agency" its
tax evasion, though no one would argue broadest statutory meaning. This will
that such referral is improper; thus the permit employees and officers of the
"routine" use of such records and sub- agency which maintains the records to
section (b) (2) might be appropriately have access to such records if they have
construed to permit the Internal Revenue a need for them in the performance of
Service to list in its regulations such a their duties. For example, within the Jus-
referral as a "routine use." tice Department-which is an agency un-
Again, if a Federal agency such as the der the bill-transfer between divisions of
Housing and Urban Development De- the Department, the U.S. Attorneys' of-
partment or the Small Business Admin- fives, the Parole Board, and the Federal
istration were to discover a possible Bureau of Investigation would be on a
fraudulent scheme in one of its programs need-for-the-record basis. Transfer out-
it could "routinely," as it does today, re- side the Justice Department to other
fer the relevant records to the Depart- agencies would be more specifically reg-
ment of Justice, or its investigatory arsn, ulated. Thus, transfer of information be-
the FBI. tween the FBI and the Criminal Division
Mr. Chairman, the bill obviously is not
intended to prohibit such necessary ex-
changes of information, .providing its
rulemaking procedures are followed. It
is intended to prohibit gratuitous, ad hoc,
disseminations for private or otherwise
irregular purposes. To this end it would
be sufficient if an agency publishes as a
"routine use" of its information gathered
in any program that an apparent viola-
tion of the law will be referred to the
appropriate law enforcement authorities
for investigation and possible criminal
prosecution, civil court action, or regula-
tory order.
It should be noted that the "routine
use" exception is in addition to the ex-
ception provided for dissemination for
law enforcement activity under subsec-
tion (b) (6) of the bill. Thus a requested
record may be disseminated under either
the "routine use" exception, the "law
enforcement" exception, or both sections, Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, at
depending on the circumstances of the this time I would like to pay -tribute to
case. the chairman of the subcommittee and
Mr. Chairman, section 552a(b) (6) au- the ranking minority member of that
thorizes dissemination of records con- subcommittee, and all of the members
tamed in a system ofrecords "to anath- of the subcommitt
h
t
ee w
o par
icipated in
solve all of the privacy problems which agency or to an instrumentality of any this very long and laborious and impor-
abound in modern society. It is not a governmental jurisdiction within or uli- tant bill. It is a complicated bill and
perfect bill: But it is a start and an Im- der the control of the United States for treads new ground, as the subcommittee
portant first step in the right direction. I law enforcement activity if the activ- chairman has said. It may not be as com-
Mr. Chairman, section 522a(b) (2) of ity is authorized by law, and if the head plete as some would want, and it may
the bill allows an agency to disclose of the agency or instrumentality h.,,s have some things in it others do not
records contained in a system of records made a written request * * *." want.
of the Justice Department for official
purposes would not require additional
showing or authority, in contrast to
transfer of such information from the
FBI to the Labor Department.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is not designed
to interfere with access to information by
the courts. Thus a court is not defined
as an "agency" nor is it intended to be
a "person" for purposes of this legisla-
tion. Therefore, the necessary orderly
flow of information from Government
agencies to the courts will not,be im-
peded. The Congress is treated similarly
to the courts; it is also excluded from the
definition of "agency."
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
yield to the distinguished chairman of
the full committee, the gentleman from
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE H 19 i3
It is something I think that the House need for the protections embodied within Makes unlawful possession of or dis-
can get behind, and I do know the deep it and of the growing awareness among closure of individually Identifiable in-
interest of the gentleman from Penn- legislators of that need. formation by a government employee
sylvania and the gentleman from Illinois THE PRIVACY ACT OP 1974 punishable by a fine not to exceed $5,000.
in this subject matter, as well as the The bill before us, the Privacy Act of Provides that any person who requests
other Members of the committee, and I 1974, injects a new sensitivity to individ- or obtains such a record by false pre-
know that.their oversight on this will be ual rights into all the recordkeeping tenses is subject to a fine of not to exceed
an active and living oversight in the days practices of the Federal Government. $5,000.
to come. You cannot grow a full-grown These fair information practices assert And, sets forth statutory provisions re-
oak by one act, planting. Every piece of that there should be no recordkeeping lating to archival records; requires an-
legislation that I have worked on in the system whose existence is a secret; that nual report from President on agency
32 years I have been here has had to be personal information in all files should uses of exemptions; and provides that
supervised by the committee or attended be accurate, complete, relevant and up- the law would become effective 180 days
to and changed from time to time, with to-date; that individuals should be able following enactment.
changing conditions, or with information to review and correct almost all Federal on the whole, these are the recom-
that comes in that indicates changes are files about themselves; that information mendations arising from the initial pro-
necessary. I want to commend both of gathered for one purpose should not be tection of privacy bill introduced this
the gentlemen and members of the com- used for another without the individual's Congress, the Goldwater-Koch-Kemp
mittee for work they have done on this. consent; and, that the security and con- bill, particularly as those recommenda-
I believe it is a good bill and I intend to fidentiality of personal files should be tions relate to access, inspection, copying,
vote for it. assured. supplementation, and correction of rec-
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I The adoption of these rules as Federal ords.
thank the gentleman for his kind re- policy is of historic dimensions. The few problems associated with the
marks. In amending title 5, Government or- bill reported by the Committee are sus-
(Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania ganization and employees, of the United ceptible, I believe, to remedy through the
and was given permission to revise and State Code, to reflect these rules, the amendment process this afternoon.
extend his remarks.) following specific requirements would PRIVACY OF MEDICAL RECORDS AND MEDICAL
Mr. KEMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in be given force of law: INFORMATION
support of the bill H.R. 16373, the pro- Permits an individual to have access Subsection (f) (3) of the proposed sec=
posed Privacy Act of 1974, and the prin- to records containing personal informa- tion 552a of title 5 would require that
ciples embodied within it. The American tion on him kept by Federal agencies, for each agency maintaining a system of
people deserve the type of protection of purposes of inspection, copying, supple- records to promulgate rules to establish
their privacy provided by this. legislation mentation and correction-with certain procedures for the disclosure to an in-
and I ask that it be passed overwhelm- exceptions, including law enforcement dividual upon his request of his record
ingly. and national security records. or information pertaining to him, in-
This is not a new subject area to me. Allows an individual to control the cluding special procedure, if deemed nee-
During this Congress I have sponsored transfer of personal information about essary, for the disclosure to .an individ-
or cosponsored 16 separate measures re- him from one Federal agency to another ual of medical records, including psy-
lating to the right of privacy. These for nonroutine purposes by requiring his chological records, pertaining to him.
measures would tighten policy and pro- prior written consent. The committee's report clarifies this
cedures in such practices as the ex- Makes known to the American public section with the following language:
change of information about individuals the existence and - characteristics of all If, in the judgment of the agency, the
between Government agencies and Gov- personal information systems kept by transmission of medical information directly
p individual,
ernment and industry; the use of social every Federal agency. to a requesting individual could have an ad-upon security numbers and other coding sys- Prohibits the maintenance by Federal which the agency verse effect
mu s the o-
promulgates such
gatees should pro-
tems as universal identifiers; the pro- agencies of any records concerning the vide means whereby an individual who would
cedures for approval of wiretaps and political and religious beliefs of individ- be adversely affected by receipt of such data
other forms of electronic surveillance; uals unless expressly authorized by law may be apprised of it in a manner which
the inspection of confidential Federal in- or an individual himself. would not cause such adverse effects. An ox-
come tax returns by unauthorized par- Limits availability of records contain- ample of a rule serving such purpose would
ties; the scope of the exclusions from ing personal information to agency em- be transmission to a doctor named by the
the Freedom of Information Act; and, ployees who need access to them in the requesting individual.
various forms of surveillance. performance of their duties. As one who is particularly concerned
As a member of the Task Force on Pri- Requires agencies to keep an accurate with the right of privacy as it pertains to
vacy, the extensive final report of which accounting of transfers of personal rec- medical records and information-those
was released several months ago, I had ords to other agencies and outsiders and records and that information held by the
an opportunity to participate in the for- make such an accounting available, with Federal agencies -as well as those held
mulation of specific recommendations on certain exceptions to the individual upon within the States-I am encouraged by
what actions the Congress ought to take his request. the direction of the committee's action
to further assure the adequacy of law Requires agencies, through formal in this regard. But, more should be done.
as to the right of privacy. rulemaking, to list and describe routine It is for that reason that I Introduced,
And, as a member of the Committee transfers and establish procedures for on October 11, the bill, H.R. 17323, to es-
on Education and Labor, I was deeply access by individuals to records about tablish a Federal Medical Privacy Board
involved in-and supportive of-the en- themselves, amending records, handling with responsibility for promoting pro-
actment of the recent amendment to the medical information, and charging fees tection of the right of privacy as it re-
Elementary and Secondary Education for copies of documents. lates to personal medical information.
Act, an amendment tightening pro- Makes it incumbent upon an agency to That bill would establish a compre-
cedures for disclosure of information keep records with such accuracy, rele- hensive, mandatory program of protec-
from student records maintained by vance, timeliness and completeness as is tion of the confidentiality of medical rec-
school systems. Offered in the Senate by reasonably necessary to assure fairness ords held by Federal agencies and would
the distinguished and learned Senator to the individual in making determina- establish a financial assistance program
from New York, JAMES L. BUCKLEY, this tions about him. to States which develop adequate :pro-
amendment, known as the Family Edu- Provides a civil remedy by individuals grams for the protection of non-Federal
cational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, who have been denied access to their records, held by Government or within
is now law and. became effective yester- records or whose records have been kept the private sector, in their respective
day. or used in contravention of the require- States.
I regard the consideration of this bill ments of the act. The complainant may This subject is too serious-and poten-
today-the first comprehensive privacy recover actual damages and costs and tially too far-reaching-to be dealt with
'bill to be reported by a House commit- attorney fees if the agency's infraction as just one of many items to be covered
tee-as an indication both of the actual was willful, arbitrary, or capricious. by a more comprehensive act. I support,
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
1110964 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-DOUSE November 21, 19741
as I indicated earlier, the provision in formation contained in them should number of practices which invaded the
the bill now before us as to medical rec- ceive the highest commendation. Privacy of American citizens. By regu-
ords, but I do not feel It is adequate. H.R. 16373 is a major step In rig- lating the manner in which Government
Neither do I feel that amendments to ulating individual files maintained by the agencies conduct their business, as this
that section which will be offered this Government. It would give individuals bill does, we take another important step
afternoon-although I may support them access to their files, allow copies to be In protecting the "sacred precincts of pri-
because they do enhance this section of made, and permit corrections to be in- vate and domestic life." H.R. 16373 does
the bill-can adequately deal with this serted. The bill restricts access to rec- not guarantee that abuses will no longer
issue. Only the enactment of a compre- ords by agency employees on a "need-to- occur, but it does place checks upon those
hensive measure, like that contained In know" basis. Federal workers who could who would exercisepower improperly. I
the proposed Medical Records Privacy not demonstrate that threshold require- urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
Act, is required. ment would be prohibited from exam- this measure.
H.R. 17323 was introduced for the ex- ining individual records. The bill world Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, the bill
pressed purpose of soliciting the views also severely limit the transfer of files that was brought before us today was
of those to be affected by it-patients, from one agency to another. Finally it a landmark piece of legislation. It was
hospital administrators, doctors, associa- would require the agency to record the an essential first step toward the pro-
tions, insurance companies, attorneys, et names of all persons who are given tection of every American's right to
cetera. Thosecomments are now coming access to a person's file. privacy.
in, and they will add Immeasurably in The bill also provides civil remedies Unfortunately, the bill on which we are
the preparation of a perfected bill before and criminal penalties for violations of about to vote Is no longer such a land-
the end of the session. its commands. A person who has been mark. We have reneged on our promise
Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, this- bill aggrieved by agency action may bring to the American people that we would
and the right to privacy have been long - suit in the United States District Court pass legislation to protect the right of
aborning. Over 80 years ago, Samuel to correct any unlawful practice. Dur- every individual to privacy.
Warren and Louis Brandeis published ing the course of that litigation, the dis- We have exempted Federal employees
their seminal article on "The Right to trict judge is authorized by section (g) from the protections offered In the pro-
Privacy" in the Harvard Law Review. In (2) (A) to review de novo any determines- visions of this bill, and we have allowed
exalting the "right to be let alone," they tion by an agency, for example, that a those Federal agencies afraid to conduct
identified the need to Insulate from out- record should be withheld. In deciding their business in the light of day to con-
side intrusion the "sacred precincts of the case, the judge may order an in tinue to work under acloak of secrecy.
private and domestic life." camera inspection to make sure that the I am voting for this bill, but I do so
Warren and Brandeis predicted that agency, in refusing to disclose a record, with the sincere hope that when we re-
the "question whether our law will rec- has complied with the law, turn in January as -,the 94th Congress
ognize and protect the right to privacy These provisions for de nova review and we will keep the promise that we have
must soon come before our courts for in camera inspection of dociunents are made. I, for one, will continue to fight for
consideration." The expectation that the extremely important. Because of then, strong legislation in the area of privacy.
judiciary would secure these rights has the agency cannot hide behind an execu- We must establish through legislation
not been fully realized. To be sure, the tive classification which seek; to place an agency with direct oversight of
courts have ventured into the area to the file beyond the reach of the citizen privacy statutes and regulations.
some degree. But the judicial attempts and the Federal court. Under this section, We must reconsider the exceptions to
to protect privacy have been slow and the judge may require any agency, in- this law, and we must severely narrow
uneven. They have not been adequate to eluding the Central Intelligence Agency those-exemptions. -
meet. the concerns of contemporary so- and law enforcement authorities, to pro- I deeply regret that I cannot offer my
ciety, partly because technology has out- duce the records in question for his ex- wholehearted support for this legisla-
distanced the common law and partly amination to determine If they w -e tion, legislation which in its former
because Government has out-distanced properly within the scope of the- claimed strong and comprehensive state sup-
the common man. exemption, portedevery step of the way since coming
The present need for legislation is It ay be, for example, that in execu- to Congress.
tive agency might seek to conceal some Mr. KOCH, Mr. Chairman, the first
quite plain. Through the unceasing ef- of its records by transferring them to the privacy legislation on the subject mat-
forts of Chairman MOORHEAD, Congress- CIA for safekeeping. If those files were ter covered by the legislation on the floor
man KocH, and others, the Privacy Act then sought by an individual, the CIA today was thebill H.R. 7214 which I in-
of 1974 is now before us. As a cosponsor would undoubtedly resist turning them troduced on February 19, 1969. There is
of earlier versions of this bill and a par- aver-to that person. If a suit were then no legislation in which I have been in-
ticipant in the drafting process through instituted to compel disclosure, the judge volved here in the Congress that has
its principal sponsors, I have a particu- could order the records produced for his
larly keen interest in it. given me greater satisfaction and a sense
in camera inspection to determine of accomplishment than this. The bill
H.R. 16373 deals with a subject in whether they were in fact CIA records before us does not contain all of the
which I have regularly expressed con- exempted by the statute. In essence th=s safeguards that I would like to see in pri-
cern over the years. In the first days of provision achieves the same result as H.P. vacy legislation. I have some differences
my service In the House, I spoke to this (2471, the Freedom of Information Ac-t with respect to some provisions of the
body on the pernicious effects generated amendments, which we recently passed. bill, but I do believe the bill to be one
by the record-keeping activities of the -En that bill, we included a similar section well worth supporting.
Internal Security Committee. That prat- -;o overturn the decision of the Supreme The basic weaknesses as I see them
-tice and other recordations about the Court in Environmental Protection have to do with several areas. The bill is
lives of our citizens continue on a daily Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973). Sec- deficient in the area covering law en-
basis by the agencies of the U.S. Gov- Lion (g) (2) (A) of this bill has an identi- forcement agencies. However,-that comes
ernment. Personal data which find their cal thrust, about because the House Judiciary Com-
way into Government files often find There are, to be sure, provisions in this mittee under the subcommittee chair-
their way out and into the hands of bill which should give us pause. The gen- manship of DON EDWARDS is considering
others. eral exemptions for the Central Intel- comprehensive legislation covering the
The Privacy Act of 1974 seeks to arrest ]igence Agency and for law enforcement entire criminal justice field. The Senate
and control the - dissemination of in- authorities are unwarranted and unnec- provision of the comparable bill which
formation already collected and stored. essary. There is no provision for the es- covers this particular area is preferable
It does not purport to regulate the flow tablishment of a Federal privacy board and yet that too is deficient when com-
of data into Government files nor does which was in the predecessor bill, H.R, pared to the needs. Until the Justice De-
it seek to affect the storage of such ma- 667. The 180-day delay in the effective partment can come forward with a pro-
terial. In this analytical sense it is a date of this bill could reasonably be cut posal that the Congress can agee upon,
limited measure. But its importance in half. But even so, it is still a goof] criminal justice systems should be in-
cannot be overstated. Providing access proposal. eluded in this privacy legislation. It
for persons to examine their files and The recent inquiry by this House into would be completely unjustifiable to ex-
restricting the distribution of the in- the office of the President disclosed .c em cr' 1 i stems. Privacy
Approved For Release 2002/01/28: CIA-RDP76M00527pR00ff6819'666b
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 H 10965
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
legislation must affect law enforcement to the public. This language fails to re- Ing the privacy impact of systems will be
records. What is significant is section quire the publication of the character taken care of. The National Bureau of
3(e) (4) of the bill which applies to of each personal register with these Standards should be consulted with and
agency requirements which states that rules. Therefore the public would not give an assessment of the security safe-
no agency, including law enforcement have any indication as to the different guards.
agencies, is permitted to maintain a rec- information systems to which they refer. My office has consulted with NBS on
ord concerning the political or religious I understand there have been objet- this issue. NBS has the authority to issue
beliefs or activities of any individual un- tions to an annual catalog of data banks standards and under the Brooks legisla-
less expressly authorized by statute or by by persons who claim it would be an un- tion, NBS with OMB does have input in
the individual himself. wieldy series of volumes. If a separate regards to the procurement of data sys-
The exemptions section should be lim- publication for agency rules were pro- tems. However, at the present time it is
ited only to those files having to do with duced there would be two extensive doc- totally permissive for agencies to come to
national defense and foreign policy, in- uments. Convenience, uniformity, and the NBS for technical safeguard assess-
formation held pursuant to an active likelihood of the general public's use of ment before the agency launches new
criminal investigation, and records this information would be impaired. The personal information systems. In fact,
maintained for statistical purposes not cost might be prohibitive. As far as I NBS has yet to be called in on one new
identifiable to an individual. I regret that know the so-called unworkability fac- start. This was particularly dramatic in
the amendment to allow court assess- tor, duplication, and cost are the only the case of the FEDNET plan, advanced
ment of punitive damages failed in a 'OMB reasons for opposing a directory. by GSA. We should specify that NBS
vote, and I also regret that the Erlenborn In an effort to learn the true operating should perform this assessment function,
amendment to withhold from an indi- situation, the mechanics of preparing particularly in the area of security safe-
vidual the source of confidential infor- and publishing such directories, I have guards.
mation in his file carried. consulted with officials of the Federal Doug Metz, deputy executive director
There is one other area which is in- Register. Strangely, mine was the first of the Domestic Council Committee on
eluded in the Senate bill and that is the inquiry from Congress about how to sort the Right of Privacy has said that one
establishment of a Federal Privacy Com- out these questions and see that H.R. of the task force recommendations made
mission which I hope will ultimately be 16373 is written in a prudent, clear form. to the committee has been that the Fed-
incorporated in the final bill. Key to the These discussions provided me with sev- eral Government establish policies and
concept of enforcing this privacy legis- eral important conclusions; procedures to insure the establishment
lation, insuring the individual's privacy First. An annual directory is not nec- of privacy safeguards in new telecom-
and the Federal agencies' carrying out of essary once the basic catalog is pub- munications and data processing systems
this function, is a Privacy Commission. lished, after that annual updatings can or substantial modifications to existing
Rather than fight the. battle at this be printed to list changes in registers or systems. OMB is now clearing with Gov-
note totally new ones. ernment agencies interim guidelines for
point, I would prefer that the lo sl s Second. The language providing for such privacy screening.
sins tofore a with its imherfectin, is agency notice requires so much detail on Agencies should report on the security
sent there and voted out before onference with the before, the procedures for access and notification, safeguards to the Congress and OMB
perfected
93d However, since policies for storage and practices over prior to ththe is way bwe will the situa-
3d Congress adjjo ourns.
sion amendment to establish a Commis- such things as disposal of records, that tion this we will being contem-
must was voted down today, the House this overlaps significantly into the rule- plated and the Congress not knowing
be prepared to insure that the Com- making area. It would be impractical to has reached the owing
mission's functions are absorbed in the separate the notice requirement and until late the stage. al has
moment there is
bill. The functions of the Com- agency rules requirement, therefore they ur lith po the piopes way in the mom stages there s
mission are: should be printed in the Federal Register no
ontemplate sfor Congress to ba e
First, a directory of information sys- concurrently and published in a directory notifiedc I see system s reason why a similar to bterns; in similar form. report as the one now formally required
Second, management of systems, over- Third. For the original implementation d
sight and privacy impact statements; of reporting requirements, it would be by the Congre agencies sf. for OMB Without such cannot be bdv funurneished
he
Third, research on the scope and effect wise to involve the Administrative Com- in gre Without such ad Congress ro-
of the systems; and mittee on Federal Reports composed of tice, wibe lefthe preapproval t to search the Federal ogress
Fourth, an ombudsman role for the the Archivist, Attorney General, Public and may left be to t relegated the ederal Regi o r
individual. Printer with the Director of the Federal and or modified systems, rather than to
Basic to my 5-year effort to establish Register serving as its secretary. This stop or modified
privacy standards for all Federal agen- committee could prepare a model notice Contained oredirect
athe ll measures I have in-
cies has been the requirement that a di- and rule formats for' the agencies thus
rectory of data banks be published and helping to assure uniformity and con- troduced tooprote 4 individual e re cords
available to the general public. Provi- sistency in presentation. Experience with and
sions to this effect were part of the bi- the reports requirement of the Freedom monilis annhea publoc rd ettoan egg. H.R.
partisan measure which Congressman of Information Act proves that a mean- 16373 contains r pagency and
GOLDWATER and I introduced in April. ingful public document will need expert 16373 contains no privacy va adrift agency and
Most regrettably, H.R. 16373 as reported advice by the officials represented on this nleaves eed assistance dlargely or' to f if t in-
publication contains no. specific provision for the committee. need to exercise access other rights
publication of a directory of the exist- Mr. Chairman, I offered an amendment ability
their personal recordo. The Senate
ence and character of personal systems so an efficient and economical Directory bill does have a board s. sing ate
of records in the executive branch. This of Federal Data Banks will be required in bill have I favor.
can be remedied by minor changes to the the Privacy Act of 1974. We cannot suc-function which agency notice and rule requirements sec- teed in protecting privacy with a code of I have looked into the Office of Con-
tions of the bill. fair information practices which does sumer Affairs possible role as an "om-
The present agency requirements sim- not call for a publically available direc- budsma?n" for privacy complaints as Mrs.
ply call for the annual noticing in the tory of personal registers. Knauer's office serves in the consumer
Federal Register of the existence . and I do feel that any agency establishing protection area. Aside from good work in
character of the systems of personal rec- a new data system or substantially developing and circulating a code of fair
ords together with important particulars changing an existing one should obtain information practices for retail stores
about the location, categories of infor- from the National Bureau of Standards and other businesses, the Office of CQn-
mation, purpose, policies, practices ad- an assessment of that system's security sumer Affairs is not well equipped with
dress and procedures for notification and safeguards and that the agency should statutory authority, technical compe-
access. Under agency rules, all rules report on this to the Office of Manage- tence, or access to operating agencies.
promulgated to carry out the require- ment and Budget and the Congress. This vacuum must be filled and I am
ments of the act, in compliance with With no Privacy Commission in the hopeful that a Privacy Commission hav-
section 553 of title 5 on rulemaking and House bill, we must be concerned with ing these duties will prevail. The legis-
public comment, must be published in how the function that the Commission lative history must indicate a public re-
the Federal Register and made available would have performed by way of assess- pository for assistance and complaints
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
1111096-6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE November 21, 1974
on compliance with data protection agency, except on an individual's request The bill before us-H.R. 16373-is
standards. and when permitted by this act in some necessary to reduce that threat. It estab-
Congress has been plagued by lack of specified cases; lishes safeguards to help prevent the mis-
information on problems involving tech- Fifth, requires an agency to inform in use of personal information by the
nology and practicesof State and private individual of his or her rights when Federal Government.
personal records systems. No research di- supplying Information to the agency; Specifically, H.R. 16373 will in most
mension is called for in the House bill. Sixth, requires an agency to publi;h cases allow an individual to see and cor-
In the Senate measure a well-formulated notice in the Federal Register of the ex- rect the personal information that is
research program is provided. We are istence. of any system of records held by kept on him by Federal agencies. It will
told that the Domestic Council Commit- that agency so that no system will be also require an individual's prior written
tee on Right to Privacy is now doing secret; consent before personal information can
much of this job. That is fine. But Con- Seventh, 1equires an agency to set be transferred from one Federal agency
gress and the American people cannot rules for access to records, describe the to another. Furthermore, agencies must
be expected to rely on a temporary com- routine uses of the records, establir;h make public the existence of all personal
mittee operating under the nonstatutory procedures whereby an individual can information systems. These and other
Domestic Council, at the behest of the amend his record, keep an accurate a^- safeguards provided for in this bill will
sitting President, in the purview of reg- counting of disclosures, and keep records help reassure the right of personal pri-
ular.y exercised executive privilege. in a timely, relevant and accurate man- vacy for our Nation's citizens.
While I have- a- high regard for the com- net; I am proud to support this legislation
mittee, the fact is they cannot give Con- Eighth, prohibits an agency from and I urge its- adoption.
gress assurance that the reports and maintaining a record of political and Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
background documents related to their religious beliefs or activities on an in- privacy is a right long cherished by
several studies will be made public. dividual, unless expressly authorized by Americans and inherent in the Consti-
Mr. Chairman, I bring up these- deft- statute or by the Individual himself; tution and the Bill of Rights. But, as
ciencies, along with the need for clear Ninth, provides for certain exemptions events in the last decade have shown,
language authorizing a directory, as con- for CIA files, law enforcement files, se- there is a tremendous need to enact leg-
structive suggestions for consideration. cret service files and statistical reportin islation that will guarantee the ability of
I am particularly proud of the fact systems; and all American citizens to determine who
that this legislation moved ahead in the Tenth, provides for a civil remedy for will have knowledge of their own private
year of the 93d Congress because it re- an individual who has been denied acce:;.$ lives. H.R. 16373, the privacy bill of
ceived across the board political support. to his records, or whose record has been 1974, is an enormous step forward to-
it became known initially as the Koch- maintained and used in contravention of ward meeting this need and I am proud
and Goldwater privacy bill. And, while - this act and an adverse effect results. to be a cosponsor of this legislation. -
it might have seemed strange to some Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I Approximately three out of every four
that Kocn and GOLDWATER could join to- nave long had an intense interest in the Americans have part of their fife histo-
gether on some piece of legislation, those issue of privacy. In 1962 I introduced a ries recorded in computer data banks
who understand the basic premise of bill to curb the brainpicking tests being throughout the country, 7,000 of which
conservative and liberal ideology appre- given to our Nation's school children. All are operated by the Federal Government.
ciate the fact that on the issue of pri- too often these psychological tests cor - Yet no Federal law currently exists
vacy there is a commonality of interest atituted an outright invasion of the which permits citizens access to those
and concern. The bill before us is the :2ivacy of the home and family life. files in order that they may insure the
work product of a great number of per- T'herefore my bill specifically required accuracy of the personal information
sons on the committee. that parents be apprised of tests of a that Is contained on them. Neither can
However, I again want to take special nonacademic nature which are admin- an individual control the transfer of per-
note of the enormous support and efforts stered to their children. sonal information from agency to agency
that subcommittee Chairman WILLIAM More reeehtly, I helped enact the or even to people totally outside the
MOOPMAD and Congresswoman BELLA Buckley-Ashbrook amendment to the Federal Government.
A.BzUO; gave in shaping the legislation, on Elementary and Secondary Education The implications of this lack of regu-
the Democratic side in committee, as did Amendments of 1974. This amendment lation are terrifying. The specter of 1984
all the members on that committee. And denies funds to school districts that do has been raised so often that for some,
I also especially want to thank the rank- not restrict outside access to student it seems only a scare tactic. But the case
ing minority -members, JOHN ERLENBORN records. It also gives parents and students of a 16-year-old schoolgirl proves other-
and FRANK HORTON who worked so dill- in higher education the right of access wise. Because of a- misaddressed letter
gently to bring this legislation to the in their files. that was sent to an organization on
floor. The bipartisanship shown was re- The threat of government :intrusion which the FBI had placed a mail-cover,
flected in the Government Operations into the lives and privacy of individuals Lori Paton became the subject of an FBI
Committee vote when it passed the bill has particularly grown during the past investigation. Fortunately, she was able
out of committee 39 to 0. I also want to 4:0 years. During that time liberal poli- to obtain destruction of her file through
give special thanks to Senators ERVIN, ticians have consistently promoted a court action, but others may not be so
PERcv, BAYH, MUSKIE, and RIBICOFF for large Federal Government as the solu-- lucky. ,
their efforts on the Senate side, which tion to all of our Nation's problems. It H.R. 16373 is a crucial start toward
side is today considering companion leg- is somewhat ironic that liberals are nov., guaranteeing that other Americans will
islation. discovering that big government can also not undergo experiences similar to those
I shall now list the major areas that create problems. Of Lori Paton. The provisions of H.R.
the bill covers: A prime example of this is the area 16373 provide basic safeguards of per-
First, it permits an individual to gain cf individual privacy. As the Federal sonal privacy to the American people.
access to a file held on him by any Fed- Government has grown in power, it han, At the same time, the framework of law
era] agency; increasingly 'intruded into the personal it creates to protect the individual does
Second, permits any person to supple- fives of its citizens. not interfere unduly with the legitimate
ment the information contained In his Particularly disturbing is the vas- need of the Government for- information
file; amount of personal information that is about individuals in order toperform its
Third, permits the removal of errone- I:eing collected and stored by the variou., required functions.
ous or irrelevant information and pro- Federal agencies. This information, The Privacy Act of 1974 has grown
vides that agencies and persons to whom which is usually hidden from the indi- from a series of intensive hearings and
the erroneous or irrelevant material has vidual's view, is subject to great abuse studies by the House Foreign Operations
been previously transferred, be notified With the advent of computer technology and Government Information Subcom-
of its removal; and the ability to store almost unlimited mittee and was approved unanimously.
Fourth, prohibits records from being amounts of data, the potential threat has Its support is broad based and biparti-
disclosed to anyone outside a Federal become all the greater. - san. I urge all my colleagues to support
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
H10967
this bill so that the assurance of all (BY House REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMIT- All findings and recommendations are
Americans to what Justice Holmes called TEE,, RECOMMENDATIONS OF PRIVACY TASK presented with the intent of being consis-
"the right most valued by civilized men" FORCE) tent with these general principles:
can be strengthened under law. The House Republican Research Commit- 1. There should be no personal informs-
Mr. has approved the following recommenda- tion system whose existence is secret;
DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair- tions of the Task Force on Privacy which 2. Information should not be collected un-
man, I rise in strong support of H.R. deal with the following areas: Government less the.need'for it has been clearly estab-
16373. Surveillance, Federal Information Collection, lished in advance;
The bill, as its name so, rightly indi- Social security Numbers /Standard Universal 3. Information should be appropriate and
cates, is for the purpose of insuring a Identifiers, Census Information, Financial, relevant to the purpose for which it has been
higher degree of privacy for the individ- Information, Consumer Reporting, School collected;
A t Records 4. Information should not be obtained by
d
ards for the collection, maintenance,
and dissemination of personally identi-
fiable records maintained by Federal
agencies and permits the individual ac-
cess to these records and an opportunity
to correct errors in them.
The need to protect the individual's
right to privacy has become increasing-
ly more important with the expanded use
of interconnected computer systems and
has been exemplified by an alarming in-
crease in the number of abuses.
In particular, I wholeheartedly sup-
port the effort being led by my distin-
guished colleague from California (Mr.
GOLDWATER) to prohibit a person from
being required to disclose his or her so-
cial security number for any purpose not
related directly to the. operation of the
social security program. I am a cosponsor
of this proposal.
A limitation on the use of the social
security number is necessary to protect
the individual from the impersonal data
banks which can thrtaten his right to
privacy of information about his activi-
ties, his finances, and his lifestyle in
general. The prohibition will not prevent
the accumulation of such information
but it will make the exchange of the
information between computers much
more difficult than it is at the present
time when nearly everyone is asked to
include his social security number on
nearly every form he fills out.
Social security numbers were original-
ly for the exclusive use of the social
security people, looking out for each per-
son's individual equity and benefits. Now
it has reached the point where computers
ers talk to computers, and the potential
invasion of a person's entire private life
has become a matter of grave concern
to the people.
This legislation is an important step
forward in our fight to secure the right
of privacy for the individual and I urge
my colleagues to support it. It is too easy
for government to intimidate, harass or
monitor the individual-we must end
this possibility in whatever way we can.
The adoption of this bill, as amended,
is really striking a blow for freedom and
the retention of our cherished privacy.
I am pleased and proud of the Congress'
efforts to advance and accept our legis-
lative proposal.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I
am proud and pleased to state to my
colleagues in the House that the Repub-
lican Task Force on Privacy played an
important part in the successful enact-
ment of the Privacy Act of 1974. It is
therefore fitting that the product of their
investigations be a part of the proceed-
ings :
s, Ires
Records, Juvenile Recor
Medical Records, Computer Data Banks, Code illegal, fraudulent, or unfair means;
of Ethics. 5. Information should not be used unless
The House Republican Task Force on Pri- it is accurate and current;
vacy believes that the right to privacy is 6. Procedures should be established so that
an issue of paramount concern to the na- an individual knows what information is
tion, the public and the Congress. Recently stored, the purpose for which it has been
publicized incidents of abuses have begun recorded, particulars about its use and dis-
to focus attention on this long neglected semination, and has the right to examine
area. Public awareness must be heightened that information;
and the legislative process geared up to ad- 7. There should be a clearly prescribed
dress the full range of problems posed by the procedure for an individual to correct, erase
issue. or amend inaccurate, obsolete, or irrelevant
Modern technology has greatly increased information;
the quantity and detail of personal informa- 8. Any organization collecting, maintain-
tion collection, maintenance, storage, uti- ing, using, or disseminating personnel infor-
lization and dissemination. The individual mation should assure its reliability and take
has been physically by-passed in the modern precautions to prevent its misuse.
information process. An atmosphere exists 9. There should be a clearly prescribed
in which the individual, in exchange for the procedure for an individual to prevent per-
benefit or service he obtained, is assumed sonal information collected for one purpose
to waive any and all interest and control from being used for another purpose with-
over the information collected about him. out his consent;
On the technical and managerial levels, the 10. The Federal Government should not
basic criteria in many decisions relating to collect personal information except as ex-
personal information practices are consid- pressly authorized by law; and
erations of technological feasibility, cost- 11. That these basic principles apply to
benefit and convenience. The right to pri- both governmental and non-governmental
vacy has been made subservient to concerns activities.
for expediency, utility and pragmatism. Each recommendation of the Task Force
The trend in personal information prac- seeks to contribute to a broader, more intel-
tices shows no signs of abating. Twice as ligent, viable understanding of the need for
many computer systems and seven times as a renewed concern for personal privacy. An
many terminals-particularly remote ter- awareness of personal privacy must be
urinals-will be in use by 1984 as are in use merged with the traditional activities of the
today. And, with each federal service pro- free marketplace, the role of government as a
gram that is initiated or expanded, there is a public servant, and the need for national se-
geometrically proportionate increase in the curity defense, and foreign affairs.
quantity and detail of personal informa- SURVEILLANCE
tion sought by the bureaucracy. The theory The Task Force is deeply disturbed by the
the the broader the Information base, increasing incidence of unregulated, the more clan-
ministration the and successful the ad- destine government surveillance based solely
. on administrative or executive authority. Ex-
Congress Such situation demands the alic. of
The amples of such abuses include wiretapping,
Congress s and of the American public. bugging, photographing, opening mail, exam-
to divi does not by definition mean Injury thing confidential records and otherwise in-
to individuals. toais the Its American presence has economy con- the tercepting private communications and mon-
ability government o serve the people. private activities. Surveillance at the
Under s present gov prot procedures, the. federal level receives the most publicity.
Under however, the However, state and local government, mili-
American citizen does s not have a o clearly tary intelligence and police activities also
definedright to find out what information n must be regulated.
is being collected, to see such information,
to correct errors contained in it, or to seek The Fourth Amendment of the Constitu-
legal redress for its misuse. Simply put, the tion clearly specifies "the right of the people
citizen must continue to give out large to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
quantities of information but cannot pro- and effects, against unreasonable searches
tect himself or herself from its misappro- and seizures." The First Amendment guards
priation, misapplication or misuse. Both against abridgement of the rights of free
government and private enterprise need di- speech, free press, and assembly for political
rection, because many of their practices and purposes. The Fourteenth Amendment states
poliices have developed on an isolated, ad that none of a citizen's rights may be taken
hoc basis. from him by governmental action without
The House Republican Task Force on Pri- the due process of law.
vacy has investigated the following general The direct threat to individual civil liber-
areas involving the investigation and record- ties is obvious in those cases in which a per-
ing of personal activities and information: son is actually being monitored, but even
government surveillance, federal information more alarming is the "chilling effect" such
collection, social security numbers and uni- activities have on all citizens. A person who
versal identifiers, census information, bank fears that he will be monitored may, either
secrecy, consumer reporting, school records, subconsciously or consciously, fail to fully '
juvenile records, arrest records, medical exercise his constitutionally guaranteed lib-
records, and computer data banks. These erties. The mere existence of such fear erodes
inquiries have resulted in the development basic freedoms and cannot be accepted in a
of general suggestions for legislative remed- democratic society,
ies. Each statement is accompanied by a set The various abuses of discretionary au-
of findings. thority in the conduct of surveillance pro-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 H 10968
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R00070015DO90-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974
vide ample evidence that current safeguard
mechanisms do not work. Procedures allow-
ing the executive branch to determine wheth-
er a surveillance activity is proper or not
pose certain conflict of interest questions.
A degree of controversy surrounds the ques-
tion of the authority of the President to
initiate electronic surveillance without the
safeguards afforded by court review. Present
law is clear on this point: the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 lists
those specific crimes in connection with
which electronic monitoring may be insti-
tuted and requires that court approval be
obtained in these cases. However, dispute
has arisen over Executive claims of Constitu-
tional prerogatives to implement wiretaps for
national security purposes. The Supreme-
Court has ruled that, if such prerogative
exists, it does not apply to cases of domestic
surveillance unrelated to national security.
The Court has not yet ruled on the consti-
tutionality of national security wiretaps
unauthorized by a court. Cases are pending
before the courts at this time which raise
this issue. The Task Force agrees with the
movement of the Judiciary to circumscribe
unauthorized wiretaps and hopes it will pro-
ceed in this direction.
The Task Force feels that surveillance is
so repugnant to the right to individual pri-
vacy and due process that its use should be
confined to exceptional circumstances. The
Task Force further feels that no agent of
federal, state, or local government should be
permitted to conduct any form of surveil-
lance, including wiretapping of U.S. citizens
in national security cases, without having
demonstrated probable cause and without
having obtained the approval of a court of
competent jurisdiction. The Task Force rec-
ommends enactment of new legislation to
prohibit the unauthorized surveillance by
any means, and, further recommends that
existing laws be clarified to the extent this
may be necessary to ensure that no agent
of the government, for any reason, shall have
the authority to conduct any surveillance
on. any American citizen for any reason with-
out first obtaining a court order.
The Task Force believes that this proposal
would not lessen the capability of the govern-
ment to, protect and defend the American
people, but would go a long way toward as-
suring the individual citizen that his con-
stitutional rights will not be abridged by
government without due process of law.
FEDERAL INFORMATION COLLECTION
Recently, there has been a pronounced in-
crease in federal data and information col-
lection. Over 11.5 million cubic feet of rec-
ords were stored in Federal Records Centers
at the beginning of FY 1973. Accompanying
this increase has been a rise in the potential
for abuse of federal information collection
systems.
The Federal Reports Act of 1942 was en-
acted to protect individuals from overly bur-
densome and repetitive reporting require-
ments. The agency entrusted with the respon-
sibility for implementing the Act has ignored
the legislative mandate and failed to hold a
single hearing or conduct any investigations.
With the exception of the Bureau of the
Census and the Internal Revenue Service,
there are few restrictions on the collection
or dissemination of confidential information
compiled by federal agencies.
The Task Force recommends that the Office
of Management and Budget immediately be-
gin a thorough review and examination of
all approved government forms and eliminate
all repetitive and unnecessary information
requirements.
Legislation setting down clear guidelines
and spelling out restrictions is needed 'o
protect the individual from unrestricted and
uncontrolled information collection. Indi-
viduals asked to provide information must
be apprised of its intended uses. Individuals
supplying information which wil- be made
public must be notified of that fact at the
time the information is collected or request-
.d. Public disclosure (including dissemin i-
tion on an antra- or inter-agency basis) of
financial or other personal information mu;t
be prohibited to protect the privacy of re-
spondents.
Returning the use of the Social Security
Number (SSN) to its intended purpose (i.e.
operation of old-age, survivors, and disability
insurance programs) is a necessary corollary
to safeguarding the right of privacy and cur-
tailing illegal or excessive information collef:-
tion.
The use of the Social Security Number lire
proliferated to many general items including
state driver licenses, Congressional, school
and employment identification cards, credit
,ards and credit investigation reports, tar::-
payer identification, military service nuir_-
oers, welfare and social services program re-
capients, state voter registration, insurance
:)olicies and records and group heal .h records.
There are serious problems associated with
;he use of - the SSN as a standard universal
:lumber to identify individuals. A standard
universal identifier (SUI) will relegate in-
dividuals to a number; thereby, increasing
:'eelings of alienation. The SSN's growing ul:e
as an identifier and filing number is already
:having a negative, dehumanizing effectupon
:many citizens. In addition, the use of a SDI
by all types of organizations enables the link-
ing of records and the tracking of an in-
dividual from cradle to grave. This possibil-
ity would negate the right to make a "fres:-i
start", the right of anonymity, and the right
to be left alone, with no compensating bene-
fit.
A well-developed SUI system would require
s. huge, complex bureaucratic apparatus to
control it and demand a strict system of
professional ethics for information techni-
cians. The " technology needed to protect
f,gainst unauthorized use has notyet been
f.dequately researched and developed. A lost.
leak or theft would seriously compromize a
eystem and official misappropriatc:on could
become a political threat. The following Con-
iressioxial action is needed:
1. legislation should be enacted that sets
i:uidellnes for use of the SSN by limiting it
to the operation of old-age, survivors, and
disability insurance programs or as required
by federal law;
2. any Executive Orders authorizing federal
agencies to use SSN's should be repealed, or
alternatively, reevaluated and modified;
3. legislation should be enacted restrict-
1 ig the use of the SSN to well-defined uses,
and prohibiting the development- and use of
any type of SUI until the technical state or,
tixe compute can ensure the security of such
a system. At that time, a SUI system should
I ave limited applicability and shoe.ld be de-.
veloped only after a full congressional In-
vestigation and mandate; and
4. new government programs should be
prohibited from incorporating the use of thc:
:8N or other possible SUI. Existing program;
using the SSN without specific autrorizatioi
by law must be required to phase out their
use of the SSN. State and local governmenta,
agencies, as well as the private sector, should:
follow this same course of action.
A review should be conducted of the In-
thrnal Revenue Service In both its collection
and dissemination policies. Leaks must bc.
ended, The need for stricter penalties for un-
authorized activities should he reviewed.
CENSUS BUREAU
The greatest personal data collection
agency is the Bureau of Census. Created to
count the people in order to determine con-
gressional districts, this agency has mush-
roomed into a vast information center which
generates about 500,000 pages of numbers
and charts each year.
Under penalty of law, the citizen is forced
to divulge intimate, personal facts surround-
ing his public and private life and that of
the entire family. These answers provide a
substantial personal dossier on each Ameri-
can citizen. The strictest care must be taken
to protect the confidentiality" of these rec-
ords and ensure that the information is used
for proper purposes.
The Census Bureau sells parts of its col-
lected data to anyone who wishes to pur-
chase such information. Included are all
types of statistical data that are available
on population and housing characteristics.
As the questions become more detailed and
extensive, broadscale dissemination becomes
more threatening and frightening. When
used in combination with phone directories,
drivers' licenses and street directories, cen-
sus data may enable any one interested to
identify an individual. Therefore, it is
vitally important that rules and regulations
governing the access to and dissemination of
this collected data be reviewed, clarified
and strengthened.
Legislation is needed to guarantee the con-
fidentiality of individual information by ex-
panding the scope of confidentiality under
existing law and by increasing the severity
of punishment for divulging confidential
information. These provisions should be spe-
cifically directed at the officers and employ-
ees of the Bureau of Census, all officers and
employees of the Federal government and
private citizens who wrongfully acquire such
information. In addition, the Bureau of the
Census must use all available technological
sophistication to assure that individuals
cannot be inductively identified.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
On October 26, 1970, sweeping legislation
known as the Bank Secrecy Act became law.
The Act's intention was to reduce white
collar crime by making records more ac-
cessible to law enforcement officials. How-
ever, in accomplishing its purpose, it allowed
federal agencies to seize and secure cer-
tain financial papers and effects of bank
customers without serving a warrant or show-
ing probable cause. The Act's compulsory
recordkeeping requirements, by allowing the
recording of. almost all significant trans-
actions, convert private financial dealings
into the personal property of the banks.
The banks become the collectors and cus-
todians of financial records which, when im-
properly used, enable an individual's entire
life style to be tracked down.
The general language of the Act allowed
bureaucrats to ignore the intent of the law
and. neglect to Institute adequate privacy
safeguards. The Supreme Court affirmed this
approach by upholding the constiutionality
of both the law and the bureaucratic mis-
interpretation of it.
Congress must now take action to prevent
the unwarranted invasion of privacy .by
prescribing specific- procedures and stand-
ards governing the disclosure of financial
information by financial institutions to Fed-
eral officials or agencies. Congress must en-
act legislation to assure that the disclosure
of a customer's records will occur only if the
customer specifically authorizes a disclosure
or if the financial institution is served with
a court order directing It to comply. Legis-
lation must specfy that legal safeguards be
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Ap'prbved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE H 10969
provided requiring that the customer be
properly notified and be provided legal means
of challenging the subpoena or summons.
Passage of such legislation would be an
important step forward in reaffirming the
individual's right to privacy.
CONSUMER REPORTING
The consumer reporting industry, through
its network of credit bureaus, investigative
agencies, and other reporting entities is in
growing conflict with individual privacy.
Most Americans eventually will be the sub-
ject of a consumer report as a result of ap-
plying for credit; insurance, or employment.
The problem is one of balancing the legiti-
mate needs of business with the basic rights
of the individual.
Consumer reports fall into two categories.
First, there are the familiar which contain
"factual" information on an individual's
credit record such as where accounts are
held and how promptly bills are paid. 100
million consumer reports are produced each
year by some 2600 credit bureaus.
The second ones go beyond factual infor-
mation to include subjective opinions of the
individual's character, general reputation,
personal characteristics, and mode of living.
These are often obtained through interviews
with neighbors, friends, ex-spouses and
former employers or employees. An estimated
30 to 40 million such reports are produced
annually.
The first Federal attempt at regulating the
collection and reporting of information on
consumers by third-party agencies came in
1970 with the enactment of the Fair Credit
Reporting. Act (FORA). In theory, the Act
had three main objectives: to. enable con-
sumers to correct inaccurate and misleading
reports; to preserve the confidentiality of
the.information; and to protect the indi-
vidual's right to privacy.
The specific safeguards provided by the
FCRA are: A consumer adversely affected
because of information contained in a con-
sumer report must be so notified and given
the identity of the reporting agency. The
consumer is entitled to an oral disclosure
of the information contained in his file and
the identity of its recipients. ftems disputed'
by the consumer must be deleted if the in-
formation cannot be.reconfirmed. The con-
sumer may have his version of any disputed
item entered in his file and included in sub-
sequent reports.
The FORA needs to be strengthened in two
major areas: disclosure requirements and
investigative reports. The individual should
be entitled to actually see and inspect his
file, rather than rely on an oral presentation.
Further, he should be allowed to obtain a
copy of it by mail (the consumer is often
geographically distant from the source of
the file). Users of consumer reports should
be required to specifically identify the in-
formation which triggered any adverse
action.
The FCRA protects the sources used in in-
vestigative reports..The Task Force believes
that this is contrary to the basic tenets of
our system of justice and that the informa-
tion source must be revealed upon the sub-
ject's request. Furthermore, the Task Force
recommends that advance written authoriza-
tion be required from any individual who
is the subject of an investigative report for
any purpose.
SCHOOL RECORDS
hibited from challenging incorrect or mis-
leading information contained in his file. At
the some time, incidents of highly personal
data being indiscriminately dsseminated to
inquirers unconnected with the school sys-
tem are not uncommon.
Remedial measures are available to the
Congress in the form of legislative actions.
The sanctions under which such provisions
would operate, however, are the key to their
effectiveness. The Task Force proposes the
Congress adopt as a general policy the rule
that federal funds be withheld from any
state or local educational agency or institu-
tion which has the policy of preventing par-
ents from inspecting, reviewing, and chal-
lenging the content of his or her child's
school record. Outside access to these school
records must be limited so that protection
of the student's right to privacy is ensured.
It is recommended that the release of such
identifiable personal data outside the school
system be contingent upon the written con-
sent of the parents or court order.
All persons, agencies, or organizations de-
siring access to the records of a student must
complete a written form indicating the spe-
cific educational need for the information.
This information shall be kept permanently
with the file of the student for inspection
by parents of students only and transferred
to a third party only with written consent of
the parents. Personal data should be made
available for basic or applied research only
when adequate safeguards have been estab-
lished to protect the students' and families'
rights of privacy.
Whenever a student has attained eighteen
years of age, the permission or consent re-
quired of and the rights accorded to the par-
ents should be conferred and passed to the
student.
Finally, the Secretary of HEW should es-
tablish or designate an office and review
board within HEW for the purpose of in-
vestigating, processing, reviewing, and ad-
judicating violations of the provisions set
forth by the Congress.
JUVENILE RECORDS
The Task Force supports the basic philoso-,
phy underlying the existence of a separate
court system for juvenile offenders, which is
to avoid the stigmatizing effect of a criminal
procedure. The lack of confidentiality of such
proceedings and accompanying records sub-
verts this intent and violates the individual's
basic right of privacy.
Most states have enacted laws to provide
confidentiality. Yet the Task Force finds that
due to a lack of specific legislation, and con-
trary to the intent of the juvenile justice
system, the individual's right of privacy is
often routinely violated. Juvenile records are
routinely released to the military, civil serv-
ice and often to private employers as well.
This occurs in cases in which the hearing
involves non-criminal charges, in cases of
arrest but no court action, in cases in which
the individual is no longer under the juris-
diction of the juvenile court, and in cases
where this file has been administratively
closed.
Many new questions about confidentiality,
privacy and juvenile rights are being raised,
and the Task Force finds that the establish-
ment of safeguards has lagged significantly
behind technological developments. For ex-
ample, presently no state has enacted legis-
lation regulating the use of computers in
juvenile court; as a rule, each system estab-
lishes its own guidelines for data collection,
retention, and distribution.
The Task Force finds that with the use of
computers, the juvenile's right to privacy
is additionally threatened by the increased
accessibility to his record and therefore in-
creased possibility of misuse. Staff careless-
ness, less than strict adherence to rules of
limited access, and electronic sabotage must
now be added to the existing threats to the
juvenile's right to privacy.
The Task Force recommends the establish-
ment of minimum federal standards for state
laws to include the following provisions:
1. all records of the juvenile court and all
police records concerning a juvenile shall be
considered confidential and shall not be made
public. Access to these records shall be
limited to those officials directly connected
with the child's treatment, welfare, and re-
habilitation;
2. dissemination of juvenile records, or
divulgence of that information for employ-
ment, licensing, or any purpose in violation
of statutory provisions shall be subject to a
criminal penalty;
3. to protect the reformed delinquent from
stigma continuing into his adult life, pro-
visions should specify a procedure for either
the total destruction-or the sealing of all
juvenile court and police investigative and
offender records at the time the youth
reaches his majority, or when two years have
elapsed since' he has been discharged from the
custody or supervision of the court. Sub-
sequent to this expungement, all proceedings
and records should be treated as though they
had never occurred and the youth should
reply as such to any inquiry concerning his
juvenile record; and
4, all police records on juveniles arrested
but where no court action was taken should
be systematically destroyed when the inci-
dent is no longer under active investigation.
The Task,Force recommends the enact-
ment of legislation specifically prohibiting
federal agencies from requesting information
relating to juvenile record expungement from
employment applicants or from requesting
such information from the courts or the
police.
The Task Force further recommends the
cessation of all Federal funding for com-
puterized systems which contain juvenile
records unless it can be demonstrated that
these systems provide adequate safeguards
for the protection of the juvenile's right of
privacy. These standards must fulfill all the
requirements of the minimum standards for
state legislation previously enumerated, in-
cluding special provisions to strictly limit
data accessibility.
ARREST RECORDS
A large percentage of arrests never result
in conviction. Yet, in over half the states,
individual's arrest records are open to public
inspection, subjecting innocent parties to
undue stigma, harrassment, and discrimina-
tion.
Persons with arrest records often find it
difficult, if not impossible to secure employ-
ment or licenses. A study of empolyment
agencies in the New York City area found
that seventy-five percent would not make
a -referral for any applicant with an arrest
record: This was true even in cases in which
the arrest was not followed by a trial and
conviction. This is just one example of the
widespread practice of "presumption of
guilt" based on the existence of an arrest
record. -
The Task Force holds that release of in-
formation about arrests not followed by con-
Legislation, governing the confidentiality
of juvenile court and police records varies
widely from state to state. Only 24 states
control and limit access to police records,
therefore enabling a potential employer who
is refused access to court records to obtain
the information from the police. Only 16
The recent increase in popular awareness states have expungement laws providing for
of the seriousness of the privacy issue has the destruction of such records after a speci-
been accompanied by an increase in the fled period of good behavior. Only 6 states
general concern over loose, unstructured make it a crime to improperly disclose juve-
and unsupervised school recordkeeping sys- nile record information. And, one state, Iowa,
tems and associated administrative prac- in fact provides that juvenile records must
tices. There has also been general discussion be open to the public for inspection. The
about what information should be kept on Task Force finds that even in those states
a child and considered part of his or her whose laws provide adequate protection,
"record". Parents are frequently denied ac actual practices are often inconsistent with
cess to their own child's record, or are pro- legislation.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
11110970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21; 1974
viction is a direct violation of the individual's
rights of privacy. It thefefore recommends
that legislative efforts be directed toward:
1. establishing minimum standards for
state laws calling for the automatic sealing
of all individual arrest records which were
not followed by conviction and which are no
longer under active investigation;
2. requiring the FBI to seal arrest records
not followed by conviction; and
3. prohii3lting inclusion of arrest records
not followed by conviction on computerized
systems involving more than one state or
using federal funds.
MEDICAL RECORDS
Medical records, which contain sensititive
and personal information, are especially in
need of privacy safeguards to maintain basic
trust in the doctor-patient relationship. Yet,
development of automated data processing
systeras has enhanced the ability of govern-
ment and private organizations to store, an-
alyze and transfer medical records. Increas-
ingly, this occurs without the individual's
knowledge or consent. Abuse of such informa.
tion systems can have a deleterious effect on
doctor-patient relations.
To guarante the privacy of medical records,
the Task Force recommends that:
1. the federal government provide dollar
grants and incentives to States for the vol-
untary adoption and execution of State plans
to insure the right to privacy for computer-
ized medical information systems. Such a
plan would place principal responsibility on
the States, giving the federal government
the right to set minimum standards;
2. Congress review the recently enacted
Professional Standards Reviews Organiza-
tions (PSRO) legislation. There are increas-
ing numbers of reports and complaints re-
garding Review Board uses of medical files
and the threat this poses to privileged, con-
fidential doctor-patient relationships; and
3. provisions be included in national health
insurance legislation which specifically en-
sure the individual's privacy. The institution
of a national health insurance plan will
create a vast medical information network
which will require fitringent safeguards to
prevent abuses of the patients' right to
privacy.
COMPUTER DATA BANKS
The use of the computer has brought great
commercial and social benefits to modern
Amer1;a. Greater reliance . on the computer,
however, increases its integration into all
aspects of daily life. The result is increased
vulnerability to abuse or misuse of com-
puterized information.
The Task Force finds that-the Individual
possesses inadequate remedies for the cor-
rection of such abuses. In fact, the Task Force
considers it probable that many abuses have
gone unreported simply because the indivi-
dual involved did not know of the data being
collected about him.
Even if the individual is aware that data is
being collected about him, he faces several
obstacles if he wishes to expunge purely pri-
vate information or to correct erroneous in-
formation. Among his obstacles are the fol-
lowing: the lack of statutory support for
legal action (except in the credit reporting
area), the cost of litigation, and even fear
of retaliation by the company or agency be-
ing challenged.
Despite their potential for abuse, data
banks remain an inescapable fact of life in a
society growing more complex and more tech-
nological. The Task Force does not oppose Countryman, Vern. The diminishing right
data tanks as such, but favors strong safe- o:' privacy: The personal dossier and the-com.
guards against their misuse, and recom= p titer. Texas Law Review, May 1971.
mends that: Curran, William J., et. al. Protection of
1. rights under the Fair Credit Reporting p:'ivaey and confidentiality. Science,, v. 18J,
Act of 1970 be extended to all data collection. Nov. 23, 1973.
The individual must have and be informed De Weese, J. Taylor. Giving the computer a
of his right to review information in any conscience. Harper's, Nov. 1973.
collection of data about himself (excluding Gotlieb, Calvin. Regulations for tuforma-
national security and criminal justice files r ; tion systems. Computers and automation, v.
2. Congress establish categories (i.e. In- 19, Sept. 1970.
depth biographical, financial, medical, etc ) Gough, Aidan R. The expungement of ad-
if information which may not be included judication records. Washington University
in reports on an individual unless the indi- Law Quarterly, 1966.
vidual knowingly gives his uncoorced con- Hunt, M. K. and Rein Turn. Privacy and
sent; security in data bank systems: an annotated
3. limited exceptions be granted for nn- bibliography. 1969-1973. 11-1044-NSF. Santa
tional security and criminal justice invests- Monica, Calif., Rand Corp., 1974.
rations; Hoffman, Lance J. Security and privacy in
4. criminal and civil" penalties be estate- computer systems. Los Angeles, Calif., 1973.
ished for any use of statistical data (col- Hoglund and Kahan. Invasion of privacy
sated for collective analysis) to wrongfully and the freedom of information act: Geman
acquire information on Individuals; v. NLRB, 40 Geo. Washington Law Review,
5. ti ansfer of personal information b(- 1972.
:ween governmental agencies be strictly Koehn, E. Hank. Privacy, our problem for
imited; tomorrow. Journal of systems management,
6, the creation of a centralized Federal v. 24, July 1973.
data bank (except for national security and Kraning, Alan. Wanted: new ethics for new
criminal justice purposes) be prohibited; techniques. Technology review, v. 70, Mar.
and 1970.
7. a federal "privacy protection agency" be Kuhn, David. Your life: how private? Re-
established to enforce the proposed legisla.- print from Minneapolis Tribune, Oct. 7-12,
ion. 1973 by the Project on Privacy and Data Col-
CODE OF ETHICS AND STANDARD OF CONDIICT lection of the American Civil Liberties Union
The Republican Task Force on Privacy b(- Foundation, Washington, D.C.
loves there to be a definite need for the de- Lapidus, Edith J. Eavesdropping on trial.
^elopment of a universal code of ethics and Rochelle Park, New Jersey, Hayden Book Co.,
standard of conduct for the technical, mar- 1974.
agerial and academic personnel involved In Levin, Eugene. The future shock of in-
the development and use of personal in- formation networks. Astronautics and aero-
iormation systems. The Task Force regards nautics, Nov. 1973.
this to be essential for the automated and Lusky, Louis. Invasion of privacy: a clari-
computerized information systems. Persons fication of concepts. Columbia Law Review,
Information systems are becoming- an irate- v. 72.
l;ral aspect of the daily life of every individ- Miller, Authur R. The assault on privacy.,
ital In our society. This sensitive re"ationshi p computers, databanks, and dossiers. Ann
demands and merits the development of an Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1971.
i.ttitude of professionalism. It is recognized Miller, Herbert S. The closed door. U.S.
that some efforts have been made to develop Dept. of Labor, 1972.
n.nd foster such atttiudes. But, the informa- National Committee for Citizens in Educa-
tion industry as a whole has not supported tion. Children, parents and school records.
such efforts as a matter of policy. The Task Columbia, Md., National Committee for Citi-
Force declares its commitment to the de- zens in Education, 1974.
i elopment, maintenance, management and Organization for Economic Co-operation
use of personal information systems, and Development. Toward central govern-
" Studies, 1973.
The Task Force is aware that this is a rela- Pennock, J. Roland and John W. Chapman.
tively new area of concern. Some recom- Privacy. New York, Atherton Press, 1971.
riendations may go too far and some not far Privacy In the First Amendment. The Yale
enough. Some areas may have been over- Law Journal, June 1973.
looked. But there is no questionthat now I:; Project Search Staff. Committee on Secur-
the time to address ourselves to this impor- ity and Privacy. Security and privacy con-
tsnt and far reaching Issue. If we fail-- siderations in criminal history information
George Orwell's 1984 may become a realit' systems. Technical Report No. 2. Sacramento,
by 1976 Calif., Project Search. California Crime Tech-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Breckenridge, Adam Carlyle. The right to
privacy. Lincoln, University of Nebraske
I ress, 1970. -
Canada. Department of Communication,.
and the Department of Justice. Privacy and
computers. A report of a task force estab-
lished jointly by the Canadian Department
or Communication and the Department of
Justice. Ottawa, Canada, Information Can-
a ia, 1972.
Campaign, Howard and Lance J. Hoffman
Computer privacy and security. Computer;
and automation, v. 22, July 1973.
Cashman, Charles E. Confidentiality of
juvenile court proceedings: A review. Juue-
nile Justice, v. 24, August 1973.
Cohen., Richard E. Justice report,'hearings
focus on privacy, limitations on use of FBI
data. National journal reports. Feb. 16, 1974
Computer applications in the Juvenile jus-
tice system, National Council of Juvenile
nological Research Foundation, July 1970.
Ralston, Anthony G. Computers and demo-
cracy. Computers and automation, v. 22,
April 1973.
Reed, Irving S. The application of informa-
tion theoryto privacy in data banks, Santa
Monica, Calif., Rand Corp., 1973.
Rule, James B. Private lives and public
surveillance. London, Allen Lane, 1973.
Sargent, Francis W. Centralized data
banks-where public technology can go
wrong. Astronautics and aeronautics, v. 11,
Nov. 1973. -
Schrag, Peter. Dossier dictatorship. Satur-
day Review, April 17, 1971.
Social Security Administration. Social
Security Number Task Force: Report to the
Commissioner. Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare, 1971.
Springer, Eric W. Automated medical re-
cords and the law. Pittsburgh, Aspen Sys-
tems Corporation, 1971.
Stone, Michael and Malcolm Warner. The
data bank society: organizations, computers,
and social freedom. London, George Allen
and Unwin LTD, 1970.
Thomas, Uwe. Computerized data banks in
public administration. Paris, France, Organi-
zation for Economic Co-operation and De-
velopment, 1971.
Turn, Rein. Privacy and security in per-
sonal information databank systems. Pre-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
November> 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
pared for the National Science Foundation.
8-1044-NSF. March 1974. Santa Monica,
Calif., Rand Corp., 1974.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations. Federal information
systems and plans-Federal use and devel-
opment of advanced technology. Hearings
before the Subcommittee on Foreign Opera-
tions and Government Information. 93rd
Cong. 1st and 2d session, Washington, U.S.
Govt. Printing Office, 1973, 1974.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the
Judiciary. Federal data banks, computers
and the Bill of Rights. Hearings before the
Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights.
92nd Cong. 1st session, Washington, U.S.
Govt. Printing Office, 1971.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. Secretary's Advisory Committee on
Automated Personal Data Systems. Records,
computers, and the rights of citizens. Wash-
ington,, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1973.
Westin, Alan F. and Michael A. Baker.
Databanks in a free society: computers, rec-
ord-keeping, and privacy. Report of the proj-
ect on Computer Data-banks of the Com-
puter Science and Engineering Board. Na-
tional Academy of Science. New York, Quad-
rangle Books, 1972.
Wheeler, Stanton. On record: files and dos-
siers in American life. New York, Russell
Sage Foundation, 1969.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any fur-
ther amendments? If not, the question
is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended, was
agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises. .
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the Chair
(Mr. BRADEMAS) Chairman of the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union, reported that that Com-
mittee having had under consideration
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 records concerning them which
are maintained by Federal agencies, pur-
suant to House Resolution 1419, he re-
ported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAI ER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment to the committee amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute adopt-
ed in the Committee of the Whole? If
no, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ob-
ject to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
H 10971
Evidently a quorum is
The SPEAKER
Roush Steele
Ware
.
Rousselot Steelman
Whalen
not present,
Roy Steiger, Ariz.
White
The Sergeant at Arms will notify
Roybel Steiger, Wis.
Whitehurst
absent Members. '
Ruppe Stokes
Stratton
Whitten
Widnall
The vote was taken by electronic de-
Ruth
Ryan Stubblefield
Wiggins
vice, and there were-yeas 353, nays 1,
Sandman Stuckey
Williams
as follows:
not voting 80
Sarasln Studds
Wilson, Bob
,
Sarbanes Sullivan
Wilson,
[Ron No. 6411
Satterfield Symington
Charles H.,
Scherle Tal.cott
Calif.
YEAS-353
Schneebeli Taylor, Mo.
Wilson,
Abdnor
Dorn
Long, La.
Schroeder Taylor, N.C.
Charles, Tex.
Abzug
Downing
Long, Md.
Seiberling Thompson, N.J. Winn
Adams
Drinan
Lott
Shipley Thomson, Wis.
Wolff
Addabbo
Duncan
Luian
Shriver Thone
Wright
Alexander
du Pont
McClory
Shuster Thornton
Wyatt
Anderson,
Eckhardt
McCloskey
Sisk Towell, Nev.
Wydler
Calif.
Edwards, Ala.
McCollister
Skubitz Treen
Wylle
Anderson, Ill.
Edwards, Calif.
McCormack
Slack Udall
Yates
Andrews
N
C
Ellberg
McDade
Iowa Ullman
Smith
Yatron
,
.
.
Andrews,
Erlenborn
McEwen
,
Smith, N.Y. Van Deerlin Young, Alaska
N. Dak.
Esch
McFall
Snyder Vander Jagt Young, Fla.
Annunzio
Evins, Tenn.
McKay
Spence Vander Veen Young, Ill.
Archer
Fascell
McKinney
Stanton, Vanik Young, Tex.
Arends
Findley
Macdonald
J. William Veysey Zablocki
Ashley
Fish
Madden
Stanton, Vigorito Zion
Badillo
Fisher
Madigan
James V. Waggonner Zwach
Batalis
Flood
Mahon
Stark Walsh
Baker
Flowers
Mallary
Steed Wampler
Barrett
Flynt
Mann
Bauman
Foley
Maraziti
NAYS-1
Beard
Ford
Martin, Nebr.
Landgrebe
Bennett
Forsythe
Martin, N.C.
ill
Be
Fountain
Mathias, Calif.
NOT VOTING-80
v
Biaggi
Fraser
Mathis, Ga.
Armstrong
Froehlich,
Patman
Biester
Frelinghuysen
Matsunaga
Ashbrook
Giaimo
Poage
Bingham
Frenzel
Mayne
Aspin
Grasso
Podell
Blackburn
Frey
Mazzola
Bell
Grover
Powell, Ohio
Blatnik
Fulton
Meeds
Bergland
Hansen, Wash.
Quillen
Bolling
Fuqua
Melcher
Boggs
Harsha
Rangel
Bowen
Gaydos
Mezvinsky
Boland
Hastings
Rarick
Brademas
Gettys
Michel
Brasco
Hays
Rhodes
Bray
Gibbons
Milford
Breaux
Hebert
Riegle
Breckinridge
Gilman
Miller
Brooks
Heckler, Mass.
Roe
Brinkley
Ginn
Mills
Burke, Calif.
Hillis
Roncallo, N.Y.
Broomfield
Goldwater
Minish
Camp
Hogan
Rooney, N.Y.
Brotzman
Gonzalez
Mink
Carey, N.Y.
Hunt
Runnels
Brown, Calif.
Doodling
Mitchell, Md.
Chappell
Jones, Ala.
St Germain
Brown, Mich.
Gray
Mitchell, N.Y.
Clancy
Jones, N.C.
Sebelius
Brown, Ohio
Green, Oreg.
Mizell
Clay
Barth
Shoup
Broyhill, N.C.
Green, Pa.
Moakley
Conable
Kastenmeier
Sikes
Mollohan
Crane
Kluczynski
Staggers
Daniels,
Kuykendall
Stephens
Burgener
Gubser
Moorhead,
Dominick V.
Landrum
Symms
Burke, Fla.
Dude
Calif.
Danielson
Latta
Teague
Burke, Mass.
Gunter
Moorhead, Pa.
Dent
Luken
Tiernan
Burleson, Tex.
Guyer
Morgan
Devine
McSpadden
Traxler
Burlison, Mo.
Haley
Mosher
Diggs
Metcalfe
Waldie
Burton, John
Hamilton
Murphy, Ill.
Dulski
Minshall, Ohio
Wyman
Burton, Phillip Hammer-
Murtha
Eshleman
Moss
Young, Ga.
Butler
schmidt
Myers
Evans, Colo.
Murphy. N.Y.
Young, S.C.
Byron
Carney, Ohio
Hanley
Hanna
Katcher
Nedzi
So the bill was passed.
Carter
Hanrahan
Nelsen
The Clerk announced the following
Casey, Tex.
Cederberg
Hansen, Idaho
Harrington
Nichols
Nix
pairs:
Chamberlain
Hawkins
Obey
Mr. Hebert with Mr. Dulski.
Chisholm
Heckler, W. Va. O'Brien Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Aspire
Clark
Heinz
O'Hara
Mr. Moss with Mr. Luken.
Clausen,
Helstoski
O'Neill
Mr. Sikes with Mr. McSpadden.
Don H.
Del
Clawson
Henderson
Hicks
Owens
Parris
Mr. Boland with Mr. Young of Georgia.
,
Cleveland
Hinshaw
Passman
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Tiernan.
Cochran
Holifield
Patten
Mr. Giaimo with Mr. Traxler.
Cohen
Holt
Pepper
Mr. Staggers with Mr. Patman.
Collier
Holtzman
Perkins
Mr. Hays with Mr. Minshall of Ohio.
Collins. 111.
Horton
Pettis
Mr. Bergland with Mr. Kuykendadl.
Collins, Tex.
Conlan
Hosmer
Howard
Peyser
Pickle
Mr. Chappell with Mr. Hunt,
Conte
Huber
Pike
Mr. Carey of New York with Mr. Hogan.
Conyers
Hudnut
Preyer
Mr. Brooks with Mr. Camp.
Corman
Hungate
Price. Dl.
Mrs. Burke of California with Mr. Froeh-
Cotter
Hutchinson
Price, Tex.
Itch.
Coughlin
ichord
Pritchard
Mr. Breaux with Mr. Ashbrook.
Cronin
Jarman
Quie
ith Mr
Grover
ski
M
Ki
c
Culver
.
.
zyn
, w
r.
u
Johnson, Calif. Railsback
i
Daniel, Dan
Johnson, Colo.
Randall
ne.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Dev
Daniel, Robert
Johnson, Pa,
Rees
Mr. Metcalfe with Mrs. Grasso.
W., Jr.
Jones, Okla.
Regula
Mr. Murphy of New York with
Davis, Ga.
Jones, Tenn.
Reid
able.
Davis, S.C.
Jordan
Reuss
Mr. Teague with Mr. Hillis.
Davis, Wis.
de la Garza
Kazen
Kemp
Rinaldo
Roberts
Mr. St Germain with Mr. Powell of Ohio.
Delaney
Ketchum
Robinson, Va.
Mr. Riegle with Mr. Bell.
Dellenback
Mr. Latta with Mr. Hastings.
Dellums
Koch
Rodino
Mr. Rangel with Mrs. Hansen of Wash-
Denholm
Kyros
Rogers
ington.
Dennis
Lagomarsino
Roncalio, Wyo.
P
Mr. Roe with Mr. Crane.
Derwinski
Leggett
Rooney,
a.
Mr. Jones of
Alabama with
Mr. Harsha.
Dickinson
Dingell
Lehman
Lent
Rose
Rosenthal
Mr. Kastenmeier with Mr. Eshleman.
ponohue
Litton
Rostenkowski
Mr. Karth with Mr. Clancy.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9
 1110972
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R00070015OD90-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE Novemb'ep. 21, 1974
Mr. Jones of North Carolina with Mi.
Quillen.
Mr. Diggs with Mr. Roncallo of New York.
Mr. Evans of Colorado with Mr. Sebelius.
Mr. Dent with Mr. Shoup.
Mr. Dominick V. Daniels with Mr. Stephens.
Mr. Clay with Mr. Waldie.
Mr. Danielson with Mr. Symms.
Mr. Runnels with Mr. Wyman.
Mr. Rhodes with Mr. Young of South Caro-
lina.
Mrs. Heckler of Massachusetts with Mr
Rarick.
The result of the vote was announced.
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
1tr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative
days In which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material
on the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There was no objection.
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS TO HAVE UN-
TIL MIDNIGHT FRIDAY, NOVEM-
13ER 22, 1974, TO FILE A REPORT
ON H.R. 17045, TO AMEND THE
:;OCIAL SECURITY ACT
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that the Committee on
Ways and Means may have until mid-
night Friday, November 22, 1974, to file
a report on the bill, H.R. 17045, to amend
the Social Security Act to establish a
consolidated program of Federal finan-
cial assistance to encourage provision of
services by the States, along with any
supplemental and/or separate views,
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Vfr. ARENDS asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I take this
time toask the majority whip to kindly
advise us of the program for next week.
Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, if the gen-
tleman from Illinois will yield, I will be
glad to provide this Information.
There is no further legislative business
for today. Upon the announcement of the
program for next week, I will ask unani-
mous consent to go over until Monday.
The program for the House of Repre-
sentatives for the week of November 25,
1974, is as follows:
Monday is District day, and there is
one bill,
H.R. 17450, People's Counsel for >?7ls-
trict; of Columbia Public Service Com-
mission.
The other measures to be considered
are:
House Resolution 1387, place for
amendments In CONGRESSIONAL RECORD;
H.R. 16609, AEC supplemental au-
thorization, under an open rule, with 1
hour of debate;
House Joint Resolution 1161, entry into
foreign ports of U.S. nuclear ships, under
an open rule, with 1 hour of debate; and
H.R. 16074, nuclear information for
Congress, under an open rule, with 1 hour
of debate.
On Tuesday there will be considered:
H.R. 15580, Labor-HEW appropria-
tions, fiscal year 1975, a conference re-
port; and
H.R. 17468, military construction ap-
propriations, fiscal year 1975.
Conference reports may be brought up
at any time, and any furtlb:er program
will be announced later.
The House will recess at the close of
business Tuesday, November 26, until
noon, Tuesday, December 3.
ADJOURNMENT OVER TO MONDAY,
NOVEMBER 25, 1974
Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that when the House ad-
journs today, it adjourn to meet on Mon-
day next.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I do so only to ask
the gentleman a question. I thought per-
haps I could ask the question before he
made this request.
Does the gentleman anticipate that
there will be legislation for a pay increase
for Members of Congress, members of
the ;judiciary, and some of the other em-
ployees of Government In the remainder
of the 93d Congress?
Mr. McFALL. If the gentleman will
yield for that purpose, I am sorry to say
I have not heard of any.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman has heard
of no Intention?
Mr. McFALL. I am sorry to say that I
have not heard of any, and I regret that
there is not legislation, not just for the
Members of Congress, but for the 10,000
other people In the executive branch. I
believe that it is necessary for the whole
civil service structure that such legisla-
tion be considered, but I am sorry to say
I have not heard of any.
Mr. GROSS. I will say to my friend,
the gentleman from California, that I
am sorry to say that I have heard of pro-
posals to that end, and that s the rea-
son for my inquiry.
Mr. McFALL. In response to what the
gentleman stated just a moment ago,
those who retire will get a raise In their
retirement because of the cost-of-living
escalator clause.
Mr. GROSS. No, I had not heard of
that. How do we go about that
I will not take the time of the House
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FOR
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS TO HAVE UNTIL
MIDNIGHT TO FILE CONFERENCE
REPORT ON S. 425, STRIP MINING
Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that the Committee on In-
terior and Insular Affairs may have until
midnight tonight to file a conference
report on S. 425, strip mining.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Speaker, I. wish
to announce that I missed the rollcall 641
on the bill H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of
1974. Had I been present, I would have
voted "aye."
TRIBUTE TO THE BLOUNT COUNTY
PATRIOTIC YOUTH FESTIVAL
(Mr. BEVILL asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his re-
marks, and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, last August
24, a unique patriotic rally to dramatize
what is good about America was held in
Blount County, Ala., which is In my con-
gressional district.
The program was planned and carried
out by young people from several high
schools in Blount County. The message
they brought was: get involved in poli-
tics, register to vote, and join in the
process of making decisions that move
the country.
The project proved to be a huge suc-
cess and has drawn praise from people
throughout the State of Alabama. Presi-
dent Ford sent a telegram of greetings
and support.
Representatives of the Patriotic Youth
Festival have been Invited by the White
House to come to the Nation's Capital
to present the resolution of patriotism
from the youth of Blount County.
In Washington Wednesday to present
the resolution to a representative of
President Ford were Steve Jones, presi-
dent of the student council of Oneonta
High School; Beverly Latham, festival
treasurer and function chairman.; Randy
Vaughn, author of the resolution and
Tri-State winner of the FFA public
speaking contest. Mr. Brice Marsh, who
assisted with the production of the festi-
val, his wife Mary, and 10-year-old
daughter, Terri, accompanied the group
to the White House.
The resolution that was presented
reads as follows:
A RESOLUTION FROM THE YOUTH OF BLOUNT
COUNTY, ALA., TO PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
and find out how we go about obtainia5g tse it hereby resolved that I stand with
renewed faith in America. I desire to re-
that, at the gentleman's leisure. kindle the spirit of patriotism and pride that
Mr. McFALL. I think it is automatic. has been tarnished by the apathy, distrust
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw and dishonesty that have become so apparent
my reservation of objection. in current events.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to We, the people, must share the responsi-
the request of the gentleman from Cali- , bility for the state in which we find our-
the re? selves. Only through our interest and in-
. volvement can we hope for an improvement
There was no objection. in our state of affairs. We must humble our-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9