DAILY DIGEST

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 40
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 10, 2002
• Sequence Number: 81
• Publication Date: November 21, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

3y/S
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDPrhy1075s2400M5e0r1-9
Der 21, 1974
Daily Digest
HIGHLIGHTS
Senate overrode Presidential vetoes of rehabilitation and freedom of infor-
mation bills.
House passed privacy bill.
House committees ordered reported four sundry measures, including tax re-
form bill and social services amendments.
Senate
Chamber Action
Routine Proceedings., pages S19761-S19783
Bills Introduced: Two bills and one resolution were
introduced, as follows: S. 4179 and 4180; and S. Con.
Res. 121. ? Pages 519764?S 19756
Bills Reported: Reports were made as follows:
S. 2743, establishing a 'program of loan guarantees
to enable independent refiners of crude oil to construct
or acquire new or expanded refining facilities in the
United States, with an amendment (S. Rept. 93-1293).
S.J. Res. 224, authorizing the President to proclaim
January of each year as "March of Dimes Birth Defects
Prevention Month," with amendments (S. Rept. 93-
1294).
S. 3202, extending coverage of the Farm Labor Con-
tractor Registration Act to inter- and intra-state farm-
workers, with an amendment (S. Rept. 93-1295).
Pages 519763?S 19764
Bill Re-referred: Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs was discharged from the further consideration
of S. 4070, to revise retirement benefits for certain em-
ployees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian
Health Service not .entitled to Indian preference, and
the bill was then re-referred to Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service. Page S 19865
Message From the House: Senate received one mes-
sage from the House today. Page S 19763
Measures Passed:
Freedom of information?veto override: Senate
considered House message on H.R. 12471, to amend the
Freedom of Information Act so as to facilitate freer
access to Government information, and, by 65 yeas t
27 nays, two-thirds of the Senators present and voti
having voted in the affirmative, the bill, on reconsid a-
tion, was passed, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding. ?The effect Of this action
makes this bill public law.
Pages S 17i3-5 1984,7' 19506-5 19823
Rehabilitation?veto override: Senate considered
House message on H.R. 14225, proposed Rehabilitation
Act Amendments of 1974, and, by 90 yeas to i nay, two-
thirds of the Senators present and voting having voted
in the affirmative, the bill, on reconsideration, was
passed, the objections of the President to the contrary
notwithstanding. The effect of this action makes this
bill public law. Pages S 19790--S 19806, $ 19823
Nuclear incidents: Senate took from calendar,
passed without amendment, and sent to the House S.J.
Res. 248, assuring compensation for damages caused by
nuclear incidents involving the nuclear reactor of a U.S.
warship. Page S 19824
Public Works Committee funds: Senate took from
calendar and agreed to S. Res. 428, authorizing an addi-
tional $51,000 for expenses of Committee on Public
Works. Page S 19825
Rules and Administration Committee funds: Sen-
ate took from calendar and agreed to S. Res. 435,
authorizing an additional $3o,000 for expenses of Corn-
-4444.e.i..04Jaaits and Administration.
Pages S 19825?S 19526
Privacy protection: By 74 yeas to 9 nays, Senate
passed S. 3418, to protect individual privacy in Federal
gathering, use, and disclosure of information, after
agreeing to committee amendments, to which Senate
had at first agreed to amendments as follows:
Adopted:
(i) A series of Ervin amendments of a clarifying and
perfecting nature; Page S 19830
(2) Muskie amendment making it a function of the
commission to prepare model legislation for use by
State and local governments; Page S 19837
(3) Goldwater amendment No. 1914, to prohibit any
government from denying an individual his rights
because of his refusal to disclose his social security
account number; and Vase $ 19845
D1281
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release IV
vember 21. 197 ?
D 1282
?'4) Weicker amendment relating to disclosure ex-
& ptions applicable to the Bureau of the Census; and
Page S 19851
(5) Biden amendment requiring :ommission to'sub-
nut any budget estimates or requests to the Congress as
yell as to the President or OMB. Page S 1985
Pages S 19823, S 19826-5 1
Wildlife Refuge System: Senal e took fr esk,
passed without amendment, and cleared f e White
House H.R. 17434, providing for rej1?cnt of lands
within the National Wildlife Refilige System that are
permitted to be used for right-of-way casements and
related purposes. Page S 19863
Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act: Senate took
from desk, passed without amendment, and cleared for
the White House H.R. 16757, to exte ad until August 31,
1(475 the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act.
Page S 19863
March of Dimes Birth Defects Prevention Month:
Senate passed with committee amendments and sent to
the House S.J. Res. 224, authorizing President to pro-
claim January of each year as "March of Dimes Birth
Defects Prevention Month." Page S 19865
Executive agreements: Senate took from calendar,
passed with committee amendment, and sent to the
House S. 3830, providing for congressional
executive agreements. Page S 19867
Tennessee Valley Authority: Ser ate insisted on
amendments to to H.R. 11929, to provide that expenditures
by the Tennessee Valley Authority for certified pollu-
tion control equipment be credited against required
payments to the Treasury, agreed to conference with
the House and appointed as conferees Senators Ran-
dolph, Montoya, Gravel, Baker, and Domenici.
Page S 19862
judicial Disqualification: Senate agreed to the House
amendments to S. 1064, to broaden and clarify the
ground for judicial disqualification, thus clearing the
measure for the White House. Pages 519862-5 19863
Federal Projects: Senate agreed to the House amend-
ment to S. 2299, expediting procedures to be followed
for projects drawing upon more than one Federal assist-
ance program, thus clearing the measure for the White
House. Pages $19863?S 19865
Rules of Evidence: Senate laid down for further con-
sideration tomorrow H.R. 5463, to establish rules of
evidence for certain courts and proceedings.
Pages S 19866?S 19867
Committee Authority to Report: Committee on
Commerce was authorized until November 27 to file a
report on S. 1988, to extend on an interim basis the
jurisdiction of the United States over certain ocean
areas and fish in order to protect the domestic fishing
industry. Page S 19865
Legislative Program: Leadership discussed Senate's
legislative program for tomorrow. Page S 19869
Record. Votes: Three record votes were taken todax..
Pages S 19823, $ 19856
rcgram for Friday: Senate met at noon and adjourned
at 5:34 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Friday, November 22,
when, after one special order for a speech and a period
for the transaction of routine morning business for not
to exceed 19 minutes, it will resume consideration of
H.R. 5463, to establish rules of evidence for certain
courts and proceedings. Pages S 19865 S 1986c
Cornmittee Meetings
(Committees not listed did not meet)
APPROPRIATIONS?AGRICULTURE
Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee, in execu-
tive session, approved for full committee consideration
1-LR. 16991, making appropriations for agriculture-
environmental and consumer protection programs for
fiscal year 1975.
Full committee will meet in executive session
tomorrow to consider this bill.
HOUSING
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Committee concluded oversight hearings on housing
programs for nonmetropolitan areas, after receiving
testimony from James Bostic, Jr., Deputy Assistant Sec-
retary for Rural Development, Department of Agricul-
ture; and Sheldon B. Lubar, Assistant Secretary for
Housing Production and Mortgage Credit, Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
REGULATORY REFORM
Committee on Commerce: Committee continued hear-
ings on S.J. Res. 253, to establish a national commission
to study and report on the impact of the independent
regulatory agencies upon commerce, after receiving
testimony from Senator Kennedy; Thomas E. Kauper.
Assistant Attorney General, Anti-Trust Division, De-
partment of Justice; Slade Gorton, Attorney General,
State of Washington, Olympia; Andrew Rouse, Insur-
ance of North America, Philadelphia, Pa.; Richard
Rosan, American Gas Association Legal Committee,
Arlington, Va.; Jack Pearce, Washington, D.C.; Peter
-Schuck, Consumers Union, Washington, D.C.; Robert
J. Stein, Standing Committee of the D.C. Bar on Public
Participation in Administrative Proceedings; Reuber
B. Robertson III, Public Citizen Litigation Group.
Washington. D.C.; and Lee Lane, representing the
Highway. Action Coalition, Environmental Action.
Sierra Club, and the Urban Environment Conference.
Hearings were recessed subject to call.
REGULATORY REFORM
Committee on Government Operations: Committee
began hearings on bills proposing reform of regulatory
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S, 19826, Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R00070015008 -9
in S. Res. 317, Ninety-third Congress, agreed
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE November 21, 1974
to ltfay 7, 1974.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD an excerpt from
the report (No. 93-1290), explaining the
purposes of the measure.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
Senate Resolution 435 would authorize
the Committee on Rules and Administra-
tion to expend from the contingent fund of
the Senate, during the 93d Congress, $30,000
in addition to the amount, and for the same
purposes, specified in said section 134(a).
Pursuant to Senate Resolution 317, agreed to
May 7, 1974, the Committee on Rules and
Administration received an additional $10,-
000 for such routine purposes. Approval of
Senate Resolution 435 would increase to
$40,000 the amount which that committee
could expend during the 93d Congress in ad-
dition to and for the same purposes as its
statutory $10,000 per Congress.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to move to reconsider en bloc the
votes by which the three measures were
passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I move to reconsider en bloc the votes by
'eewhich the thr measures were passed.
4rawismarParlailifflifft. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the motion to lay
on the table [Putting the question].
The motion was agreed to.
PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT OF
PRIVACY
The Senate continued with the consid-
eration of the bill (S. 3418) to establish
a Federal Privacy Board to oversee the
gathering and disclosure of information
concerning individuals, to provide man-
agement systems in Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and other
organizations regarding such informa-
tion, and for other purposes.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent on behalf of the Sen-
ator from Arkansas (Mr. McCLELLAN)
and of myself for the privilege of the
floor during consideration of S. 3418 and
voting thereon of Mr. Paul C. Summitt,
Dennis C. Thelan, J. C. Argetsinger, and
Douglas Marvin,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that during the
proceedings this afternoon on S. 3418 my
legal assistant, Terry Emerson, be al-
lowed the privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OrvICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that Robert B.
Smith, Jr., Al From, W. P. Goodwin, Jr.,
David Johnson Bob Vastine, M
ark
Bravin, Marilyn Harris, Wright Andrews,
Jim Davidson, Gretchen MacNair, Mark me
Gitenstein, W. Thomas Foxwell, and for
Elizabeth Preast of the staff of the Corn- of
mittee on Government Operations
allowed the privilege of the floor at
times during the consideration of S. 34
Including all votes thereon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Witho
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, S. 3418 w
originally introduced by myself with t
cosponsorship of the distinguished Se
ator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY) , the di
tinguished Senator from Maine (M
Musxtr), the distinguished Senator fro
Connecticut (Mr. RnzacoFr) , the disti
guished Senator from Washington (M
JACKSON) , the distinguished Senat
from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER) , and th
distinguished Senator from Tenness
(Mr. BARER).
Since that time the following Senators
have been made cosponsors of the bill:
the distinguished Senator from Tennes-
see (Mr. Bitocx) , the distinguished Sen-
ator from Michigan (Mr. HART) , the
distinguished Senator from California
(Mr. CRANSTON) , the distinguished Sen-
ator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) ,
the distinguished Senator from New York
(Mr. BUCKLEY) , the distinguished Sena-
tor from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY) ,
and the distinguished Senator from
Maryland (Mr. MATH/AS).
Mr. President, to facilitate the con-
sideration of the bill, I ask unanimous
consent that the committee amendment
of the Committee on Government Opera-
tions in the nature of a substitute be
agreed to and that the committee
amendment as agreed to be considered
original text for the purpose of further
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment in the na-
ture of a substitute is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and
insert:
be Chairman may designate an Acting Chair-
all man who may preside in the absence of the
18, Chairman). Each member of the Commis-
sion, including the Chairman, shall have
Ut equal responsibility and authority in all
decisions and actions of the Commission,
shall have full access to all information
as lating to the performance of his duties or
he responsibilities, and shall have one vote.
n- Action of the Commission shall be deter-
S- mined by a majority vote of the members
r. Present. The Chairman (or Acting Chairman)
m shall be the official spokesman of the Com-
n- mission in its relations with the Congress.
Government agencies, persons, or the pub-
r. lie, and, on behalf of the Commission, shall
or see to the faithful execution of the policies
e and decisions of the Commission, and shall
ee report thereon to the Commission from time
to time or as the Commission may direct.
(d) Each Commissioner shall be compen-
sated at the rate provided for under section
6314 of title 5 of the United States Code,
relating to level IV of the Executive Sched-
ule.
(e) Commissioners shall serve for terms
of three years. No Commissioner may serve
more than two terms. Vacancies in the
membership of the Commission shall be filled
in the same manner in which the original
appointment was made.
(f) Vacancies in the membership of the
Commission, as long as there are three Com-
missioners in office, shall not impair the
power of the Commission to execute the
functions and powers of the Commission.
(g) The members of the Commission shall
not engage in any other employment during
their tenure as members of the Commis-
sion.
TITLEE1I?PRIVACY PROTECTION
COMMISSION
ESTABLISHMENT OF COMM/SS/ON
SEC. 101. (a) There is established as an
independent agency of the executive branch
of the Government the Privacy Protection
Commission.
(b) (1) The Commission shall be composed
PERSONNEL OF THE COMMISSION
SEC. 102. (a) (1) The Commission shall
appoint an Executive Director who shall per-
form such duties. as the Commission may
determine. Such appointment may be made
Without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code.
(2) The Executive Director shall be com-
pensated at a rate not in excess of the
maximum rate for 05-18 of the General
Schedule under section 5332 of title 5,
United States Code.
(b) The Commission is authorized to ap-
point and fix the compensation of such of-
ficers and employees, and prescribe their
functions and duties, as may be necessary
to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(c) The Commission may obtain the serv-
ices of experts and consultants in accord-
ance with the provisions of section 3109 of
title 5, United States Code.
of five members who shall be appointed by s
consent of the Senate, from amond members
of the public at large who, by reason of their rec
knowledge and expertise in any of the fol- the
lowing areas: civil rights and liberties, law, und
social sciences, and computer technology, visi
eac
business, and State and local government,
are well qualified for service on the Com- utes
info
or employees of the United States, Not more viol
than three of the members of the Commis- any
sion shall be adherents of the same political
party. the
(2) One of the Commissioners shall be ap- trati
Con
pointed Chairman by the President;
invo
(3) A Commissioner appointed as Chair- whe
man shall serve as Chairman until the ex- (3
piration of his term as a Commissioner of plem
the Commission (except that he may con-
tinue to serve as Chairman for so long as ing
agen
ho remains a Commissioner and his successor ment
as Chairman has not taken office). An indi- (b)
vidual may be appointed as a Commissioner a Fe
at the same time he is appointed Chairman
(c) The Chairman shall preside at all (2) a
etings of the Commission and a quorum infor
the transaction of business shall consist tion
at least three members present (but the withi
the President, by and with the advice and (
FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION
EC. 103. (a) The Commission shall-
1) publish annually a United States Di-
tory of Information Systems containing
information specified to provide notice
er section 201(c) (3) of this Act for
h information system subject to the pro-
ons of this Act and a listing of all stat-
which require the collection of such
rmation by a Federal agency;
) investigate, determine, and report any
ation of any provision of this Act (or
regulation adopted pursuant thereto) to
President, the Attorney General, the
gress, and the General Services Adminis-
on where the duties of that agency are
lved, and to the Comptroller General
n it deems appropriate; and
) develop model guidelines for the im-
entation of this Act and assist Federal
cies in preparing regulations and meet-
technical and administrative require-
s of this Act.
Upon receipt of any report required of
deral agency describing (1) any ro
nformation system or data bank, or
fly significant expansion of an existing
mation system or data bank, integra-
of files, programs for records linkage
n or among agencies, or centralization
mission and who are not otherwise officers (2
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R0007001.50081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November 21, 1974 CONG:RESS1ONAL RECORD? SENATE
our first natclear powered merchant ship,
and became rear t of-the guarantee the United
States gave el** country with whom a bi-
lateral agreeme4 for its port of entry was
negotiated, The . has clearly adopted a
standard practice reactor accident liabil-
ity in every area cept nuclear powered
warships.
America's nuclear p ed submarines and
surface warships repre the most versatile
and patent element of ited States sea-
power. These ships op e at a higher
tempo than any other s s in the fleet.
Foreign port access is ther e essential to
efficient ship utilization an to provide a
place for the members of th rew ' to rest
from their demanding duty. ese ships
should not be denied access to ports of
our friends and allies over a leg uestion
for which there is a simple solu Cer-
tainly. the Joint Committee never ended
to interpose any legal difficulties the
nuclear fleet, which carries such a na nal
security burden on behalf of this co =-ry
and tee free world.
During the past decade, the nations
the world have begun to utilize nuclear-
powered generating stations in ever increas-
ing numbers. Following the lead of the
United States, these countries have enacted
national legislation to stipulate the liability
and Indemnity arrangements which will as-
sure prompt and adequate compensation for
nuclear damage in the event of a nuclear
accident involving their various nuclear fa-
cilities. Many of the laws extend the liability
provisions to include nuclear substances in
transit and to nuclear ships, both merchant
and warships, in the territorial waters or
ports of the country. "
The general standard of liability prescribed
in the various national legislation or inter-
national conventions relative to nuclear ac-
cidents is one in which the operator of a
nuclear installation is liable for resulting
damage without fault or negligence. This
standard is generally referred to as absolute
liability. Section 170 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, achieves an analo-
gous result by requiring waivers of available
defenses. The indemnity provisions of the
Act, however, do not etxend to U.S. nuclear
warships.
AE a result of national legislation or In-
ternational Conventions such as the Paris
Convention of Third Party Liability in the
Field of Nuclear Energy of July 29, 1960, as
amended, many nations have questioned the
United States concerning the liability of U.S.
nue:ear powered warships with respect to
a nuclear accident. Some have made a guar-
antee of absolute liability by the U.S. a pre-
requisite for nuclear powered warship port
visits to their country. Others have accepted
nuclear powered warships into their ports
in support of free world security interests,
but have indicated a strong desire for clari-
fication of this liability aspect. The good
'faith and ability of the United States to pay
claims for nuclear damage is not at issue.
Rather, foriegn governments have indicated
a desire to satisfy a national legislative re-
quirement or to avoid any possible question
over the liability aspects of a nuclear pow-
ered warship visit.
The ability of the Executive Branch to pro-
vide such a guarantee would greatly facilitate
the entry of nuclear powered warships, in
support of national policy, to_ foreign ports
throughout the world. However, existing U.S.
law does not_provide a basis to guarantee to
friendly foreign governments that the U.S.
will pay valid claims for nuclear damage in-
volving its nuclear powered warships
promptly and on a fair and equitable basis,
applying the same standard of absolute li-
ability used for other reactor applications.
The proposed resolution would accomplish
this purpose,
ANALYSIS OF IntorObED RESOLUTION
The intent of the Resolution is to enable
the 17.13. to give a straightforward unqualified
assnrance that any nuclear damages claims
invelving the reactor of a nuclear powered
warship would be handled on an absolute
liability basis regardless of whether or not
a foreign government had enacted legisla-
ticia to that effect. The normal exception
in the carie of damages incurred by acts of
wile or civil insurrection Is included. The
operative portion of the Resolution applies
to domestic as well as foreign accidents.
'rale Resolution would authorize the Presi-
deat and, in, turn, the Defense Department,
the necessary discretion on subsidiary as-
pects of settling claims. Specific terms and
coaditions contemplated include the follow-
ing:
(a) Designation of the Secretary of the
Navy as agent for administration, settlement,
and payment of claims submitted under this
resolution.
(b) Provision for a statute of limitations
for submission of claims.
(0) Provision to prevent a person or his
heirs or assignees from recovering damages
frem a nuclear accident which he inten-
tionally caused.
(d) Provision to exclude claims not direct-
related to nuclear damage. It is intended
tat claims not resulting from- the hazardous
erties of nuclear material will be treated
or ministered in the manner otherwise
pee bed or available for such claims. For
eeam a claim resulting from a collision
involv a nuclear powered warship but
which not result in a nuclear accident.
mould be ermined by application of a nor-
mai Habil standard. If, as a result of such
cellision an resultant damage, suit were
brought in A ralty in a U.S. court, proof
or fault on art of the United States
would have to established and the U.S.
Ciovernment woul e entitled to all exemp-
tions and limitati of liability extended
to other ship owners operators.
(e) Provision to ins that technical and
security information, ' = losure of which is
prohibited by U.S. statu or administrative
regulation, is not disclose to or exchanged
with unauthorized persons the course of
? Investigations or proceeding suiting from
a nuclear accident.
? (f) Provision to lake into count the
eariations in arrangements the has with
allies on the mechanics for hand claims
arising out of U.S. armed forces Sc ties in
neacetime, i.e.
(1) authorization, to reimburse- a
eign
country for a pro rata share, including
,af claims which are processed and se ri
_ather administratively or judicially by
foreign country according to its laws
regulations.
(2) alternatively, authorization to process
and pay meritorious claims directly to the
claimant up to full value of the claim.
(g) Authorization to use contingency
funds, in an amount not exceeding that
budgeted by the Department of Defense for
contingency payments for that fiscal year,
to pay meritorious claims.
scroacs OF FUNDS
The Resolution is intended strictly as a
claim.; settlement authority and does not
authorize any new funds. Nuclear powered
warships have art unparalleled safety record
and all possible precautions are taken to
reduce any possibility of a nuclear accident.
Since the likelihood of such an accident is
extremely remote, the committee does not
consider that there is a need to encumber
funds available to the President and the
agencies.
The Resolution would merely sanction the
use of available money to pay an. agreed set-
tlement and would indicate that the Ccn-
gress would not reject a request for addi-
tional appropriations simply because the case
was being disposed of on the basis of absolnte.
liability.
The Resolution would not alter agency
authority under existing claims _ settlement
and payment legislation. AU such authorities
S 19825
would remain intact. The authority tinder
the resolution would simply supplement that
provided by other legislation.
The resolution would not preclude the Con-
gress from questioning the amount of a
proposed settlement or the merits of the
findings on damages or causal connection, if
the Congress felt the agencies had not done
their job properly.
The Resolution avoids mentioning any par-
ticular dollar ceiling on the amount of US.
liability, It is important to be flexible on this
so that domestic needs are not governed by
practice in other countries. A specific stun
would serve only as a target, and the U.S.
Government has stated that it will take care
of whatever damage its ships cause. The ab-
sence of a figure does not jeopardize the con-
gressional role, since the Executive will nec-
essarily have to obtain congressional action
on payment of claims which exceed the con-
tingen.cy funds available to the Defense De-
partment.
COST OF LEGISLATION
In accordance with section 252(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Pub-
lic Law 91-510), the Joint Committee states
that this resolution does not authorize the
expenditure of any new funds, but merely
sanctions the use of contingency funds avail-
able within the Department of Defense, with
the understanding that separate congres-
sional authorization would be required for
payments in excess of such funds.
SUPPLEMENTAL EXPENDITURES BY
THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
WORKS
The resolution (S. Res. 428) authoriz-
ing supplemental expenditures by the
Committee on Public Works was consid-
ered and agreed to, as follows:
Resolved, That S. Res. 261, Ninety-third
Congress, agreed to March 1, 1974, Is amended
as follows:
In section 2, line 7, strike out "8744,900"
and insert in lieu thereof "$795,900", and
line 8, strike out "$20,000" and insert in lieu
thereof "$24,000".
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD an excerpt from the report
(No. 93-1289) , explaining the purposes
of the measure.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Senate Resolution 428 would amend Senate
lution 261, 93d Congress, agreed to
ch 1, 1974 (the annual expenditure-
au rization resolution of the Committee
on ' = ,lic Works), by increasing by $51,000--
from 744,900 to $795,900?funds available
to the mmittee for inquiries and investiga-
tions. I the $51,000 increase, $4,000 could
be expen d for the procurement of con-
sultants reasing funds available for that
purpose fro $20,000 to $24,000.
".
ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES BY
THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND
ADMINISTRATION
The resolution (S. Res. 435) authoriz-
ing additional expenditures by the Com-
mittee on Rules and Administration for
routine purposes was considered and
agreed to as follows:
Resolved, That the Committee on Rules
and Administration is authorized to expend
from the contingent fund of the Senate,
during the Ninety-third Congress, $30,000 in
addition to the amount, and for the same
purposes, specified in section 134(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1996, and
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
onember 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
of resoprces and facilities for data process-
ing, the Commission shall?
(A) review such report to determine (1)
the probable or potential effect of such pro-
posal on the privacy and other personal or
property rights of individuals or the con-
fidentiality of information relating to such
Individuals, and (11) its effect on the preser-
vation of the constitutional principles of
federalism and separation of powers; and
- (B) submit findings and make reCom-
mendations to the President, Congress, and
the General Service Adininistration concern-
ing the need for legislative authorization
and administrative action relative to any
such proposed activity in order to meet the
purposes and requirements of this Act.
(c) After receipt of any report required
under subsection (b), if the Commission de-
termines and reports to the Congress that a
proposal to establish or modify a data bank
or information system does not comply with
the standards established by or pursuant to
this Act, the Federal agency submitting such
report shall not proceed to establish or
modify any such data bank or information
system for a period of sixty days from the
date of receipt of notice from the Commis-
sion that such data bank or system does
not comply with such standards.
(d) In addition to its other functions the
Commission shall?
(1) to the fullest extent practicable, con-
sult with the heads of appropriate depart-
ments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the
Federal Government, of State and local gov-
ernments, and other persons in carrying out
the provisions of this Act and in conducting
the study required by section 106 of this Act;
(2) perform or cause to be performed such
research activities as may be necessary to
Implement title II of this Act, and to assist
Federal agencies in complying with the re-
quirements of such title; and
(3) determine what specific categories of
information should be prohibited by statute
from collection by Federal agencies on the
basis that the collection of such information
would violate an individual's right of privacy.
CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
SEC. 104. (a) Each department, agency, and
instrumentality of the executive branch of
the Government, including each independent
agency, shall furnish to the Commission, up-
on request made by the Chairman, such data,
reports, and other information as the Com-
mission deems necessary to carry out its
functions under this Act.
(b) In carrying out its functions and exer-
cising its powers under this Act, the Commis-
sion may accept from any Federal agency or
other person any identifiable personal data if
such data is necessary to carry out such
powers and functions. In any case in which
the Commission accepts any such informa-
tion, it shall provide appropriate safeguards
to insure that the confidentiality of such in-
formation is maintained and that upon com-
pletion of the purpose for which such in-
formation is required it is destroyed or re-
turned to the agency or person from which it
is obtained, as appropriate.
POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
SEC. 105. (a) (1) The Commission may, in
carrying out its functions under this Act,
conduct such inspections, sit and act at
such times and places, hold such hearings,
take such testimony, require by subpena the
attendance of such witnesses and the pro-
duction of such books, records, papers, cor-
respondence, and documents, administer
such oaths, have such printing and binding
done, and make such expenditures as the
Commission deems advisable. Subpenas shall-
be issued under the signature of the Chair-
man or any member of the Commission de-
signated by the Chairman and shall be served
by any person designated by the Chairman or
any such member. Any member of the Com-
mission may administer oaths or affirmations
to witnesses appearing before the Commis-
sion.
(2) In case of disobedience to a subpena
issued under paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion, the Commission may invoke the aid
of any district court of the United States
In requiring compliance with such subpena.
Any district court of the United States with-
in the jurisdiction where such person is
found or transacts business may, in case of
contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena is-
sued by the Commission, issue an order
requiring such person to appear and testify,
to produce such books, records, papers cor-
respondence, and documents, and any failure
to obey the order of the court shall he pun-
ished by the court as a contempt thereof.
(3) Appearances by the Commission under
this Act shall be in its own name. The Com-
mission shall be represented by attorneys
designated by it.
(4) Section 6001(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting im-
mediately after "Securities and Exchange
Commission," the following: "the Privacy
Protection Commission,".
(b) The Commission may delegate any of
its functions to such officers and employees
of the Commission as the Commission may
designate and may authorize such successive
redelegations of such functions as it may
deem desirable.
(c) In order to carry out the provisions of
this Act, the COmmission is authorized?
(1) to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and
regulations governing the manner of its op-
erations, organization, and personnel;
(2) to adept, amend, and repeal interpre-
tative rules for the implementation of the
rights, standards, and safeguards provided
under this Act;
(3) to enter into contracts or other ar-
rangements or modifications thereof, with
any government, any agency or department
of the United States, or with any person,
firm, asiociation, or corporation, and such
contracts or other arrangements, or modifi-
cations thereof, may be entered into without
legal consideration, without performance or
.other bonds, and without regard to section
3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended
(41 U.S.C. 5) ;
(4) to make advance, progress, and other
payments which the Commission deems
necessary under this Act without regard to
the provisions of section 3648 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529);
(5) receive complaints of violations of this
Act and regulations adopted pursuant there-
to; and
(6) to take such other action as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act.
COMMISSION STUDY or OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
SEC. 106. (a) (1) The Commission shall
make a study of the data banks, Automated
data processing programs, and information
systems of governmental, regional, and pri-
vate organizations, in order to determine the
standards and procedures in force for the
protection of personal information, and to
determine the extent to which those stand-
ards and procedures achieve the purposes of
this Act.
(2) The Commission periodically shall re-
port its findings to the President and the
Congress and shall complete the study re-
quired by this section not later than three
years from the date this Act becomes
effective.
(3) The Commission shall recommend to
the President and the Congress the extent,
if any, to which the requirements and princi-
ples of this Act should be applied to the
information practices of those organizations
by legislation, administrative action, or by
voluntary adoption of such requirements and
principles. In addition, it shall submit such
other legislative recommendations as it may
S 19827
determine to be necessary to protect the pri-
vacy of individuals while meeting the legiti-
mate needs of government and society for
inforniation.
(b) (1) In the course of such study and in
its reports, the Commission shall examine
and analyze?
(A) interstate transfer of information
about individuals which is being undertaken
through manual files or by computer or other
electronic or telecommunications means;
(B) data banks and information programs
and systems the operation of which signifi-
cantly or substantially affect the enjoyment
of the priinicy and other personal and prop-
erty rights of individuals;
(C) the use of social security numbers,
license plate numbers, universal identifiers,
and other symbols to identify individuals in
data banks and to gain access to, integrate,
or centralize information systems and files;
and
(D) the matching and analysis of statis-
tical data, such as Federal census data, with
other sources of personal data, such as auto-
mobile registries and telephone directories,
in order to reconstruct individual responses
to statistical questionnaires for commercial
or other purposes, in a way which results in
a violation of the implied or explicitly recog-
nized confidentiality of such information.
(2) The Commission shall include in its
examination information activities in the
followitg areas: medical, insurance, educa-
tion, employment and personnel, credit,
banking and financial institutions, credit
bureaus, the commercial reporting industry,
travel, hotel, and entertainment reservations,
and electronic check processing. The Com-
mission may study such other information
activities necessary to carry out the congres-
sional policy embodied in this Act, except
that the Commission shall not investigate
information systems maintained by religious
organizations.
(3) In conducting the study, the Commis-
sion shall?
(A) determine what laws, Executive orders,
regulations, directives, and judicial decisions
govern the activities under study and the
extent to which they are consistent with the
rights of privacy, due process of law, and
other guarantees in the Constitution;
(B) determine to what extent govern-
mental and private information systems
affect Federal-State relations or the prin-
ciple of separation of powers;
(C) conduct a thorough examination of
standards and criteria governing programs,
policies and practices relating to the collec-
tion, soliciting, processing, use, access, in-
tegration, dissemination, and transmission
of personal information;
(D) to the maximum extent practicable,
collect and utilize findings, reports, and rec-
omendations of major governmental legis-
lative and private bodies, institutions, orga-
nizations, and individuals which pertain to
the problems under study by the Commis-
sion; and
(E) receive and review complaints with
respect to any matter under study by the
Commission which may be submitted by any
person.
REPORTS
SEC. 107. The Commission shall, from time
to time, and in an annual report, report to
the President and the Congress on its activi-
ties in carrying out the provisions of this
Act.
TITLE II?STANDARDS AND MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS FOR HANDLING INFORMA-
TION RELATING TO INDIVIDUALS
SAFEGUARD REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE,
INTELLIGENCE, STATISTICAL-REPORTING, AND
RESEARCH PURPOSES
SEC. 201. (a) Each Federal agency shall?
(1) collect, solicit, and maintain only such
personal information as is relevant and
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19828
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE November 21,1974
necessary to accomplish a statutory purpose
of the agency;
(2) collect information to the greatest ex-
tent practicable directly from the subject
individual when the information may result
in adverse determinations about an indivi-
dual's rights, benefits, and privileges under
Federal programs; and
(3) inform any individual requested tc
disclose personal information whether that
disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by
what statutory authority it is solicited, what
uses the agency will make of it, what penal-
ties and specific consequences for the in-
dividual, which are known to the agency, will
result from nondisclosure, and what rules of
confidentiality will govern the information.
( b) Each Federal agency that maintains an
information system or file shall, with respect
to each such system or file?
(1) insure that personal information main-
tained in or disseminated from the system
or file is, to the maximum extent possible
accurate, complete, timely, and relevant is
tau needs of the agency;
(2) refrain from disclosing any such per-
sonal information within the agency othei
than to officers or employees who have a need
for such personal information in the per-
formance of their duties for the agency;
i3) maintain a list of all categories of per-
sons authorized to have regular access to
personal information in the system or file;
(4) maintain an accurate accounting or
tle date, nature, and purpose of all other
access granted to the system or file, and at
other disclosures of personal informatior.
made to any person outside the agency, or to
another agency, including the name and ad-
dress of the person or other agency to whom,
disclosure was made or access was granted,
except as provided by section 202(b) of this
Act;
,.5) establish rules of conduct and notify
and instruct each person involved in the de-
sign, development, operation, or maintenance
of the system or file, or the collection, use
maintenance, or dissemination of informa-
tion about an individual, of the requirements
of this Act, including any rules and proce-
dures adopted pursuant to this Act and the
penalties for noncompliance;
t 6) establish appropriate administrative,
technical and physical safeguards to insure
the security of the information system and
confidentiality of personal information and
to protect aaginst any anticipated threats or
hazards to their security or integrity which
could result in substantial harm, embarrass-
ment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any in-
dividual on whom personal information is
maintained; and
t 7) establish no program for the purpose
ct collecting or maintaining information de
scribing how individuals exercise righta
guaranteed by the first amendment unlesa
the head of the agency specifically deter-
mines that such program is required for the
administration of a statute 'Which the agency
1,3 charged with administering or imple.
rnenting.
(c) Any Federal agency that maintains an
information system or file shall?
(1) make available for distribution upon
the request of any person a statement of the
existence and character of each such system
or file;
(2) on the date on which this Act be-
comes effective and annually thereaftex,
notify the Commission and give public no-
tice of the existence and character of each
existing system or file simultaneously, and
cause such notice to be published in the
Federal Register; and
(3) include in such notices at least the
:following information:
(A) name and location of the system or
(B)
Ale;
nature and purposes of the system or
(C) categories of individuals on Whom
personal information is maintained and
categories of personal information generally
maintained in the system or file, including
the nature of the information and the ap-
proximate number of individuals on whom
information is mai ntained;
(D) the confidentiality requirements and
the extent to which access controls aPply to
such information;
(E) categories of sources of such per-
sonal information;
(F) the Federal agency's policies and prac-
tices regarding implementation of sections
201 and 202 of this Act, information storage,
duration of retention of information, and
elimination of such information from the
system or file;
(G) uses made by the agency of the per-
sonal information contained in the syitem
or file;
(H) identity of other agencies and cate-
gories of persons to whom disclosures of per-
sonal information are made, or to whom ac-
cess to the system or file may be granted,
together with the purposes therefor and the
administrative constraints, if any, on such
disclosures and access, including any such
constraints on redisclosure;
(I) procedures whereby an individual can
(1) be informed if the system or file con-
tains personal information pertaining to
himself or herself, (ii) gain access to such
information, and (ill) contest the accuracy,
completeness, timeliness, relevance, and
necessity for retention of the personal infor-
mation; and
(J) name, title, official address, and tele-
phone number of the officer immediately re-
sponsible for the system or file.
(d) (1) Each Federal agency that main-
tains an information system or file shall as-
sure to an individual upon request the fol-
lowing rights:
(A) to be informed of the existence of any
personal information pertaining to that
individual;
(B) to have full access to and right to in-
spect the personal information in a form
comprehensible to the individual;
(C) to know the names of all recipients of
information about suoh individual including
the recipient organization and its relai ion-
ship to the system or file, and the purpose and
date when distributed, unless such informa-
tion is not required to be maintained pur-
suant to this Act;
(D) to know the sources of the personal
information, or where the confidentiality of
such sources is required by statute, the right
to know the nature of such sources;
(E) to be accompanied by a person chosen
by the individual inspecting the information,
except that an agency or other person may
require the individual to furnish a written
statement authorizing discussion of that in-
dividual's file in the person's presence;
(F) to receive such required disclosures
and at reasonable standard charges for docu-
ment duplication, in person or by mail, if
upon written request, with proper identifica-
tion; and
(G) to be completely informed about the
uses and disclosures made of any such in-
formation contained in any such system or
file except those uses and disclosures made
pursuant to law or regulation permitting
public inspection or copying.
(2) Upon receiving notice that an individ-
ual wishes to challenge, correct, or explain
any personal information about him in a sys-
tem or file, such Federal agency shall comply
promptly with the following minimum
requirements:
(A) investigate and record the current
status of the personal information;
(B) correct or eliminate any information
that is found to be incomplete, inaccurate,
not relevant, not timely or necessary to be
retained, or which can no longer be verified;
(C) aocept and include in the record of
such information, if the investigation does
not resolve the dispute, any statement of
reasonable length provided by the individual
setting forth his position on the disputed in-
formation;
(12) in any subsequent dissemination or
use of the- disputed information, clearly re-
port the challenge and supply any supple-
mental statement filed by the individual;
(E) at the request of such individual, fol-
lowing any correction or elimination of chal-
lenged information, inform past recipients of
its elimination or correction; and
(F) upon a failure to resolve a dispute
over information in a system or file, at the
request of such individual, grant a hearing
before an official of the agency, which shall
be conducted as follows:
(1) such hearing shall be held within
thirty days of the request at which time the
individual may appeal with counsel, present
evidence, and examine and cross-examine
witnesses;
(1i) any record found after such a hearing
to be incomplete, inaccurate, not relevant,
not timely nor necessary to be retained, Or
which can no longer he verified, shall within
thirty days of the date of such findings be
appropriately modified or purged; and
(iii) the action or inaction of any agency
on a request to review and challenge per-
sonal data in its possession as provided by
this section shall be reviewable by the ap-
propriate United States district court.
(e) When a Federal agency provides by a
contract, grant, or agreement the specific
creation or substantial alteration of an in-
formation system or file and the primary
purpose of the grant, contract, or agreement
is the creation or substantial alteration of
such an information system or file, the
agency shall, consistent with its authority,
cause the requirements of subsections (a),
(b), (c), and (d) to be applied to such sys-
tem or file. In cases when contractors and
grantees or parties to an agreement are pub-
lice agencies of States or the District of Co-
lumbia or public agencies of political sub-
divisions of States, the requirements of
subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) shall be
deemed to have been met if the Federal
agency determines that the State or the Dis-
trict of Columbia or public agencies of po-
litical subdivisions of the State have adopted
legislation or regulations which impose simi-
lar requirements.
(f) (1) Any Federal agency maintaining or
proposing to establish a personal information
system or file shall prepare and submit a
report to the Commission, the General Serv-
ices Administration, and to the Congress on
proposed data banks and information sys-
tems or files, the proposed significant ex-
pansion of existing data banks and informa-
tion systems or files, integration of files,
programs for records linkage within or
among agencies, or centralization of re-
sources and facilities for data processing,
which report shall include?
(A) 'the effects of such proposals on the
rights, benefits, and privileges of the indi-
viduals on whom personal information is
maintained;
(B) a statement of the software and hard-
ware features which would be required to
protect security of the system or file and
confidentiality of information;
(C) the steps taken by the agency to
acquire such features in their systems, in-
cluding description of consultations with
representatives of the National Bureau of
Standards; and
(D) a description of changes in existing
interagency or intergovernmental relation-
ships in matters involving the collection.
processing, sharing, exchange, and dissemi-
nation of personal information.
(2) The Federal agency shall not proceed
to implement such proposal for a period of
sixty days from date of receipt of notice
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Noyember 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 19829
from the Commission that the proposal does
not comply with the standards established
under or pursuant to this Act.
(g) Each Federal agency covered by this
Act which maintains an information system
or file shall make reasonable efforts to serve
advance notice on an individual before any
personal information on such individual Is
made available to any 'person under com-
pulsory legal process.
(h) No person may condition the granting
or withholding of any right, privilege, or
benefit, or make as a condition of employ-
ment the securing by any individual of any
information which such individual may ob-
tain through the exercise of any right se-
cured under the provisions of this section.
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
SEC. 202. (a) No Federal agency shall dis-
seminate personal information tmless?
(1) it has made written request to the
individual who is the subject of the infor-
mation and obtained his written consent;
(2) the recipient of the personal informa-
tion has adopted rules in conformity with
this Act for maintaining the security of its
Information system and files and the con-
fidentiality of personal information contained
therein; and
(3) the information is to be used only for
the purposes set forth by the sender or the
recipient pursuant to the requirements for
notice under this Act.
(b) Section 201(b) (4) and section 202(a)
(1) shall not apply when disclosure would
be?
(1) to those officers and employees of that
agency who have a need for such informa-
tion in ordinary course of the performance
of their duties;
(2) to the Bureau of the Census for pur-
poses of planning or carrying out a census
or survey pursuant to the provisions of
title 13, United States Code;
(3) where the agency determines that the
recipient of such information has provided
advance adequate written assurance that the
information will be used solely as a statistical
research or reporting record, and is to be
transferred in a form that is not individually
identifiable; or
(4) pursuant to a showing of compelling
circumstances affecting health, safety, or
identification of an individual, if upon such
disclosure notification is transmitted to the
last known address of such individual.
(c) Section 202(a) (1), (2), and (3) and
pection 201(b)(4) shall not apply when
disclosure would be required or permitted
pursuant to subchapter n of chapter 5 of
title 5 of the United States Code (commonly
known as the Freedom of Information Act of
1966).
(d) Section 201(b) (4) and paragraphs (1),
(2), and (3) of subsection' (a) of this sec-
tion shall not apply when disclosure would
be to the Comptroller General, or any of his
authorized representatives, in the course
of the performance of the duties of the Gen-
eral Accounting Office. Nothing in this Act
shall impair access by the Comptroller Gen-
eral, or any of his authorized representatives,
to records maintained by an agency, includ-
ing records of personal information, in the
course of performance of such duties.
(e) (1) Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the efforts of the Govern-
ment pursuant to the provisions of chapter
36, title 44 of the United States Code( com-
monly known as the Federal Reports Act)
or any other statute, to reduce the burden
on citizens of collecting information by
means of combining or eliminating unneces-
sary reports, questionnaires, or requests for
information.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to affect restrictions on the exchange
of information between agencies as required
by chapter 35, title 44 of the United States
Code (commonly, known as the Federal
Reports Act).
(f) Subsection (a) (1) of this section shall
not apply when disclosure woulcl. be to
another agency or to an instrumentality of
any governmental jurisdiction for a law en-
forcement activity if such activity is au-
thorized by statute and if the head of such
agency or instrumentality has made a written
request to or has an agreement with the
agency which maintains the system or file
specifying the particular portion of the in-
formation desired and the law enforcement
activity for which the information is sought
ExElvIPTIONs
SEC. 203. (a) The provisions of section
201 (c) (3) (E), (d), and section 202, shall
not apply to any personal information con-
tained in any information system or file if
the head of the Federal agency determines,
in accordance with the provisions of this
section, that the application of the provi-
sions of any of such sections would seriously
damage national defense or foreign policy,
where the application of any of such provi-
sions would seriously damage or impede the
purpose for which the information is main-
tained.
(b) The provisions of section 201.(d) and
section 202 shall not apply to law enforce-
ment intelligence information or investiga-
tive information if the head of the Federal
agency determines, in accordance with the
provisions of any of such sections would
seriously damage or impede the purpose for
which the information is maintained: Pro-
vided, That investigative information may
not be exempted under this section where
such information has been maintained for
a period longer than is necessary to com-
mence criminal prosecution. Nothing in this
Act shall prohibit the disclosure of such
investigative information to a party in liti-
gation where required by statute or court
rule.
(c) (1) A determination to exempt any
such system, file, or information may be
made by the head of any such agency in
accordance with the requirements of notice,
publication, and hearing contained in sec-
tions 563 (b), (c), and (e), 556, and 557 of
title 5, United States Code. In giving notice
of an intent to exempt any such system, file,
or information, the head of such agency
shall specify the nature and purpose of the
system, file, or information to be exempted.
(2) Whenever any Federal agency under-
takes to exempt any inform'ation system, file,
or information from the provisions of this
Act, the head of such Federal agency shall
promptly notify the Commission of its in-
tent and afford the Commission opportunity
to comment.
(3) The exception contained in section
563(d) of title 5, United States Code (al-
lowing less than thirty days' notice), shall
not apply in any determination made or any
proceeding conducted under this section.
ARCHIVAL RECORDS
SEC. 204. (a) Federal agency records which
are accepted by the Administrator of Gen-
eral Services for storage, processing, and
servicing in accordance with section 3103 of
title 44, United States Code, shall, for the
purposes of this section, be considered to
be maintained by the agency which de-
posited the records and shall be subject to
the provisions of this Act. The Administra-
tor of General Services shall not disclose
such records, or any information therein,
except to the agency which maintains the
records or pursuant to rules established by
that agency.
(b) Federal agency records pertaining to
identifiable individuals which were trans-
ferred to the National Archives of the United
States as records which have sufficient his-
torical or other value to warrant their con-
tinued preservation by the United States
Government shall for the purposes of this
Act, be considered to be maintained by the
National Archives and shall not be subject
to the provisions of this Act except section
201(b) (5) and (6).
(c) The National Archives shall, on the
date on which this Act becomes effective
and annually thereafter, notify the Com-
mission and give public notice of the exist-
ence and character of the information sys-
tems and files which it maintains, and cause
such notice to be published in the Federal
Register. Such notice shall include at least
the information specified under section 201
(c) (3) (G), (I), and (J).
EXCEPTIONS
SEC. 205. (a) No officer or employee of
the executive branch of the Government
shall rely on any exemption in subchapter
II of chapter 5 of title 5 of the United States
Code (commonly known as the Freedom of
Information Act) to withhold information
relating to an individual otherwise access-
ible to an individual under this Act.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to permit the withholding of any personal
information which is otherwise required to
be disclosed by law or any regulation there-
under.
(c) The provisions of section 201(d) (1) of
this Act shall not apply to records collected
or furnished and used by the Bureau of the
Census solely for statistical purposes or as
authorized by section 8 of title 13 of the
United States Code.
MAILING LISTS
SEC. 206. (a) An individual's name and
address may not be sold or rented by a
Federal agency unless such action is spe-
cifically authorized by law. This provision
shall not be construed to require the con-
fidentiality of names and addresses other-
wise permitted to be made public.
(b) Upon written request of any indivi-
dual, any person engaged in interstate com-
merce who maintains a mailing list shall
remove the individual's name and address
from such list.
TITLE III?MISCELLANEOUS
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 301. As used in this Act?
(1) the term "Commission" means the
Privacy Protection Commission;
(2) the term "personal information"
means any information that identifies or
describes any characteristic of an individual,
including, but not limited to, his education,
financial transactions, medical history, crimi-
nal or employment record, or that affords a
basis for inferring personal characteristics,
such as finger and voice prints, photographs,
or things done by or to such individual;
and the record of his presence, registration,
or membership in an organization or activity,
or admission to an institution;
(3) the term "individual" means a citizen
of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted through permanent residence;
(4) the term "information system" means
the total components and operations, whether
automated or manual, by which personal in-
formation, including name or identifier, is
collected, stored, processed, handled, or dis-
seminated by an agency;
(5) the term "file" means a record or
series of records containing personal infor-
mation about individuals which may be
maintained within an information system:
(6) the term "data bank" means a file or
series of files pertaining to individuals;
(7) the term "Federal agency" means any
department, agency, instrumentality, or es-
tablishment in the executive branch of the
Government of the United States and in-
cludes any officer or employee thereof;
(8) the term "investigative information"
means information associated with an iden-
tifiable individual compiled by?
(A) an agency in the course of conducting
a criminal investigation of a specific criminal
act where such investigation is pursuant to
a statutory function of the agency. Such
information may pertain to that criminal act
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19830
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE November 21, 1974
and be derived from reports of informants
and investigators, or from any type of sur-
veillance. The term does not include criminal
history information nor does it include initial
reports filed by a law enforcement agency
describing a specific incident, indexed chron-
ologically and expressly required by State or
Federal statute to be made public; or
(B) by an agency with regulatory jurisdic-
tion which is not a law enforcement agency
in the course of conducting an investigation
of specific activity which falls within the
agency's regulatory jurisdiction. For the pur-
poses of this paragraph, an "agency with
rewilatory jurisdiction" is an agency which
is empowered to enforce any Federal statute
or regulation, the violation of which subjects
the violator to criminal or civil penalties:
(9) the term "law enforcement intelli-
gence information" means information asso-
ciated with an identifiable individual com-
piled by a law enforcement agency in the
course of conducting an investigation of an
individual in anticipation that he may com-
mit a specific criminal act, including infor-
mation derived from reports of informants,
investigators, or from any type of surveil-
lance. The term does not include criminal
history information nor does it include ini-
tial reports filed by a law enforcement agency
describing a specific incident, indexed chron-
ologically by incident and expressly required
by State or Federal statute to be made pub-
lic;
(10) the term "criminal history informa-
tion" means information on an individual
consisting of notations of arrests, deten-
tion.s, indictments, informations, or other
formal criminal charges and any disposition
arising from those arrests, detentions, indict-
ments, informations, or charges. The term
shall not include an original book of entry
or police blotter maintained by a law en-
forcement agency at the place of an original
arrest or place of detention, indexed chrono-
logically and required to be made public, nor
shall it include court records of public crim-
inal proceedings indexed chronologically; and
(11) the term "law enforcement agency"
means an agency whose employees or agents
are empowered by State or Federal law to
make arrests for violations of State or Fed-
eral law.
CRIMINAL PENALTY
SEC. 302. (a) Any officer or employee of
any Federal agency who willfully keeps an
information system without meeting the no-
tice requirements of this Act set forth in
section 201(0 shall be fined not more than
$10,000 in each instance or imprisoned not
more than five years, or both.
lb) Whoever, being an officer or employee
of the Commission, shall disseminate any
personal information about any individual
obtained in the course of such officer or em-
ployee's duties in any manner or for any
purpose not specifically authorized by law
shall be fined not more than $10,000, or im-
prisoned not more than five years, or both.
CIVIL REMEDIES
SEC. 303. (a) Any individual who is denied
access to information required to be disclosed
under the provisions of this Act may bring
a civil action in the appropriate district court
of the United States for damages or other
appropriate relief against the Federal agency
which denied access to such information.
."k ) The Attorney General of the United
States, or any aggrieved person, may bring
an action in the appropriate United States
district court against any person who has
engaged, is engaged, or is about to engage
in any acts or practices in violation of the
provisions of this Act, to enjoin such acts
or practices.
(c) Any person who violates the provisions
of this Act, or any rule, regulation, or order
issued thereunder, shall be liable to any
person aggrieved thereby in an amount equal
to the sum of-
(1) any actual damages sustained by an
indivichs,a1;
(2) punitive damages where appropriate;
and
(3) in the case of any successful action to
enforce any liability under this section, the
costs of the action together with reasonable
attorney's fees as determined by the court.
(d) The United States consents to be sued
under this section without limitation on the
amount in controversy.
JURISDICTION CF DISTRICT COURTS
Sac. 304. (a) The district courts of the
United States have jurisdiction to hear and
determine civil actions brought under section
303 of this Act and may examine the informa-
tion in camera to determine whether such
information or any part thereof may be with-
held under any of the exemptions in section
203 of this Act. The burden is on the Federal
agency to sustain such action.
(b) In any action to obtain judicial review
of a decision to exempt any personal in-
formation from any provision of this Act, the
court may examine such information in
camera to determine whether such informa-
tion or any part thereof is properly classified
with respect to national defense, foreign
policy or law enforcement intelligence in-
formation or investigative information and
may be exempted from any provision of this
Act. The burden is on the Federal agency
to sustain any claim that such information
may be so exempted.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 305. This Act shall become effective
one year after the.date of enactment except
that the provisions of title I of this Act shall
become effective on the date of enactment.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 306. There are authorized to be appro-
priated such sums as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions of this Act.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, after the
committee had reported the bill, the
committee staff worked out a number of
amendments with the Office of Man-
agement and Budget and also other
perfecting amendments which I send to
the desk at this time and ask they be
voted on en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report the amendments. '
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 26, line 21 immediately after the
period insert the following new sentence:
subpena shall be issued only upon an
affirmative vote of a majority of all mem-
bers of the Commission.".
On page 31, line 1, strike out "travel,
hotel, and entertainment res-" and insert
in lieu thereof "cable television and other
telecommunications media, travel, hotel,
and entertainment res-".
On page 33, line 10, strike out all after
"(1) " up to the semicolon on line 13, and
insert in lieu thereof the following: "insure
that personal information maintained in
the system or file is accurate, complete,
timely, and relevant to the purpose for
which it is collected or maintained by the
agency at the time any access is granted to
the file, material is added to or taken from
the file, or at any time it is used to make
a determination affecting the subject of the
file."
On page 34, line 22, strike out all that
follows through the period on line 24, and
insert in lieu thereof the following: "Such
information is relevant and necessary to
carry out a statutory purpose of the agency."
On age 37, line 13, strike out all through
the semicolon on line 17 and insert in lieu
thereof the following new subparagraph;
"(D) to know the sources of personal in-
formation (i) unless the confidentiality of
any source is required by statute, then the
right to know the nature of such source; or
(ii) unless investigative material used to de-
termine the suitability, eligibility, or qualifi-
cations for Federal civilian employment, mil-
itary service, Federal aontracts, or access to
classified information, is compiled by a Fed-
eral agency in pursuit of an authorized in-
vestigative responsibility, and in the course
of compiling such materials, information
prejudicial to the subject of the investiga-
tion is revealed through a source who fur-
nishes such information to the Government
under the express provision that the identity
of the source will be held in confidence, and
where the disclosure of such information
would identify and be prejudicial to the
rights of the confidential source, then the
right to know the nature of such information
and to examine that information if it is
found to be material or relevant to an ad-
ministrative or judicial proceeding by a Fed-
eral judge or Federal administrative officer.
Provided, that investigative material shall
not be made available to promotion boards
which are empowered to promote or advance
Individuals in Federal employment, except
when the appointment would be from a non-
critical to a critical security position."
On page 38, line 15, after "relevant" strike
the comma and insert the following: "to
a statutory purpose of the agency,",
On page 39, line 5, strike out all after "(F)"
through line 8, and insert in lieu thereof the
following. "Not later than sixty days after
receipt of notice from an individual making
a request concerning personal information,
make a determination with respect to such
request and notify the individual of the de-
termination and of the individual's right to
a hearing before an official of the agency
which shall if requested by the individual,
be conducted as follows:".
On page 39, line .9, immediately after "hear-
ing" insert "shall be conducted in an expe-
ditious manner to resolve the dispute
promptly and".
On page 39, line 10, strike out "at which
time" and insert the following:
"and, unless the individual requests a for-
mal hearing, shall be conducted on an in-
formal basis, except that".
On page 39, line 11, strike out "appeal"
and insert in lieu thereof "appear".
On page 39, line 22, immediately after
"reviewable" insert "de novo".
On page 39, between lines 23 and 24, in-
sert the following: "An agency may, for good
cause, extend the time for making a determi-
nation under this subparagraph. The indi-
vidual affected by such an extension shall be
given notice of the extension and the reason
therefore."
On page 39, line 25, immediately after
"agreement" insert "for", and.
On page 40, line 1, immediately before "of"
insert ", or the operation by or on behalf
of the agency".
On page 40, line 2, strike out "or" the
second time it appears and insert in lieu
thereof a comma.
On page 40, line 3, immediately after
"alteration" insert ", or the operation by or
on behalf of the agency".
On page 42, line 19, strike out "or the
recipient".
On page 42, line 21, strike out "201(b) (4)
and section".
On page 43, line 6, strike out "research
or reporting" and insert in lieu thereof "re-
porting or research".
On page 43, line 10, strike out "safety, or
identification" and insert in lieu thereof "or
safety".
On page 43, line 13, strike out all through
the period on line 17.
On page 43, line 18, strike out "(d)" and
Insert in lieu thereof "(c)".
On page 44, line 1, strike out "(e)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(d) ".
On page 44, line 12, strike out "(f)" and
-insert in lieu thereof " (e) ".
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
It
November 21,APE4oved
On page 45, line 2, strike out the comma
end insert in lieu thereof "or".
On -page 45, line 10, after the colon insert
the following: "lerovided that investigatory
records shall be exempted only to the extent
that the production of such records would
(A) interfere with enforcement proceedings,
(B) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial
or an impartial adjudication, (C) disclose
the identity of a conlIciential source, and in
the case of a record compiled by a criminal
law enforcement authority in the course of a
criminal investigation, or by an agency con-
ducting a lawful national security intelli-
gence investigation, confidential information
furnished only by the confidential source,
(E) disclose confidential investigative tech-
niques and procedures which are not other-
wise generally known outside the agency, or
(F) endangers the life or physical safety of
lew enforcement personnel." _
On page 47, line 7, Strike out "section
201(c)(3) (0), (/), and (J)" and insert in
lieu thereof -"sections 202(c) (3) (A), (B),
(a). (F), (F), (0), (I), and (5)."
On page 47, between lines 23 and 24, insert
the following new subsection:
"(d) The provisions of this Act shall not re-
quire the disclosure of testing or examination
material used solely to determine individual
qualifications for appointment or promotion
in the Federal service if the disclosure of such
material would compromise the objectivity
or fairness of the testing or examination
process.".
On page 48, between lines 8 and 9, insert
the following new section:
REGULATIONS
Sec. 207. Bach Federal agency subject to
the provisions of this Act shall, not later
than Six months after the date on which this
Act becomes effective, promulgate regula-
tions to implement the standards, safe-
guards, and access requirements of this title
and. Such other regulations as may be nee?u
essary to implement the requirements of this
Act.
On page 52, line 5, strike out "$10,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$2,000."
On page 52, line e, strike out "five" and
insert in lieu thereof "two".
On page 52, lines 22 and 23, strike out "has
engaged, is engaged," and insert in lieu
thereof "is engaged."
On page 53, line 1, strike out "Any" and
all that follows through "liable" on line 3,
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"The United States shall be liable for the
actions or omissions of any officer or em-
ployee of the Government who violates the
provisions of this Act, or any rule, regula-
tion, or order issued thereunder in the Same
manner and to the same extent as a private
individual under like circumstances".
On page 53, line 12, immediately after the
period insert the following: "A civil action
against the United States under subsection
(c) of this section shall be the exclusive
remedy for the wrongful action or omission
of any officer or employee."
On page 47, between lines 23 and 24, in-
sert the following; -
(d.) "The provisions of this Act, with the
xeeption of Sections 201(a) (2), 201 (b) (2),
(3), (4), (5), (6), end (7), 203(c) (2), 201(c)
(3) (A), (B), (D), and (F), and 202(a) (2)
and (3) shall not apply to foreign intelli-
gence information systems or to systems of
personal information involving intelligence
sources and methods designed for protection
from unauthorized disclosure pursuant to 50
ti.S.C.A. 403."
Ifmgs0a/AVA :161&51137.111M1pAilV00700150081-9
Mr. ERVIN. I might state to the Sen-
ate that none of these amendments
makes any fundamental alteration in the
bill. They merely clarify certain sections
and make certain adjustments to satisfy
some of the requests made by the Office 15. This section requires that agencies die- pelting circumstance affecting the health or
of Management anApptilaited For ReIec2O21Oftl28cf OWRIDPMMOOS27R00.03700160081e9the file, As reported.
The amendments were agreed to en
bloc.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I yield to
the distinguished Senator from Connect-
icut with the understanding I do not
thereby lose my right to the floor.
Mr. WEICKER, Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Bob
Dotchin, Geoffrey Baker, and John Har-
vey of my staff be permitted the priv-
ilege of the floor during debate on this
matter.
The PRESIDING OVVICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WEICKER. I thank the distin-
guished Senator.
The PRESIDING 010FICER. The Sen-
ator from North Carolina.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent to insert in the RECORD at
this point a memorandum which explains
in detail the amendments to the bill that
the Senate has just adopted.
There being ...no objection, the memo-
randum was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL PR/VACT ACT
Attached are both technical and substan-
tive Committee amendments to S. 3418 which
have been drafted since this legislation was
reported August 20 by the Committee on
Government Operations. These amendments
reflect an effort to Improve S. 3418 and in
part are based upon suggestions offered by
OMB director, Roy Ash in a letter to Senator
Ervin dated September 18, 1974.
TECHNICAL AND SUBSTANTIVE COMMITTEE
AMENTMENTS
I. Section 105(a) (1) on page 20, line 21.
It was intended in the bill as reported by
the Government Operations -Committee that
no subpoena -shall be issued by the Federal
Privacy Protecton Commission unless it was
approved by a majority vote by all members
of the Commission. While this point was
covered indirectly in another section govern-
ing action by the Commission, it was felt
necessary to clear up any ambiguity with an
amendment which speefierilly states that re-
quirement.
2. Section 201(b) (1) on page 33, line 10.
As reported the bill requires that informa-
tion maintained in agency systems or files
be accurate, complete, timely, and relevant.
Under these standards agencies would be
required to search through all of their files
and clean out any "dirty", inaccurate, or ir-
relevant,material. In order to reduce the cost
and administrative burden of such a require-
ment this amendment proposes to require
the "cleaning up" of files at the time any
access is granted to a file, material is added to
or taken from a file, or at any time the file is
used to make a determination affecting the
subject of the file. '
There may be an Administration amend-
ment which would seek to require the clean-
ing up of files only at the time a determina-
tion is made affecting the subject of the file?
a much weaker standard than proposed here.
3. Section 201(b) (7) on page 34, line 22.
This section would prohibit agencies from
establishing programs to collect or maintain
information about how individuals exercise
First Amendment rights. An` exception is
provided if an agency head specifically deter-
mines that the program is required for flee
administration of a statute which the agency
is charged with administering. It seemed that
a much tighter standard would be that used
throughout the rest of the Act which would
permit an exception only when "such in-
formation is relevant and necessary to carry
out a statutory purpose of the agency."
4. Section 201(d) (1) (D) on page 37, line
S 19831
unless the. confidentiality of such sources Is
required by statute. In any other instance.
however, agencies would be required under
this Act to make available to the subject of
the file any comments by third parties and
identify those third parties in the record.
While this requirement is not without merit
the Civil Service Commission and other seen-
ofee express concern that confidentiality is
necessary in soliciting candid comments dur-
ing background investigations of persons to
determine their suitability for employment
for military service, to receive Federal con-
tracts or to gain access to classified materials.
Should it be decided that protection is
needed for certain third party comments, the
attached amendments include a fairly re-
strictive draft amendment which would, in
a case where disclosure of third party infor-
mation would identify and be prejudicial to
the rights of the confidential source, permit
the subject of the file to know only the
nature of the information provided. How-
ever, if the information were to be found
material or relevant to an administrative or
judicial proceeding the judge or federal ad-
ministrative officer could make it available
to the subject of the file. A further proviso
would require that such Investigative ma-
terial could not be made available to pro-
motion boards unless the appointment under
consideration would be from a non-critical
to a critical security position.
5. Section 201(d) (2) (F) on page 39, line 5.
As the bill was reported, there was no time
limit for the agency to respond to an initial
request for information about Ills file. This
amendment would set a limit for sixty days
after receipt of notice from an individual re-
questing certain personal information for
the agency. to make a determination with
respect to such request and notify the in-
dividual whether the agency will provide the
information and of his right to a hearing
Within the agency.
6. Section 201(d) (2) (F) on page 39, lines
9 and 10. These amendments require the
agency to conduct hearings in an expeditious
manner and permit the individual to request
either a formal or informal bearing before
the agency regarding requests to challenge
certain information within a file.
7. Section 201(d) (2) (r)(1.11.) on page 39,
line 22. This amendment provides for a Fed-
eral district court to review a petition to
challenge personal data in a de sWIX) pro-
ceeding. This is a -technical amendment?
albeit an important one?since it has always
been assumed that appeals would be de ?MVO
in fact was so discussed in the Committer!
report. The actual wording 'was merely lef
out of the final draft.
8. Section 201(e) on page 40, line 1. It was
felt that an amendment was needed to per-
mit agencies to extend the safeguards of this
Act to those private or State and local gov-
ernment contractors or grantees, in those
limited situations covered by the bill where
the contract or grant is for the ,specific pur-
pose of creating or altering an information
system, to the additional case where the con-
-tract or grant might specifically be for the
operation by or on behalf of the agency. Ap-
parently, Federal agencies do contract with
private firms on a regular basis for the use
of data processing and information facilities
and this coverage Is therefore necessary.
9. Section 202(h) on page 42, line 21. Striee
out the words "2(11(b) (4) and Section". V11-
der this general section, an agency would
have to obtain the consent of an individual
before it could transfer information out of
its files about that individual to offices and
employees of the agency in the ordinary
course of their duties; to the Bureau of the
Census to carry out a census or survey under
the provisions of its act; where advance writ-
ten notice has been obtained that the infor-
rrmtion provided will be used only as a
statistical record; or whether it is a core-
S 19832
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENA
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M
the bill would also excuse the agency in the
aforementioned circumstances from record-
ing the persons or agencies to whom the in-
formation was distributed. On reflection, it
was determined that this would not, be a
clQsirable feature and that all disclosures of
information outside of the file should be
recorded.
10. Section 203(b) on page 45, line 10. In
the bill as recorded criminal investigative
information would have had to be released
after a period necessary to commence crimi-
nal prosecution. It was felt that the language
of the Hart Amendment, adopted when the
Congress passed the recent Amendments to
the Freedom of Information Act, was a much
more specific and carefully drawn provision .
for the ultimate release of criminal investi-
gative records and that its language be sub-
stituted here since it lead already received
Justice Department approval.
11. Section 205 on page 47, between lines
23 and 24. The civil service Commission has
made what appears to, be a reasonable request
that the Act not permit the disclosure of
testing or examination material used solely'
to determine qualifications of an individual
for appointment or promotion in the Federal
service. In those instances where the dis-
closure of that material would compromise
the testing of examination process?in other
words, where the release of test scores would
permit the transfer of that information out-
side an agency and require the frequent
changing of Civil Service Commission exams.
12. Section 207. This would be a new sec-
tion adding a specific requirement that Fed-
eral agencies subject to the: provisions of this
Act, within six months after the date on
which the Act becomes effective?this would
be one year and six months after the bill is
required pro-
Senator Muskies contributions to the
the bill have been invaluable. He and his
able staff on the Subcommittee on In-
tergovernmental Relations have been
largely responsible for the reasonable
and sensible approach that is embodied
in the bill before us today.
Of course, Praise must go to all mem-
bers of the Committee on Government
Operations. Without their many valu-
able contributions, we would have been
unable to develop the sensible bill that
the committee reported unanimously to
the Senate.
Mr. President, S. 3418 establishes a
Federal Privacy Commission and pro-
vides for safeguards and standards which
Federal agencies must follow in the col-
lection, maintenance, and dissemination
of information about individual Ameri-
cans.
The bill applies to the departments
and agencies of the Federal executive
branch.
In addition, a department or agency
may apply its provisions to a personal
data bank or a personal information
system which is specifically created or
substantially altered 'through a grant,
contract, or agreement with that depart-
ment or agency.
The reforms wrought by S. 3413 have
been a long time coming. This is true de-
spite the fact that the principles it im-
plements, of fair, honest, and responsible
behavior by Government toward its citi-
signed into law?would be to
zens, are those recognized values of
mulgate regulations to implement the stand- ' Western jurisprudence and democratic
ards, safeguards, and access requirements of
the Act.
13. Section 303(c) on page 53, line 1 and
on page 53, line 12. As it is now drafted, the
civil liability under the Act runs against an
individual employee of a Federal agency who
might violate the provisions of the Act or a
rule issued thereunder. It has been suggested
that this is an unusual provision and that
civil liabilities should run only against the
agency itself. An individual suing under the
Act, however, should be able to recover both
actual and general damages and there should
be included a provision for liquidated dam-
ages of say $1,000 into the assessed against
the agency for a violation of the Act.
Mr. President, I think this
iilassended by the amendments just
adopted-Has well as by the committee
e, constitutes landmark legisla-
tion.
Mr. President, S. 3418 represents the
culmination of many months of work by
the Committee on Government Opera-
tions to fashion legislation that will
guarantee the rights of all Americans
with respect to the gathering, use, and
disclosure of information about them by
the Federal Government. I might also
add inferentially that this bill also rep-
resents the culmination of many years
of work by the Judiciary Subcommittee
on Constitutional Rights.
A debt of gratitude is owed to two
members of the committee in particu-
lar--Senator Panay of Illinois, the rank-
ing minority member, and Senator
liusauE of Maine, the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental
Reiations.
Senator PEP.CY supplied much of the
initiatve behind the introduction of the
constitutional government. More impor-
tant, they are the principles upon which
our own Constitution rests. Their re-
statement as legislative guarantees are
vital today.
Somehow, the varied and wide-rang-
ing functions which have been thrust
very rapidly upon the Federal manage-
ment machinery of an earlier time, have
left great loopholes for the gathering,
use and disclosure of Information about
Americans in ways and for reasons that
should give us serious pause. The advent
of computer technology and new ways
of information storage and sharing
which have made it possible for govern-
ment to provide new service's and to carry
out new programs, have also encouraged
the extension of some practices of doubt-
ful wisdom or constitutionality. These
practices have been sanctioned or tole"-
rated by administrations regardless of
the party in power. For this reason the
concern over the resulting threats to
freedom has brought complaints to Con-
gress from Americans in all walks of life.
These complaints have been examined
by congressional committees, special
Government studies, commissions,
boards, and groups. They have been ex-
amined by private organizations and
professional ? associations. Throughout
our land, the subject of privacy has been
debated as it applies for all citizens and
as it applies to the needs of special
groups.
Mr. President, it is my opinion that
there is very little left to debate. I believe
S. 3418 contains the minimum recom-
mendations inade for protecting privacy
and for establishing constitutional rules
Li
November 21, 1974,
00527R000700150081-9
This bill provides an information bill
of rights for the citizen and a code of
fair information practice for the depart-
ments and agencies of the executive
branch. There have been many bills in-
troduced to protect the Privacy of certain
groups of citizens. S. 3l1a is legislation
aimed at protecting the privacy of all
Americans, whenever the Federal Gov-
ernment collects, keeps, or uses personal
information from or about them.
Although many witnesses have said
that the disclosures of Watergate high-
lighted the need for this bill, the com-
mittee report makes clear that the bill is
based on long-standing complaints of
governmental threats to privacy which
will haunt Americans in the years ahead
unless this legislation is enacted.
According to the report of the Govern-
ment Operations Committee, the pur-
pose of the bill is to:
Promote governmental respect for the pri-
vacy of citizens by requiring all depart-
meats and agencies of the executive branch
and their employees to observe certain con-
stitutional rules In the computerization,
collection, management, use and disclosure
of personal information about individuals.
It is to promoto accountability, respon-
sibility, legislative oversight, and open gov-
ernment with respect to the use of com-
puter technology in the personal informa-
tion systems and data banks of the Federal
government and with respect to all of its
manual or mechanized files.
It is designed to prevent the kind of il-
legal, unwise, over-broad, investigation and
record surveillance of law-abiding citizens
which has resulted in recent years from
actions of some over-zealous investigators,
from the curiosity of some government ad-
ministrators, and from the wrongful dis-
closure and use of personal files held by
Federal agencies.
It is to prevent the secret gathering of
information- or the creation of secret in-
formation systems or data banks on Amer-
icans by employees of the departments and
agencies of the Executive branch.
It is designed to set in motion a long-
overdue evaluation of the needs of the Fed-
eral government to acquire and retain per-
sonal information on Americans, by requiring
stricter review within agencies or criteria
for collection and retention of such informa-
tion.
It is also to promote observance of valued
principles of fairness and individual privacy
by those who develop, operate and adminis-
ter other major Institutional and organiza-
tional data banks of government and society.
The bill accomplishes these purposes
In five major ways:
First, title I of the bill establishes an
independent Privacy Protection Commis-
sion with subpena power and authority
to receive and investigate charges of vio-
lations of the act and report them to the
proper officials; to develop model guide-
lines and assist agencies in implementing
the act; and to alert the President and
Congress to proposed Federal informa-
tion programs and data banks which de-
viate from the standards and require-
ments of the act.
The Commission is also directed to
make a study of the major data banks
and computerized information systems
of other governmental agencies and of
private organizations and to recommend
any changes in the law governing their
practices, including the application of all
bill and much of tile mAniipiom? behind or Governinent,'.s.u.sejaf coonotOsteoh- ern oad of his lislation in order to
its development in the r Keistast4/29NRWA/41fiti COAe P76M00t5URKOILK110,00128t1A3individual.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Ncivember 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S 19833
SecOnd, it requires agencies to give de-
tailed notice of the nature and uses of
their personal data, banks and informa-
tion systems and their computer re-
sources. It requires " the new Privacy
Commission to maintain and publish a
directory for the public of Federal data
banks and personal information systems,
a citizen's guide to personal files; to ex-
amine executive branch proposals for
new personal data banks and systems,
and to report to Congress and the Presi-
dent if they adversely affect privacy and
individual rights. It penalizes those who
keep secret such a personal information
system or data bank.
Third, the bill establishes certain mini-
mum information-gathering standards
for all agencies to protect the privacy and
due process rights of the individual and
to assure that surrender of personal in-
formation is made with informed con-
sent or with some guarantees of the uses
and confidentiality of the information.
To this end, it charges agencies to do
the following things:
To collect, solicit, and maintain only
personal information that is relevant
and and necessary for a statutory pur-
pose of the agency;
To prevent hearsay and inaccuracies
by collecting information directly from
the person involved as far as practicable;
To inform people requested or required
to reveal information about themselves
whether their disclosure is mandatory or
voluntary, what uses and penalties are
Involved and what confidentiality guar-
antees surround the data once Govern-
ment acquires it; and
To establish no program for collecting
or maintaining information on how peo-
ple exercise first amendment rights
without a strict reViewing process based
on a statutory duty.
Fourth, title II of the bill establishes
certain minimum standards for handling
and processing personal information
maintained in the data banks and sys-
tems of the executive branch; for pre-
serving the security of the computerized
or manual system; and for safeguarding
the confidentiality of the information.
To this end, it requires every department
and agency to insure, by whatever steps
they deem necessary:
That the information they keep, dis-
close or circulate about citizens is as ac-
curate, complete, timely and relevant to
the agency's needs as possible.
That they refrain from disclosing it
within an agency unless necessary for
employee duties, or from making it avail-
able outside the agency without the con-
sent of the individual and proper guar-
antees for confidentiality, unless pur-
suant to open records laws or unless it
is for certain law enforcement or other
purposes which are cited in the bill.
That they establish rules of conduct
with regard to the ethical and legal obli-
gations of all employees and others in-
volved in handling personal data, and
take action to instruct all employees of
such duties and of the requirements of
this act.
That they issue appropriate adminis-
trative orders, provide personnel sanc-
tions, and establish appropriate tech-
nical and physical safeguards to insure
the security of the information systems
and the confidentiality of the data.
That they not sell or rent the names
and addresses of people whose files they
hold.
That a person may, upon request, have
his or her name removed from a mailing
list maintained by a private organiza-
at agencies make an effort to notify
organiza-
tion.
a person before surrendering personal
data in response to compulsory legal
process.
That they take positive steps to assure
that the technological features of their
automated data systems reflect the needs
of Government to prevent unauthorized
access and dissemination.
That they report to the Commission
and to Congress when they propose cen-
tralizing computer resources and: facili-
ties involving storage, processing, or use
of personal information.
Fifth, to aid in the enforcement of
these legislative restraints, the bilt pro-
vides administrative and judicial ma-
chinery for oversight and for civil rem-
edy of violations. To this end, the bill
gives the individual the rights, *ith cer-
tain exceptions, to be told upon request
whether or not there is Government in-
formation on him or her, to have access
to it to determine its accuracy and rele-
vance, and to challenge it with a hearing
upon request, and with judicial review
in the Federal court?section 201(d).
The provisions of title III establish
judicial remedies for the enforcement of
the act through the courts by individuals
and organizations in civil actions chal-
lenging denial of access to personal in-
formation or through civil suits by the
Attorney General or any aggrieved per-
son to enjoin violations of the act.
Mr. President, Senate Report No.
93-1183 contains a section-by-section
analysis of the provisions of the bill. I
commend this analysis to critics of this
proposal.
I believe the committee's careful ex-
planation of the background and pur-
pose of the text of the bill provides a sat-
isfactory response to most questions
about the effect of the bill.
In many instances, this language re-
flects testimony and advice from wit-
nesses, expert consultants, and advisers,
as well as consultation with agencies and
groups concerned about the possible im-
pact of the legislation.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH VIEWS
The bill has been revised to deal with
some legitimate problems raised by some
private organizations and by some de-
partments and agencies of the executive
branch.
Despite these extensive revisions, some
In the Federal Government still see legal
ghosts. From the administration's
lengthy list of objections to S. 3418, it
almost appears that nothing but deletion
of the major provisions of the bill will
satisfy some people in the executive
branch.
Mr. Philip Buchen testified before the
committee on behalf of the White House
Domestic Council on Privacy. The bur-
den of his testimony was that the prob-
lems of privacy and confidentiality are
so varied and complex that they are be-
yond the legislative capacities of Con-
gress to address in a comprehensive bill
Imposing similar standards on all agen-
cies.
I disagree with those who hold this
, view. I believe the need has been demon-
strated for a rule of law concerning the
technology, policies, and practices of
Government which affect the freedoms
of Americans.
The committee asked the Office of
Management and Budget for a report on
S. 3418. They replied with a draft of a
bill which represented their approach to
these "complex" matters, by doing little
more than affording the individual the
opportunity to challenge inaccurate in-
formation used to make a decision about
the person.
Mr. President, the committee response
to the administration views and to this
counterproposal from the Office of Man-
agement and Budget is set forth in the
committee report on page 16 as follows:
The Committee is convinced that effective
legislation must provide standards for and
limitations on the information power of
government. Providing a right of access and
challenge to records, while important, is
not sufficient legislative solution to threats
to privacy. Contrary to the views of Admin-
istration spokesmen, it is not enough to
tell agencies to gather and keep only data
which is reliable by their rights for what-
ever they determine is their. intended use,
and then to pit the indivdual aganst govern-
ment, armed only with a power to inspect
his file, and a right to challenge it in court
if he has the resources and the will to do
so.
To leave the situation there -is to shirk
the duty of Congress to protect freedom
from the incursions by the arbitrary exer-
cise of the power of government and to pro-
vide for the fair and responsible use of that
power. For this reason, they Committee deems
especially vital the restrictions in section 201
which deal with what data are collected and
by what means. For this reason, the estab-
lishment of the Privacy Commission is es-
sential as an aid to enforcement and over-
sight.
Mr. President, a month after this bill
was unanimously approved by the Gov-
ernment Operations Committee, we re-
ceived a second communication concern-
ing S. 3418 from Mr. Roy Ash, Director
of the President's Office of Management
and Budget. He expressed concern about
the wisdom of passing the bill in its
present state.
His first objection was to the cover-
age of the bill to State and local govern-
ment and the private sector. This cover-
age has now been deleted.
His second objection was that the cre-
ation of an independent agency to im-
plement the act was unnecessary and
counterproductive, and would fragment
responsibility. He advised us to delete
title I of the bill establishing the Privacy
Commission, and "thus let the agencies
police themselves."
It is, however, the judgment of the
committee that such a Commission is
necessary to assist in implementing the
bill, to police violations, and to assist
both Congress and the executive branch
in controlling the Federal Government's
incursions of the privacy of Americans.
Clearly, responsibility could not be more
fragmented than has been-demonstrated
in recent years. The Commission's efforts
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19834
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE November 21, 174
would coordinate efforts to protect pri-
vacy and would develop the kind of sys-
tematic reporting and information to
allow all branches of Government and all
levels of government to perform the
duties assigned them by the constitutions
and laws of this country.
The White House also objected to sec-
tion 201(a) (3) which requires the de-
partment or agency to tell the person
requested or ordered to disclose informa-
tion, whether that disclosure is manda-
tory or voluntary, what penalties or con-
sequences will result from nondisclosure,
and what confidentiality rules will gov-
ern the response.
Administration spokesmen felt this
would have "the adverse effect of en-,
couraging coercive data-gathering prac-
tices by emphasizing the penalties of not
answering a request."
In my view, this argument is on a par
with old-fashioned horsetrading. I be-
lieve the committee has answered it at
length on pages 48 and 49 of the corn-
mietee report.
The administration also objected to
section 201(b) (1) which established for
the first time a standard for all depart-
ments and agencies in the quality of
their management of personal records.
It Is a management principle which has
been largely ignored in the rapid growth
of the Federal Government's size and
services. With the intense efforts by the
General Services Administration and the
Office of Management and Budget to
create uniform standards and to extend
automation of records in all agencies,
there is an immediate need for such a
legislative mandate so that admin-
istrators make such considerations an
essential element of management for all
records systems. It is no longer sufficient
to wait until one individual file is pro-
duced for the purpose of making a de-
cision on one individual. There is some-
thing more than efficiency at stake here.
The ease of producing computer print-
outs with information about many peo-
ple, the technological ease of producing
"enemies lists" from great masses of
stored information, should give serious
pause to those who agree too quickly
with the White House argument.
The administration has also objected
to section 201f) (1) requiring reporting
of proposed data banks on people and
proposed sharing and centralizing of
computer facilities. They urge instead,
"that agencies be held accountable by a
system of public scrutiny, for assuring
that privacy concerns are assessed be-
fore any personal record-keeping sys-
tem is implemented." They claim that
regulations to this effect are being de-
veloped by the Domestic Council Privacy
Committee. It is clear that public scru-
tiny is not sufficient to protect our con-
stitutional liberties in the face of the
complex scientific and administrative
problems which make it difficult for any-
one other than an expert in this field to
understand what is going on until it is
almost too late.
President Ford himself, as Vice Presi-
dent, explained the dangers to freedom
when agencies are left to their own pur-
suits where computers and data are In-
volved. He has stated about the recent
proposal for Vr.a.)NET:
I am concerned that Federal protection if
Individual privacy is not yet developed to the
degree necessary to prevent FEDNET from
being used to probe into the lives of indi-
viduals. Before building a nuclear reactor,
we design the safeguards for its use. We also
require environmental impact statements
specifying the anticipated effect to the reac-
tor's operation on the environment. Prifir
to approving a vast computer network affect-
ing personal Lives, we need a comparable
privacy impact statement. We must also con-
sider the fallout hazards of FEDNET to tradi-
tional freedoms.
I think this is too vital an issue to be
left to an ad hoc committee of the Do-
mestic Council. It is a matter in which
Congress has the duty and the right to
establish the procedures for effective
oversight and for accountability to the
rights of the American people.
Mr. President, the background of this
legislation, going back many years, is de-
scribed in the committee report. It is also
set forth in the two volumes of the pub-
lished hearings conducted by the Govern-
neent Operations ad hoc Subcommittee
on Information Systems and the Ji-
dietary Subcommittee on Constitutionals.
Rights.
I might state that there have never
been more complete hearings held on any
legislative proposal than have been held
by the subcommittees.
The support for this legislation is
found in these hearings and in the in-
vestigations conducted over many years
by the Subcommittee on Constitutional
Rights, whose members have diligently
and patiently pursued governmental in-
vasions of privacy wherever they arose.
Mr. President, pages 3 through 17 of
the committee's report describe the back-
ground of this legislation and sets forth
some examples of unwarranted invasions
of privacy.
I wish to direct attention to a clerical
error in the report on page 13 in the see-
tion entitled, "First Amendment Pro-
grams: The Army."
The first sentence should read:
Section 201(b) (7) prohibits departments
and agencies from undertaking programs for
gathering information on how people exer-
cise their First Amendment rights unless
certain standards are observed.
Mr. President, S. 3418 as reported by
the Committee on Government Opera-
tions represents a very sensible approach
to the protection of the individual right
of privacy with respect to information
collected, used, and maintained by the
Federal Government. It represents an
important first step in the protection of
our individual right to be left alone, and
I strongly urge all Senators to vote for
this important legislation.
Mr. President, I would like to express
my appreciation for the outstanding
work of the staff of the Committee on
Government Operations In perfecting
this bill. Robert Bland Smith, Jr., the
chief counsel and staff director, and
J. Robert Vastine, the minority counsel,
exerted formidable leadership over the
efforts of the staff. They were extremely
Instrumental in securing consideration of
this bill by the committee.
They were assisted most admirably by
Jun Davidson, counsel to the Subcom-
mittee on Intergovernmental Relations;
W. P. Goodwin, Jr., counsel to the com-
mittee; and W. Thomas Foxwell, the
committee's staff editor who had the
burden of producing the voluminous
printed record of the bill compiled by the
committee.
Marcia J. MacNaughton, the commit-
tee's chief consultant on this bill?who,
incidentally, spent several years on the
staff of the Subcommittee on Constitu-
tional Rights?and Mark Bravin, special
consultant to the minority, made monu-
mental contributions to the bill. Al From,
aide to Senator MUSKIE, was also of great
assistance to the committee.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, in 1890,
Louis Brandeis wrote an historic essay for
the Harvard Law Review. In that essay
he noted that an advancing communica-
tions technology imperiled the individ-
ual's right of privacy. Brandeis pointed
to the development of the telephone and
the snapshot camera as mechanical de-
vices that would seriously and irrevoca-
bly alter a person's fundamental right
to be let alone. He warned legislators and
legal scholars of his time that a "next
step" was needed toi, protect that right.
That "next step" is long overdue.
Today, 84 years later, now that we
have very sophisticated electronic bug-
ging devices, we have computers, the
type of devices Brandeis probably never
even conceived of, I hope that we are
prepared to take that next step by pass-
ing legislation to safeguard privacy.
Communications technology has now
achieved a speed and facility that far
outstrips anything Brandeis may have
dreamed possible. It is increasingly ap-
parent that in the long series of techno-
logical breakthroughs that have made the
gathering, use and trading of personal
data both efficient and economical, priv-
acy safeguards have simply not kept pace.
This has resulted in a tremendously in-
creased potential for damaging misuse of
personal information, and burgeoning
abuses of our privacy.
Today, almost every fact about us is on
file somewhere in this country. Federal
census surveys record our household,
family, and personal lives. The Internal
Revenue Service gathers our income tax
data. Motor Vehicle Registries keep track
of our driving records and automobile
ownership. Credit card files reveal how
we spend our money and credit reporting
companies monitor how we pay our bills.
Hospital and physician files register in-
timate facts about our physical and men-
tal well-being. Police agencies account
for our dealings with the law and law
enforcement agencies. Schools retain
teachers' comments and records of our
academic achievement and social adjust-
ment. The list may be virtually endless
because new systems of files are constant-
ly being created.
In and of itself, any one of these per-
sonal files is not particularly ominous.
Most people readily accept the fact that
data gathering systems are necessary to
our institutions if they are to keep pace
with the complex needs of a modern
society. Without records there would be
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
chaos. The real problem comes, however,
when these information systems are
linked with one another and are
used to exchange information without
the knowledge or consent of the individ-
uals concerned. When personal data col-
lected by one organization for a stated
purpose is used and traded by another
organization for a completely unrelated
purpose, individual rights could be seri-
ously threatened.
I hope that we never see the day when
a bureaucrat in Washington or Chicago
or Los Angeles can use his organization's
computer facilities to assemble a com-
plete dossier Of all known information
about an individual. But, I fear that is
the trend. Many of our Federal agencies
have become omniverous fact collectors?
gathering, combining, using, and trading
information about persons without re-
gard for his or her rights of privacy. Si-
multaneously, numerous private institu-
tions have also amassed huge files and
information retrieval systems containing
millions of files of unprotected informa-
tion on millions of Americans. Our abil-
ity as ? individuals to control access to
personal information about us has all but
completely faded.
To illustrate our inability to control
personal data, consider the term "data
banks." This metaphor is really inappro-
priate. Unlike the usual banks where an
Individual generally has the sole right to
determine the contents of his accounts,
the contents of a data bank are seldom
deposited exclusively by the individual
and they seldom, if ever, can be with-
drawn by him. Instead, information is
collected from multiple sources by
numerous organizations and it is drawn
upon by whoever purchases or otherwise
acquires access to it.
Unlike our personal bank statement
which is checked for inaccuracies at
least monthly by us and as often as daily
by the institutions who keep our ac-
counts, our data bank accounts are
seldom if ever checked for accuracy and
completeness.
Thus the individual is not the de-
positor, not the beneficiary, and not the
guardian of personal information stored
In a data bank. He is given little or no
opportunity to see the information kept
on him, and only rarely can he challenge
the accuracy of that information. And
yet this same information is used by all
manner of organizations to make im-
portant decisions that may personally
affect him. This must be corrected.
Where personal rights, benefits, privi-
leges and opportunities are determined
by the contents of an individual's file, he
should be given the rights necessary to
assure these determinations are based
upon accurate up-to-date and relevant
information. He should be kept fully
aware of the uses to which personal data
he is asked to disclose will be used. And
this includes knowing what organiza-
tions will have access to his file and
knowing the purposes for which they
will use his data.
We have the opportunity here today to
make an important beginning. The bill
we are about to debate directs Federal
employees to treat personal files with
respect. Federal agencies are given a
mandate to hold open public hearings to
establish, rules to protect the con-
fidentiality of personal information they
maintain. These open proceedings are
an essential means of obtaining the
Input of trained privacy experts and
private citizens, to assure that agency
rules are responsible and equitable. Once
these rules are determined, all Federal
employees involved in the design and
operation of systems of records on indi-
viduals must be trained to understand
and to obey these rules.
When substantial changes or entire
new computer systems are proposed by an
agency, careful attention must at least
be paid to their potential impact on per-
sonal privacy. These proposals must be
evaluated by the Administration, by
Congress and by privacy experts before
they are so far along that they cannot be
stopped even if they pose a serious and
unwarranted threat to our personal
privacy. If a proposal does not comply
with the privacy standards in this act or
with the privacy regulations of the
agency involved, it will be set aside for
60 days. This will afford Congress and re-
sponsible executive branch officials an
opportunity to decide what additional
safeguards are needed or whether the
project should be halted completely. Our
proposed oversight mechanism is de-
signed to force adequate consideration by
Federal agencies of the privacy impact
of their proposals. President Ford has
strongly endorsed this analysis of new
systems. It is intended to give high
visibility to the trend toward more cen-
tralized files and to permit us to make
informed decisions about our informa-
tion practices in this country.
S. 3418 will cause the Federal Govern-
ment to exercise caution and a new bal-
anced judgment when considering pro-
posals to implement new computer data
systems and new techniques for han-
dling personal information. This is essen-
tial to the broader purposes of the bill,
which must be emphasized. First, the
bill establishes legal rights that permit
the individual to exercise considerable
control over his personal data. These
rights are given substance through a
carefully drawn set of information man-
agement requirements for Federal agen-
cies backed by court review and enforce-
ment. These individual rights and their
corresponding agency requirements have
been carefully studied by an impressive
number of organizations, both in and
out of Government. The chief recommen-
dations of the 1973 HEW privacy report,
perhaps the most widely cited of all pri-
vacy studies, have been embodied in
S. 3418.
To understand how our bill provides
these rights to every individual, I think
we might consider a hypothetical exam-
ple. Let us suppose, once S. 3418 is put
Into effect, that an individual hears
about an information system called the
National Driver Register. He could con-
sult the U.S. Directory of Information
Systems, which must be compiled by the
Privacy Commission, and learn that this
particular data system is maintained by
the Department of Transportation.
Reading the directory he would learn
that this particular information system
S 19835
holds approximately 3,300,000 files on
persons whose licenses have been denied,
suspended, or revoked in any State. He
could See that the main office of the sys-
tem is located here in Washington and
he would find the name, address, and
telephone number of the Department of
Transportation official directly respon-
sible for the maintenance and activity
of the system. He would also find other
pertinent facta about these files includ-
ing why they are kept, what they are
used for, and who has access to them.
Let us now suppose that this individual
wants to know whether his name is in
the National Driver Register or in other
files kept by the Department of Trans-
portation. Following procedures ex-
plained in the information systems direc-
tory, he could write to the Secretary of
Transportation or the appropriate official
In that Department and ask what files
exist on him. Their reply must include
a complete list of all files about him.
Then, if he wishes, he may request to
see his file. He may be required to pay
for the production of copies if he wants
them, but the fee can be no greater than
the actual cost of reproduction.
" Suppose that the DOT file indicates
a conviction for a drunken driving of-
fense for which he was actually ac-
quitted. In this case, the individual can
ask the Department of Transportation
to investigate the facts and make neces-
sary corrections. If he gets no satisfac-
tion from the Department within a rea-
sonable period of time, he can demand
an informal or formal hearing before
the Agency. If even the hearing fails to
resolve the dispute to his satisfaction,
the individual may appeal his case to a
district court of the United States. If
the court decides in his favor, it may
direct the Department to take appro-
priate corrective action and it may award
damages to him, including reasonable
attorney's fees.
Mr. President, these are the steps that
our bill entitles a person to take to cor-
rect inaccurate or,incomplete data kept
about him by a Federal agency. This il-
lustration demonstrates that the bill re-
quires the Federal Government to be re-
sponsive to the rights of privacy and
confidentiality. We cannot and do not
allow an individual to be caught up in an
endless struggle with the Federal bu-
reaucracy to enforce these rights. This is
the first and most important contribu-
tion of S. 3418.
Another major purpose of S. 3418 is to
establish a nonregulatory Commission.
The Commission will perform two cucial
roles, both as an adviser to Federal agen-
cies who must implement this legisla-
tion, and as an adviser to Congress, rec-
ommending legislative solutions to the
chief privacy problems of the private
sector.
I believe that the Commission is a nec-
essary part of this legislation, even
though there has been strong contro-
versy about its advisability. Our Federal
agencies have expanded their informa-
tion-gathering and surveillance activities
to such an extent that they pose serious
threats to our basic privacy rights. Un-
til the agencies develop and adopt ade-
quate rules and procedures, effective
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19836 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE November 21, 1974
oversight can and must be performed by
experts who understand the technology
and yet who are sensitive to the basic
question of how to safeguard privacy.
This is a central reason for establishing
the Commission. Equally important, I
believe, is the need to develop effective
s,olutions to privacy problems outside the
realm of the Federal Government. This
effort requires a concentration of talent
and attention in a single unit. It also re-
quires a clear mandate and adequate
power to seek access to files, plans, and
computer facilities. We have granted the
Commission a limited authority to con-
duct studies and make recommendations
to Congress and to the President. If this
authority is exercised fully and properly,
major questions of policy will be resolved
by the Commission years before Congress
could act through the committee hearing
process.
An example of this need for the Com-
mission to make informed policy de-
cisions involves what I believe to be one
of the most important symbols of the
trend toward centralized records. I am
speaking of the growing abuse of the so-
cial security number, for purposes com-
pletely unrelated to the social securit'Y
system. The senior Senator from Arizona
ME. GOLDWATER, and I have introduced
an amendment to S. 3418 to curb the
expanding use of the social security
number as a universal identifier, a single
number that identifies each of us unique-
ly for all purposes. We are joined by the
distinguished senior Senator from Wash-
ington, Mr. MAGNUSON. Our amendment
will make it unlawful for any govern-
mental body at the Federal, State, or lo-
cal level to deny any person a right, ben-
efit, or privilege simply because that in-
dividual does not want to disclose his
social security number. The amendment
also prohibits discrimination against a
person in any business or commercial
dealing because he chooses not to dis-
close his number. What we propose is to
phase in restrictions so that any new use
of the social security number initiated
after January 1, 1975, will be subject to
this amendment. Existing uses of the
number will be allowed to continue pend-
ing the recommendations resulting from
the formal study of the issue required of
the Privacy Commission. But we must
hold the problem to a constant size to
permit this study to be complete and
balanced.
Mr. President the connection between
the social security number and privacy is
not at all obscure. Our number is used
much as our name to identify us and to
index our personal data. A striking ex-
ample is contained in a report issued last
year by the Federal Trade Commission.
This report contains a formal Commis-
sion interpretation on the sale of lists
of individual credit ratings in what are
called credit guides. These published
credit guides, according to, the FTC
demonstrate a lack of "respect for the
consumer's right to privacy" and there-
fore constitute a violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
The FTC opinion goes on to say that
although publication of an individual's
name together with his credit rating is
an unacceptable invasion of privacy, it is
:xrfectly permissible to publish the credit
information together with individual so-
cial security numbers. I cannot under-
3tand how it is less of an invasion of pri?
vacy to use the social security number
in this situation, especially when the
number is so widely accessible.
Other examples exist in which an indi-
vidual is actually deprived of the right to
vote in a State or Federal election or to
register for a driver's license if he refuses
to disclose his social security number.
There is the case of a telephone compary
in the Rocky Mountain area that has
charged its customers a higher phone
rate for failgre to supply that number.
Many of these coercive efforts to force an
individual to supply this personal infor-
mation have no basis in law. They cer-
tainly fly in the face of recommendations
of the Social Security Administration
and HEW and they defy my understand-
ing of what is reasonable. Senator GOLD-
WATER and I have thus included a provi-
sion in our amendment that requires any
government or private organization that
requests an individual to disclose his so-
cial security number to inform that indi-
vidual whether that disclosure is man-
datory, or voluntary, by what statutory
or other authority the number is solic-
ited, what uses will be made of it, and
what rules of confidentiality will gov-
ern it.
This provision is identical to a pararel
provision in S. 3418. It is designed to pro-
mote openness by removing the element
of intimidation from requests for per-
sonal data. It is intended to give back to
each of us the freedom to choose the
recipients and the circumstances in
which our personal information is dis-
closed.
Mr. President, this bill is directly re-
sponsive to the publicly stated priorities
of President Ford. Last March, the Presi-
dent promised delegates to the National
Governors' Conference that action was
soon to come. In June, he called for con-
gressional action this year to pass a pri-
vacy bill. And on August 12 before a joint
session of Congress, President Ford said:
There will be hot pursuit of tough laws to
prevent illegal invasions of privacy in both
government and private activities.
Mr. President, the bill we have before
us today is tough, yet reasonable. It is
the product of years of research, both in
and out of Government, and it is the
product of several thousand man-hours
of drafting effort by our staff, by the ad-
ministration, and by a wide variety of
private organizations. This bill is cer-
tainly not the final word on privacy.
There will be additional laws needed to
solve particular problems in such areas
as medical files, records of scientific and
statistical research, and credit files. But
this bill is a historic beginning, a be-
ginning which we owe in very great part
to the distinguished Senator from North
Carolina, Senator Eavnkr, who has de-
voted so much of a remarkable career to
protecting personal freedoms.
In closing I would particularly like to
commend the initiative of Robert Smith,
chief counsel of the committee, and
Robert Vastme, chief counsel to the
minority, in expediting consideration of
this bill. It was introduced as late as
May 1 this year, and hearings were held
on June 18. We have moved with de-
liberate speed to produce a carefully
drafted bill. A great deal of the credit
for this solid workmanship goes to Mark
Bravin, of the minority staff, and James
Davidson, of the majority staff, who
made an especially important contribu-
tion to this effort. Marcia McNaughton
and Marilyn Harris, both of the majority
staff, each played an important role in
preparation of this bill for our consider-
ation today.
I might say also it is one other cap-
stone that Senator ERVIN places on a very
distinguished career of service to the
American people.
Mr. ERVIN. I commend the Senator
from 'Illinois on the fine work that he
did in this field. No Senator has been
more interested in this subject or has
devoted more hard work and study for
this in the Senate bill and it merits the
thanks of the American people for his
services in respect to this.
Mr. President, as chairman of the Sub-
committee on Constitutional Rights of
the Committee on the Judiciary, as well
as the chairman of the Committee on
Government Operations, I have studied
this problem of privacy for many years,
have conducted many hearings on the
subject, have had the benefit of wise
counsel of many experts in this field, and
have read in large part the voluminous
literature which has grown up around
the question of privacy.
I think that this bill, in its present
form, is about as fine a piece of legisla-
tion as can be drawn on this subject
until we have the Privacy Board's experi-
ence to assist us in further refining the
law.
I yield to the distinguished Senator
from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTLS. I thank the distinguished
Senator.
Mr. President, I wish to commend my
distinguished friend for the thorough-
ness with which he has gone into this
subject. It is a matter that merits the
attention of the Congress. I wish to ask
a question or two concerning the Bureau
of the Census.
The junior Senator from Nebraska
receives many compliments about the
conduct of the Bureau of the Census.
They sent out questionnaires consisting
of many, many pages. Apparently, it is a
selected list; it is not part of the 10-year
enumeration. It asks for all sorts of in-
formation. Our citizens have two com-
plaints against it. One is that it invades
privacy. It asks all kinds of questions
about their manner of living.
The second complaint is that it takes
hours and hours to fill out the question-
naires, and there is a penalty imposed,
a rather stiff penalty, if it is not filled
out and returned.
Does this proposal repeal any of those
laws that permit that?
Mr. ERVIN. Yes; I am glad that the
Senator from Nebraska has called the
attention of this Senator to this problem.
I might state that, as he, I have received
letters over the years.
In addition to that, I introduced a bill
at one time to require the Bureau of the
Census, when they send out a question-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Navember.21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 19837
naire, to advise the person to whom it is
sent whether it is mandatory for him to
answer it or not. I was unable to get that
bill passed.
There is a provision of law that if one
fails to give the Bureau of the Census
Information which they are required by
law to collect, he is guilty of a criminal
offense and can be sent to jail for a rela-
tively short period of time. As the Sena-
tor from Nebraska has indicated, the Bu-
reau of the Census, on far too many occa-
sions, sends out questionnaires about
things that it is not required to investi-
gate by law, and they fail to tell the peo-
ple that they are not required to answer
them.
I have had small businessmen in North
Carolina inform me that they have been
compelled on occasion to pay out sub-
stantial sums of money and devote many
man-hours to answering these question-
naires, when, as a matter of fact, under
the law, the Bureau of the Census has no
right to compel them to answer. This bill
deals with the subject by saying that no
agency of the Government is allowed to
solicit information from the American
people unless the securing of such in-
formation is reasonable and necessary to
enable an agency to perform some func-
tion that the law imposes upon it.
It further provides that when an
agency, such as the Bureau of the Cen-
sus, sends out a questionnaire, it must
Inform the people to whom the ques-
tionnaire is directed whether or not it
is a mandatory or a voluntary question-
naire, and whether or not they are
obliged by law to answer it. That will
take care of the situation in large meas-
ure that the Senator is concerned about. I
share his concern.
Mr. CURTIS. On every inquiry I have
ever made, they come back and say that
it is mandatory and threaten the people
with punishment for not filling it out. It
has nothing to do with the 10-year cen-
sus. It is a total invasion of people's
privacy.
Furthermore, it costs a lot of time and
money to comply.
Mr. ERVIN. The Bureau of the Cen-
sus, a few years ago, sent out a ques-
tionnaire to selected lawyers through-
out the United States, just because some
official Of the American Bar Association
suggested that it would be desirable for
the American Bar Association to have
the information. They wanted to know
how much of a lawyer's practice was
civil, how much was criminal, how much
was counseling, and they wanted to know
what he paid the secretaries, and things
like that. They had no power to send out
that questionnaire. This bill will put an
end to that kind of questionnaire, be-
cause they have to tell the people wheth-
er they are required to answer it and
under what law.
Mr. CURTIS. If the Senator will yield
further, I shall submit another example.
Fortunately, in this case, the Govern-
ment bureau retreated and discontinued
the practice.
The Committee on Finance has had
the matter before it many times con-
cerning the qualifications of individuals
who assist citizens in making out their
tax returns. The problem is very narrow.
It consists of a not-too-large number of
fly-by-night operators that advertise
that they will save so much money on
one's taxes. That is what the Committee
on Finance had in mind when they
talked about it.
It ended up in practice that the In-
ternal Revenue Service moved into a
small community in the State of Ne-
braska. This town has less than 1,500
people. It has a very distinguished law-
yer there. They came into his office and
asked to see his flies concerning every
Income tax he had made out. Then the
Government proceeded to contact every
one of his clients.
Nebraska is a very law-abiding State.
People have respect for their Govern-
ment. All they had to do to ruin this fine
citizen was to state that the Government
of the United States was investigating
his practice, interviewing every one of his
clients. He was an upright, law-abiding
citizen of excellent reputation.
He secured a lawyer. I was advised of
the matter. It was taken up with the In-
ternal Revenue Service, and they dis-
continued it entirely. But we are not
always that lucky. I have never gotten
the Bureau of the Census to discontinue
anything.
I wish there were something a little
more specific here that really clips their
wings and provides that when they send
these scattered qustionnairs out that go
to just a few people, there absolutely
could not be any penalty whatever.
Mr. ERVIN. There cannot. Under the
law, there can be no penalty placed on
any person for failing to respond to a
questionnaire unless that questionnaire
calls for information that the Bureau of
the Census is required by law to collect.
Mr. CURTIS. They can always slip in
one sentence of that. They come back to
my citizens every time and say, "This
is required by law and you are subject
to a penalty."
Mr. ERVIN. If the Senator will par-
don me, the Senator from Maine has an
amendment and he has to leave at 4
o'clock. If the Senator from Nebraska
will yield now, we shall let him introduce
his amendment and then we shall return
to the colloquy, because I am very much
Interested in this subject.
Mr. CURTIS. I thank the distin-
guished Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank
the distinguished floor manager of the
bill (Mr. ERVIN).
I send my amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING Or.toiCER. The clerk
will state the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk proceed-
ed to read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 25, line 16, strike out "and".
On page 25, line 21, strike out the period
and insert in lieu thereof a semicolon and
"and".
On page 25, between lines 21 and 22, insert
the following new paragraph:
"(4) prepare model legislation for use by
State and local governments in establish-
ing procedures for handling, maintaining,
and disseminating personal information at
the State and local level and provide such
technical assistance to State and local gov-
ernments as they may require in the prep-
aration and implementation of such legisla-
tion."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as a co-
sponsor of S. 3418 and one who has fol-
lowed the progress of Federal privacy
legislation with great interest for several
years, I wish to express my support for
this most important bill which is before
the Senate today.
Many observers have characterized
the 93d Congress as the "Privacy Con-
gress." That appellation has been earned
in large part by the effort and dedication
of the foremost leader on this issue of
Individual rights?the distinguished Sen-
ator from North Carolina (Senator
Dim).
His concern, his pprsistence and his
great knowledge built on years of judi-
cial and legislative experience in this
field, have brought us to the considera-
tion of what could become a hallmark of
his career?the Federal Privacy Act of
1974.
The privacy, of our citizens has been a
fundamental concern since the founding
of our Republic. Two hundred years ago,
William Pitt expressed this with regard
to the rights of citizens in the colonies
still under English rule:
The poorest man may in his cottage bid
defiance to all the force of the Crown. It
may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind
may blow through it; the storms may en-
ter?but the King of England cannot enter;
all his forces dare not cross the threshold
of the ruined tenement.
While the concern for the rights of
American citizens to be secure from gov-
ernment invasion has run from the adop-
tion of the Bill of Rights to present day
times, it has not found widespread recog-
nition in the courts outside of the area
of criminal law. In applying the provi-
sions of the fourth amendment to the
Constitution to this issue, Mr. Justice
Frankfurter observed in Wolf v. Colorado
(338 U.S. 25, 27-28 1949) :
The security of one's privacy against arbi-
trary intrusion by the police--which is at
the core of the Fourth Amendment--is basic
to a free society ... The knock at the door,
whether by day or by night, as a prelude to
a search, without authority of law but solely
on the authority of the police, did not need
the commentary of recent history to be
condemned as inconsistent with the con-
ception of human rights enshrined in the
history and the basic constitutional docu-
mentsof English-speaking peoples.
In a famous dissenting opinion in
Olmstead v. United States (277 U.S. 438,
478 1938), Mr. Justice Brandeis charac-
terized the "right to be let alone" by the
Government as "the most comprehensive
of rights and the right most valued by
civilized men:
In his book, "The Assault on Privacy,"
Prof. Arthur Miller observed that while
the fourth amendment was probably
conceived to protect tangible objects, it
has since been extended in Katz. v.
United States (389 U.S. 347, 353 1967) to
restrict the Government's right to seize
personal information.
While the courts have begun to recog-
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19838
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE November 21, 1974
nize the capacity of Government to in-
vade individual privacy by the gathering
or misuse of information, it is the re-
sponsibility of the Congress to develop
specific legislative guidelines in this area.
The Federal Privacy Act draws upon
the constitutional and judicial recogni-
tion accorded to the right of privacy and
translates it into a system of procedural
and substantive safeguards against ob-
trusive Government information gath-
ering practices.
Up until now we have allowed technol-
ogical advances in Federal recordkeep-
ing to outpace our efforts to control and
safeguard the use of the information we
have collected. This act would balance
those advances with specific safeguards
and add a new dimension of rights to the
citizen. In effect it wouldThring the law
in line with a concept endorsed by then
Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare, Elliot Richardson, that "Gov-
ernment is not the owner of informa-
tion on individuals, but only the trustee."
Almost a year ago, the Subcommittee
on Intergovernmental Relations, of
which I am chairman, released a survey
of individual attitudes toward their Gov-
ernment prepared by Louis Harris and
Associates. That survey, revealed that
the American people's loss of confidence
In their Government had reached se-
vere proportions. Forty-five percent of
the public described themselves as alien-
ated and disenchanted, feeling profound-
ly impotent to influence the actions of
their leaders. The relationship between
this feeling and the Government's inva-
sion of individual privacy is underscored
by a report by the Committee on Security
and Privacy, of the Project Search task
force authorized by the Department of
Justice to examine the handling of
criminal records. Calling for citizen
right of access and challenge to certain
law enforcement records, the search re-
port stated:
An important case of fear and distrust of
computerized data systems has been the feel-
ings of powerlessness they provoke in many
citizens. The computer has come to symbolize
th3 unresponsiveness and insensitivity of
modern life. Whatever may be thought of
these reactions, it is at least clear that gen-
uine rights of access and challenge would do
much to disarm this hostility.
S. 3418 is addressed to that very point.
Under title II of this bill we have in-
serted the individual citizen into an ac-
tive role regarding the collection, use
and dissemination of his personal data
by Federal agencies.
If an agency asks a citizen for infor-
mation he would have the right to know
It he is required to divulge it and to
know what use the agency will make of it.
Ile would be entitled to know what
Information systems or files a Federal
agency operates and whether those sys-
tems or files contain information about
him.
e would be entitled to see what is in
those files and if necessary to challenge
the accuracy, the completeness, the
timeliness and the relevancy to the needs
4)1' the agency of their contents.
Ife would be entitled to know who has
seen information about him, and if the
agency makes changes at his request, to
inform past recipients of that data about
those changes.
Finally, each citizen would be entitled
to enforce this right of access and chal-
lenge in a Federal district court and to
seek an award of damages for injuries
resulting from the misuse of person al
Information.
These are fundamental rights to be
included in any privacy legislation, and
they should help begin to restore public
faith in our Government's information
practices.
The remarks which follow relate spe -
cifically to my amendments.
In considering this legislation it was
understood that privacy considerations
do not stop at the Federal Government.
Our concern for the handling of infor-
mation about individuals extends beyond
Federal agencies to State and local gov-
ernment and to the private sector.
State government witnesses at the
Government Operations Committee
hearings in S. 3418 indicated the need
to incorporate privacy safeguards in
their information systems. Andre Atkin-
son, representing State and local gov-
ermnent information system managers
said:
Effective solutions will come only from
administrative and statutory regulations
which can interact in concert at all lev 1.3
of government?Federal, State and local.
While there have been extensive stud-es
of information gathering systems oper-
ated by the Federal Government and the
need for safeguards and regulation of
those systems, the record still is incom-
plete about the information practices of
State and local governments.
We have asked the Privacy Protection
Commission established by this bill to
examine those systems and recommend
what legislation might be necessary in
that area.
In the interim we can help those States
and local governments which are at-
tempting to deal with this issue now. I
am offering an amendment to S. 3418
along with the distinguished Senator
from Illinois, which would authorize the
Commission to draft model privacy legis-
lation for State and local governments
and to make available to State and local
officials the technical services of the
Commission to aid in the preparation of
privacy legislation to meet their needs.
I recognize that the establishment of
the Privacy Commission has been the
focus of some objection by the adminis-
tration.
The need for an independent author-
ity to examine Federal, State, and local
and private information practices has
received substantial support from the
many witnesses who have testified in
behalf of this bill.
It is not only essential to help the
? Congress and the executive branch to
examine Federal practices, it can help
bridge the gap between the standards
we are setting for the Federal agencies
and those we want to see adopted by
other information systems outside the
Government.
The assistance to State and local gov-
ernments which would be provided by
our amendment is but one example.
Mr. President, this is an important
piece of legislation. I hope that this
Congress will meet its responsibility and
earn the label which it has already re-
ceived as the Privacy Congress by pass-
ing S. 3418.
This, I think, Mr. President, is a very
modest response to considerable pres-
sures to expand this legislation to cover
State and local governments as well as
the private sector. It is for that reason
that I submit the amendment to the Sen-
ate and urge its adoption.
I have discussed this proposal with
Senator Emmy and with Senator PElloY,
who is a cosponsor of the amendment,
and I believe they are in a position to
accept it.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, as a co-
sponsor of the amendment, I would sim-
ply like to indicate that, as a result of
my work as a member of the Intergov-
ernmental Commission, I believe cer-
tainly it is in the best interests of State
and local governments to have the bene-
fits now of all the magnificent work done
by Senator ERVIN through the years in
preparing a piece of legislation at the
Federal level. Certain of the States are
moving in this direction now, but we
ought to provide this as a service to all
the States, and I am pleased to support
the amendment as a cosponsor.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I think this
is a very wise amendment. As I see it, the
amendment would simply empower the
Federal Privacy Board to assist the
States in establishing privacy laws and
privacy boards at the State level. It is
not obligatory on anyone; it would
merely enable the Federal Privacy Board,
out of their expeirence and knowledge
of the subject, to be of assistance to
the States, and I would urge the Sen-
ate to adopt the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 1945
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 1945.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. NELSON'S amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following
new title:
"TITLE IV?JOINT COMMITTEE ON GOV-
ERNMENT SURVEILLANCE AND INDI-
VIDUAL RIGHTS
"ESTABLISHMENT
"SEC. 401. (a) There is hereby established
a Joint Committee on Government Surveil-
lance and Individual Rights (hereinafter
referred to as the "joint committee") which
shall be composed of fourteen members ap-
pointed as follows:
"(1) seven Members of the Senate, four to
be appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate and three to be appointed by the
minority leader of the Senate; and
"(2) seven Members of the House of Rep-
resentatives, four to be appointed by the
majority leader of the House of Representa-
tives and three to be appointed by the mi-
nority leader of the House of Representatives.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November- 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 19839
"(b) .The joint committee shall select a
chairman and a vice chairman from among
its members.
"(c) Vacancies in the membership of the
joint committee shall not affect the power
of the remaining members to execute the
functions of the joint committee and shall
be filled in the same manner as in the case
of the original appointment.
"FUNCTIONS
"SEC. 402. (a) It shall be the function of
the joint committee-
"(1) to make a continuing study of the
extent and the method of investigation or
surveillance of individuals by any depart-
ment, agency, or independent establishment
of the United States Government as such
investigation or surveillance relates to the
right of privacy, the authority for, and the
need for such investigation or surveillance,
and the standards and guidelines used to
protect the right to privacy and other con-
stitutional rights of individuals;
"(2) to make a continuing study of the
intergovernmental relationship between the
United States and the States insofar as that
relationship involves the area of investiga-
tion or surveillance of individuals; and
"(3) as a guide to the several committees
of the Congress dealing with legislation with
respect to the activities of the United States
Government involving the area of surveil-
lance, to file reports at least annually and
at such other times as the joint committee
deems appropriate, with the Senate and the
House of Representatives, containing its
findings and recommendations with respect
to the matters under study by the joint
committee, and, from time to time, to make
such other reports and recommendations to
the Senate and the House of Representatives
as it deems advisable; except that nothing
in the foregoing provisions shall authorize
the joint committee, or any subcommittee
thereof, to examine lawful investigative or
surveillance activities related to the defense
or national security of the United States
conducted within the territorial boundaries
of. the United States citizens. For purposes
of this subsection, lawful investigative or
surveillance activities related to the defense
or national security of the United States
means investigative or surveillance activities
carried on by duly authorized agencies to
obtain information concerning unlawful ac-
tivities directed against the Government of
the United States which are substantially
financed by, directed by, sponsored by, or
otherwise involving the direct collaboration
of foreign powers.
"(b) Nothing in this title shall give the
joint committee, or any subcommittee there-
of, jurisdiction to examine any activities of
agencies and departments of the United
States Government conducted outside the
territorial boundaries of the United States.
"REPORTS BY AGENCIES
"SEC. 403. In carrying out its functions,
the joint committee shall, at least once
each year, receive the testimony, under oath,
of a representative of every department and
agency of the Federal Government which
engages in investigations or surveillance of
individuals, such testimony to relate to the
full scope and nature of the respective
agency's or department's investigations or
surveillance of individuals, subject to the
exceptions provided for in subsections 402
'(a)(3) and 402(b).
"POWERS
"SEC. 404. (a) The joint committee, or any
subcommittee thereof, is authorized, in its
discretion (1) to make expenditures, (2) to
employ personnel, (3) to adopt rules respect-
ing its organization and procedures, (4) to
hold hearings, (5) to sit and act at any time
or place, (6) to subpena witnesses and doc-
uments, (7) with the prior consent of the
agency concerned, to use on a reimbursable
basis the services of personnel, information,
and facilities of any such agency, (8) to pro-
cure printing and binding, (9) to procure
the temporary services (not in excess of one
year) or intermittent services of individual
consultants, or organizations thereof, and to
provide assistance for the training of its pro-
fessional staff, in the same manner and un-
der the same conditions as a standing com-
mittee of the Senate may procure such serv-
ices and provide such assistance under sub-
sections (i) and (j), respectively, of section
202 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946, and (10) to take depositions and other
testimony. No rule shall be adopted by the
joint committee under clause (3) providing
that a finding, statement, recommendation,
or report may be made by other than a ma-
jority of the members of the joint committee
then holding office.
"(b) (1) Subpenaa may be issued under the
signature of the chairman of the committee
or of any subcommittee, or by any member
designated by such chairman, when author-
ized by a majority of the members of such
committee, or subcommittee, and may be
served by any person -designated by such
chairman or member.
"(2) Each subpena shall contain a state-
ment of the committee resolution author-
izing the particular investigation with re-
spect to which the witness is summoned to
testify or to produce papers, and shall con-
tain a statement notifying the witness that
if he desires a conference with a representa-
tive of the committee prior to the date of
the hearing, he may call or write to counsel
of the committee.
"(3) Witnesses shall be subpenacd at a
reasonably sufficient time in advance of any
hearing in order to give the witness an op-
portunity to prepare for the hearing and to
employ counsel, should he so desire. The
chairman of the joint committee or any
member thereof may administer oaths to
witnesses.
"(c) The expenses of the joint committee
shall be paid from the contingent fund of
the Senate from funds appropriated for the
joint committee, upon vouchers signed by
the chairman of the joint committee or by
any member of the joint committee outhor-
ized by the chairman.
"(d) Members of the joint committee, and
Its personnel, experts, and consultants, while
traveling on official business for the joint
committee within or outside the United
States, may receive either the per diem al-
lowance authorized to be paid to Members of
the Congress or its employees, or their actual
and necessary expenses if an itemized state-
ment of such expenses is attached to the
voucher.
"(e) (1) The District Court of the United
States for the District of Columbia shall have
original jurisdiction, without regard to the
sum or value of the matter in controversy,
of any civil action heretofore or hereafter
brought by the joint committee to enforce
or secure a declaration concerning the
validity of any subpena heretofore or here-
after issued by such joint committee, and
the said District Court shall have jurisdic-
tion to enter any such judgment or decree in
any such civil action as may be necessary or
appropriate to enforce obedience to any such
subpena.
"(2) The joint committee shall have au-
thority to prosecute in its own name or in
the name of the United States in the District
Court of the United States for the District
of Columbia any civil action heretofore or
hereafter brought by the joint committee
to enforce or secure a declaration concern-
ing the validity of any subpena heretofore
or hereafter issued by such committee, and
pray the said district court to enter such
judgment or decree in said civil action as may
be necessary or appropriate to enforce any
such subpena.
"(3) The joint committee may be repre-
sented by such attorneys as it may designate
in any action prosecuted by such committee
under this title.".
On page 3, line 23, after "Act", insert
"(other than title IV)".
On page 4, line 6, after "Act", insert "(other
than title IV) ".
On page 6, line 9, immediately after "of",
insert "titles I, II, and III of".
On page 6, line 12, after "under", insert
"titles I, II, and III of".
On page 7, line 1, immediately before
"this", insert "titles I, II, and III of".
On page 7, line 2, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, II, or III of".
On page 12, line 9, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, II, or III of".
On page 16, line 13, immediately before
"this", insert "titles I, II, and UI of".
On page 18, line 3, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, II, or III of".
On page 18, line 14, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, II, or III of";
On page 18, line 23, immediately before
"this", insert "titles II, or III of".
On page 19, line 1, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, H, or III of".
On page 19, line 21, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, n, or III of".
On page 20, line 2, immediately after
"Act" insert "(other than title IV)".
On page 20, line 6, immediately before
"this" insert "titles I, II, and III of".
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a unanimous-consent _
request?
Mr. NELSON. I yield.
Mr. ERVIN. I ask unanimous consent
that Brian Conboy, an aide to Senator
JAVITS, and Barbara Dixon, an aide to
Senator BRYN, have the privilege of the
floor during the consideration of the
pending measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. WithOut
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I have an
Inquiry of the distinguished Senator
from Wisconsin. We did go a little out
of order in order to accommodate the
schedule of the Senator from Maine (Mr.
Music's). We have not finished our open-
ing statements yet. Unless the Senator
has a time problem himself, I would like
to complete our opening statements so
we can proceed in an orderly manner,
and I had indicated that I would yield
to the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD-
WATER) immediately after that, to pre-
sent an amendment.
Mr. NELSON. My reason for calling
up this amendment now is that the Sen-
ator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) _will
participate in a brief colloquy in con-
nection with it.
Mr. PERCY. Does the Senator have
any idea how long that brief colloquy
may take?
Mr. NELSON. Just a few minutes. Sen-
ator JACKSON has a brief statement. I
will submit my statement for the RECORD.
Mr. President, I have a modification of
the amendment as printed. I withdraw
the amendment that is at the desk, and
submit a clean copy that modifies that
amendment. I ask for the immediate
consideration of the amendment as
modified.
Mr. NELSON'S amendment No. 1945, as
modified, is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following
new title:
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19840
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9 -
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE November 21, 1974
"TITLE IV-JOINT COMMITTEE ON GOV-
ERNMENT SURVEILLANCE AND INDI-
VIDUAL RIGHTS
"ESTABLISHMENT
S cc. 401 (a) There is hereby established
a Joint Committee on Government Sur-
veillance and Individual Rights (hereinafter
referred to as the "joint committee") which
shall be composed of sixteen members ap-
pointed as follows:
( i) eight Members of the Senate, four
to be appointed by the majority leader of
the Senate and four to be appointed by the
minority leader of the Senate; and
"(2) eight Members of the House of Rep-
resentatives, four to be appointed by the
majority leader of the House of Representa-
tives and four to be appointed by the minor-
ity leader of the House of Representatives.
(b) The joint committee shall select a
chairman and a vice chairman_ from among
its members.
"(c) Vacancies in the membership of the
joint committee shall not affect the power
of the remaining members to execute the
functions of the joint committee and shall
be filled in the same manner as in the case
of the original appointment.
"FUNCTIONS
"Sec. 402. (a) It shall be the function of
the joint committee-
"(1) to make a continuing study of the
extent and the method of investigation or
surveillance of individuals by any depart-
ment, agency, or independent establishment
of the United States Government as such
investigation or surveillance relates to the
right to privacy, the authority for, and the
neeci for such investigation or surveillance,
and the standards and guidelines used to
protect the right to privacy and other con-
stitutional rights of individuals;
"(2) to make a continuing study of the
intergovernmental relationship between the
United States and the States insofar as that
relationship involved the area of investiga-
tion or surveillance of individuals; and
"(3) as a guide to the several committees
of the Congress dealing with legislation with
respect to the activities of the United States
Government involving the area of surveil-
lance, to file reports at least annually and at
such other times as the joint committee
deems appropriate, with the Senate and the
House of Representatives, containing its
findings and recommendations with respect
to the matters under study by the joint com-
mittee, and, from time to time, to make such
other reports and recommendations to the
Senate and the House of Representatives
as it deems advisable; except that nothing
in the foregoing provisions shall authorize
the joint committee, or any subcommittee
thereof, to examine lawful investigative or
surveillance activities related to the defense
or national security of the United States
conducted within the territorial boundaries
of the United States. For purposes of this
suosection, lawful investigative or surveil-
lance activities related to the defense or na-
tional_ security of the United States means
Investigative OT surveillance activities car-
ried on by duly authorized agencies to ob-
tain information concerning unlawful ac-
tivities directed against the Government of
the United States which are substantially fi-
nanced by, directed by, or otherwise involv-
ing the direct collaboration of foreign pow-
ers.
"(b) Nothing in this title shall give the
joint committee, or any subcommittee there-
of, urisdiction to examine any activities of
agencies and departments of the United
States Government conducted outside the
territorial boundaries of the United States.
"REPORTS BY AGENCIES
"Sec. 403. In carrying out its functions,
the joint committee shall, at least each year,
receive, subject to the exceptions provided
for in sections 402 (a) (3) and 402(b), the
testimony, under oath, of a representative
of every department, agency, instrumentality
or other entity of the Federal Government,
which engages in investigations or surveil-
lance of individuals, such testimony to re-
late to
(a) the full scope and nature of the re-
spective department's, agency's instrumcn-
tality's, or other entity's investigations or
surveillance of individuals; and
(b) the criteria, standards, guidelines or
other general basis utilized by each such de-
partment, agency, instrumentality or other
entity in determining whether or not inves-
tigative or surveillance activities carried out
or being carried out by such department,
agency, instrumentality, or other entity wore
or are related to the defense or national se-
curity of the United States and thus within
the purview of the exception provided for
In such sections 403(a) (3) and 402 (b )
"POWERS
"Sec. 404. (a) The joint committee, or
any subcommittee thereof, is authorized, in
Its discretion (1) to make expenditures, (2)
to employ personnel, (3) to adopt rules re-
specting its organization and procedures,
(4) to hold hearings, (5) to it and act at
any time or place, (5) to subpena witnesses
and documents, (7) with the prior consent
of the agency concerned, to use on a reim-
bursable basis the services of personnel, in-
formation, and facilities of any such agen-
cy, (8) to procure printing and binding,
(9) to procure the temporary services (not
in excess of one year) or intermittent serv-
ices of individual consultants, or organiim-
tions thereof, and to provide assistance for
the training of its professional staff, in the
same manner and under the same conditions
as a standing committee of the Senate may
procure such services and provide such as-
sistance under subsections (i) and (j),
spectively, of section 202 of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, and (10) to take
depositions and other testimony. No rule
shall be adopted by the joint committee
under clause (3) providing that a findleg,
statement, recommendation, or report may
be made by other than a majority of the
members of the joint committee then hcild-
ing office.
"(b) (1) Subpenas may be issued under
the signature of the chairman of the com-
mittee or of any subcommittee, or by any
thember designated by such chairman,
when authorized by a majority of the mem-
bers of such committee, or subcommittee
and may be served by any person designated
by any such chairman or member.
"(2) Each subpena shall contain a state-
ment of the committee resolution authoriz-
ing the particular investigation with re-
spect to which the witness is summoned to
testify or to produce papers, and shall con-
tain a statement notifying the witness that
if he desires a conference with a represent-
ative of the committee prior to the date of
the hearing, he may call or write to coun-
sel of the committee.
"(3) Witnesses shall be subpenaed at a
reasonably sufficient time in advance of
any hearing in order to give the witness an
opportunity to prepare for the hearing and
to employ counsel, should he-so desire. The
chairman of the joint committee or any
member thereof may administer oaths to
witnesses.
"(c) The expenses of the joint commitliee
shall be paid from the contingent fund of
the Senate from funds appropriated for the
joint committee, upon vouchers signed by
the chairman of the joint committee or by
any member of the joint committee auth-
orized by the chairman.
"(d) Members of the joint committee, and
its personnel, experts, and consultants, while
traveling on official business for the joint
committee within or outside the United
States, may receive either the per diem
allowance authorized to be paid to Members
of the Congress or its employees, or their
actual and necessary expenses if any item-
ized statement of such expenses is attached
to the voucher.
"(e) (1) The District Court of the United
States for the District of Columbia shall have
original jurisdiction, without regard to the
sum or value of the matter in controversy,
of any civil action heretofore or hereafter
brought by the point committee to enforce or
secure a declaration conerning the validity
of any subpena heretofore or hereafter
brought by the joint committee, and the said
District Court shall have jurisdiction to enter
any such judgment or decree in any such
civil action as may be necessary or appro-
priate to enforce obedience to any such sub-
pena.
"(2) The joint committee shall have au-
thority to prosecute in its own name or in
the name of the United States in the Dis-
trict Court of the United States for the Dis-
trict of Columbia any civil action heretofore
or hereafter brought by the joint committee
to enforce or secure a declaration concerning
the validity of any subpena heretofore or
hereafter issued by such committee, and pray
the said district court to enter such judg-
ment or decree in said civil action as may be
necessary or appropriate to enforce any such
subpena.
"(3) The joint committee may be repre-
sented by such attorneys as it may designate
in any action prosecuted by such committee
under this title."
"DISCLAIMER
"Sec. 405. The provisions of this title shall
not in any way limit or otherwise interfere
with the jurisdiction or powers of any com-
mittee of the Senate, or the House of Repre-
sentatives, or of Congress to request or
require testimony or the submission or in-
formation from any representative of any de-
partment, agency, instrumentality or other
entity of the Federal Government.
On page 3, line 23, after "Act", insert
"(other than title IV)".
On page 4, line 6, after "Act", insert "(other
than title IV) ".
On page 6, line 9, immediately after "of",
insert "titles I, II, and III of".
On page 6, line 12, after "under", insert
"titles I, II, and III of".
On page 7, line 1, immediately before "this",
insert "titles L H, and III of".
On page 7, line 2, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, II or III of".
On page 12, line 9, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, II or III of".
On page 16, line 13, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, II or III of".
On page 18, line 3, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, II, or III of".
On page 18, line 14, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, II, or HI of".
On page 18, line 23, immediately before
"this", insert "titles I, II or III of".
On page 19, line 1, immediately before
"this", insert I, II, or III of".
On page 19, line 21, immediately before
"this", insert "title I, II, or III of".
On page 20, line 2, immediately after "Act"
insert "(other than title IV)".
On page 20, line 6, immediately before
"this" insert "titles I, H, and III of".
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, last
November, the Senator from Washington
(Mr. JACKSON) and I introduced legisla-
tion to create a joint committee of the
Senate and the House of Representa-
tives to provide legislative oversight over
the surveillance activities of all the
various agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment, including the FBI, military intelli-
gence, and the IRS.
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 19841
The .purpose, of course, is quite ob-
vious: there is great potential for abuse
of authority and invasions of privacy,
which we have seen extensively engaged
in in recent years, anci Congress at pres-
ent has no effective way to maintain a
continuing oversight function to deter-
mine whether agencies were abusing
their power and whether there need to
be modifications or changes in current
law.
The principal function of this joint
committee would be to require that these
respective agencies appear before the
joint committee in public session or
executive session when necessary, under
whatever procedures would be estab-
lished by that joint committee, and that
the representatives of these agencies,
such as the FBI, be put under oath, bring
their records, show the committee what
surveillance activities they have engaged
in. For example, the FBI would show
what wiretap S they have used, and
whether the wiretaps in fact were
secured pursuant to law, particularly the
fourth amendment, which requires that
searches and seizures are authorized only
upon presentation of probable cause to
an appropriate court, which may then
issue the warrant.
Unless we bring these activities under
congressional supervision, then, of course,
the opportunities exist, as they have in
the past, for very serious invasions of
privacy of individuals, and freedom it-
self is endangered.
That, therefore, is the purpose of this
amendment: to create this kind of a
joint committee, with the authority
which I have previously mentioned.
Hearings were conducted on the meas-
ure by the distinguished Senator from
Maine (Mr. MusKIE). Those proceedings
have not all been completed.
Senator JACKSON and I offered this as
an amendment to the bill offered by the
distinguished Senator from North Caro-
lina (Mr. EaviN) some time ago because
we thought it urgent and timely that
this issue be raised, debated, and voted
upon because we believe that Congress
has to oversee Government surveillance
activities on a continuing basis.
However, we have no desire to impair
the possibilities of the adoption of the
very fine piece of legislation that was
designed by the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina, and since it is now
late in the session, the adoption of this
amendment may very well cause the
downfall of the whole bill.
If it were some time back, with plenty
of room to maneuver in in terms of time,
I would want to have the full debate and
a rolicall vote.
I know that the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina, as we all do, has
been a leader in this whole field of pro-
tecting individual rights, especially the
rights of privacy and other constitutional
rights, and that he agrees certainly with
the principle of the bill, although I have
not asked him about the details. But
Senator JACKSON and I did not want to,
in any way, jeopardize the possibilities of
the adoption of his measure.
I would therefore like to ask the dis-
tinguished Senator from Maine if he
might be able to advise us what his future
plans would be in his committee for con-
sideration of this particular subject
matter.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would be delighted to
do so.
First I compliment the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin and the distin-
guished Senator from Washington for
their concern in the subject. It is one,
I think, that is of increasing interest to
Members of Congress and to the Members
generally. It is deserving of the most ex-
tensive and comprehensive kinds of hear-
ings.
Already we have had 6 days of hear-
ings in the Government Operations Com-
mittee on national security secrecy, and
the distinguished Senator from Wiscon-
sin, as a matter of fact, testified at those
hearings on his bill.
But we proceed from here. There are
before us the Nelson-Jackson bill, to
which the Senator is addressing himself,
the Baker-Weicker bill on the same sub-
ject, and the Mathias-Mansfield resolu-
tion to have a study committee on over-
sight.
All of these have been referred to my
subcommittee, and we will hold hearings
and, I think, it is reasonably certain that
the hearings will begin on December 9
and 10 of this year. There may be fur-
ther hearings in addition to those, but
I am committed to those, and I assure
the Senator that we will pursue those
hearings and the subject until the com-
mittee is in position to form some judg-
ments.
Mr. President, more than 20 years ago,
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter
described the evolution of tyrannical
power in the executive branch:
The accretion of dangerous power does not
come in a day. It does come, however slowly,
from the generative force of unchecked disre-
gard of the restrictions that fence ? in even
the most disinterested assertion of authority.
Unfortunately, Justice Frankfurter's
observation does much to explain why
individual liberty has been eroded by an
expanding web of snooping conducted
at all levels of government. For many
years now, the Government has used
both simple and sophisticated techniques
to exercise almost unlimited power over
the individual. The Government installs
wiretaps, plants electronic bugs, uses
computerized information to assemble
dossiers on individuals, and engages in
other surveillance activities which make
a mockery of the individual freedoms
guarapteed by our Con,stitution.
The dangers of uncontrolled Govern-
ment surveillance were exposed again
only this past week. The Justice Depart-
ment released a report detailing the
"oointelpro" program?the FBI's secret
surveillance and disruption of organiza-
tions which the FBI considered to be a
threat. These organizations included the
Urban League, the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference, the Congress on
Racial Equality and other politically ac-
tive groups. It was not shown that the
individual members of these organiza-
tions were violating the law, and the FBI
did not seek or receive the approval of
the Attorney General or the President.
Acting entirely on its own, the FBI en-
gaged in these activities between 1956 and
1971. They were terminated when the
"Media Papers" publicly exposed some
of the FBI activities in 1971. And it was
understandable why such public expo-
sure would be a deterrent. The Justice
Department's study called some of those
activities "abhorrent to a free society,"
and for good reason. These activities in-
cluded sending false and anonymous let-
ters to discredit selected individuals in
the eyes of their peers, informing an em-
ployer of the individual's membership in
a particular group so that the individual
might be fired, and passing on informa-
tion to credit bureaus to harm the indi-
vidual economically.
Mr. NELSON. I appreciate the com-
ments of the Senator from Maine. I also
know, as we all do, of his concern about
individual rights and constitutional
rights, and I know that the measure is in
good hands in his committee and that
he recognizes the importance of Con-
gress doing something about managing
this problem that has arisen and received
so much publicity in recent years.
These revelations concerning the FBI
coincided with other revelations con-
cerning the surveillance activities of the
Internal Revenue Service. According to
recently disclosed documents, the IRS?
acting at the behest of the White
House?monitored the tax records and
political activities of 3,000 groups and
8,000 individuals between 1969 and 1973.
The groups monitored included the Ur-
ban League, Americans for Democratic
Action, the National Student Association,
the Unitarian Society and the National
Council of Churches. These IRS activ-
ities did not reflect a neutral enforce-
ment of the tax laws; they represented
Instead a blatant attempt to secure pri-
vate information about the politics of
people whose views did not coincide with
those of the White House. Indeed, these
secret activities were continued for four
years despite the fact that there was lit-
tle information to show violation of the
tax laws.
These FBI and IRS actions, as well as
other surveillance activities, make clear
the need for congressional controls of
Government spying. To this end, Senator
JACKSON and I are introducing an amend-
ment to S. 3418 which would establish
a bipartisan joint committee of Congress
to oversee all Government surveillance
activities. At least once each year, rep-
resentatives of the FBI, the IRS, and
every Governmental agency that en-
gages in surveillance would be required
to testify before the joint committee un-
der oath about the full scope-and nature
of their respective agency's spying ac-
tivities. The joint committee, moreover,
would be entitled to all relevant informa-
tion concerning those activities and prac-
tices. There is only one narrowly defined
exception to the committee's broad jur-
isdiction over Government surveillance:
those cases directly involving foreign
powers who are engaged in unlawful ac-
tivities which endanger this country's
security. However, the committee would
be explicitly directed to obtain informa-
tion from the Government concerning
the criteria used to determine whether
an activity qualifies under the exception.
This, in turn, would help insure that the
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19842
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE November. 21, 1974
exception is not misused or interpreted
too broadly.
As part of its responsibilities, the joint
committee would be obligated to report
to the full Congress as often as it deems
necessary, but in any event, at least once
a year. The report would include the
committee's findings as to whether the
Government is complying fully with the
law, whether the courts are exercising
their review powers diligently, and
whether additional legislation is needed
to protect the right to privacy and other
fundamental liberties from Government
snooping.
The need for this continuing and
comprehensive congressional oversight is
beyond question. The FBI and IRS activ-
ities I cited earlier are not isolated inci-
dents. Indeed, other examples make clear
that there is an incredibly broad system
of Government surveillance which can
and often does escape congressional
scrutiny. Among these examples are the
following:
In 1970, President Nixon approved the
"Huston Plan," an interagency scheme
for domestic surveillance which provided
for the use of wiretaps, electronic bugs,
break-ins and other activities which a
staff assistant described as "clearly
illegal." Although the plan was revoked
five days later, because of the objections
by FBI Director Hoover, President
Nixon's continued interest in the idea
ultimately led to the creation of the
"Plumbers," a White House unit which
carried out the break-in at Daniel Ells-
berg's psychiatrist's office and engaged
in other questionable surveillance activ-
ities. Indeed, one recent article reported
that there had been at least 100 illegal
break-ins conducted by the "plumbers"
and other secret Government units.
A 1973 Senate subcommittee report
detailed the extensive spying secretly
conducted by 1,500 agents of the U.S.
Army on more than 100,000 civilians in
the late 1960's. This surveillance was di-
rected principally at those suspected of
engaging in political dissent. No one in
the Congress knew about this spying. No
one in the executive branch would accept
responsibility for it. Again, there is no
guarantee that this sorry episode will not
be repeated. In fact, a Senate committee
learned recently that in the - last 3
years?after the administration assured
the public that the military would no
longer spy on civilians?the U.S. Army
has maintained numerous surveillance
operations on civilians in the United
States. And an article in the New Repub-
lic magazine of March 30, 1974, detailed
the U.S. Army's use of wiretaps, infiltra-
tors, and other surveillance techniques
to spy on American citizens living abroad
who supported the Presidential candi-
dacy of George MCGOVERN. The Army's
spying was reportedly so extensive that
it even intercepted a letter from a college
librarian in South Carolina who re-
quested information about a German
publication.
On April 14, 1971, it was revealed that
the FBI had conducted general surveil-
lance of those who participated in the
Earth Day celebrations in 1970. These
celebrations involved tens of thousands
of citizens, State officials, representatives
of the Nixon administration, and Mem-
bers of Congress. As the one who planned
that first Earth Day, I cannot imagine
any valid reason for spying on Individ-
uals exercising their constitutional rights
of speech and assembly in a peaceable
manner. There is still no satisfactory ex-
planation of the surveillance. Nor is
there any guarantee it will not be re-
peated in the future.
Innumerable Government officials, in-
cluding President Lyndon Johnson, Su-
preme Court Justice William 0. Douglas,
Congressman Hale Boggs, and Secretary
of State Henry Kissinger, believed that
their private telephones had been secret-
ly wiretapped. These concerns coincide
with known facts regarding other citi-
zens. In May 1969, for example, the
White House secretly authorized wire-
taps on 17 Government officials and
newspapermen without first obtaining
an approving judicial warrant. The pur-
ported basis of these "taps" was a con-
cern that these individuals were in-
volved in "leaks" of sensitive informa-
tion. The Government allegedly believed
that publication of this information did
or would jeopardize "national security."
There is still no public evidence to justify
that belief. Indeed, there is no nubile evi-
dence to demonstrate that all of the in-
dividuals tapped even had access to the
information leaked.
The Justice Department still main-
tains a practice of installing warrantless
wiretaps on American citizens and others
when it feels "national security" is in-
volved. This practice violates the plain
language of the fourth amendment?
which requires a judicial warrant based
on probable cause before the Govern-
ment can invade an individual's privacy.
There is no public information concern-
ing the number of warrantless wiretaps
installed in the last year or presently
maintained. Incredibly enough, the De-
partment has refused to provide this in-
formation?even in executive session-----
to legislative subcommittees of the House
and Senate. However, it is known that
some of these wiretaps were authorized
even though there was no direct collab-
oration of a foreign power. The tap in-
stalled on newspaper columnist Joseph
Kraft's home telephone is perhaps the
best known example. Under our pro-
posal, the joint committee would be re-
quired to interrogate Government offi-
cials about "national security" wiretap-
ping and uncover the actual criteria used
by the Government in determining that
a foreign power is directly involved.
The Senate Watergate and Senate Ju-
diciary Committees received evidence
that in 1969 the White House established
a special unit in the Internal Revenue
Service to provide the administration
with secret access to the confidential tax
records of thousands of its "enemies."
The dissemination of these private rec-
ords was so flagrant and so widespread
that one investigating Senator likened
the IRS to a public lending library.
These examples are only the tip of
the iceberg. As early as 1967, Prof. Alan
Westin reported in his book, "Privacy
and Freedom," that:
At least fifty different federal agencies have
substantial investigative and enforcemerit
functions, providing a corps of more than
20,000 "investigators" working for agencies
such as the FBI, Naval Intelligence, the Post
Office, the Narcotics Bureau of the Treasury,
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Internal Revenue Service, the Food and Drug
Administration, the State Department, and
the Civil Service Commission. While all ex-
ecutive agencies are under federal law and
executive regulation, the factual reality is
that each agency and department has wide
day-to-day discretion over the investigative
practices of its officials.
The numbers?and dangers?of this
official spying have surely increased since
1967. But even those 1967 figures, as well
as the examples I have described, should
be more than sufficient to demonstrate
what should be clear to everyone: un-
controlled Government snooping is a
dangerous assault on our constitutional
liberties. Those liberties are the corner-
stone of our democratic system and any
assault on them cannot be treated
lightly. A society cannot remain free and
tolerate a Government which can invade
an individual's privacy at will.
Government snooping is particularly
dangerous because often it is executed
without the knowledge or approval of
those officials who are accountable to
the public. This, in turn, increases the
probability that Government invasions of
individual privacy, as well as other
fundamental constitutional liberties, will
be accomplished by illicit means and for
illegitimate purposes.
The FBI's "cointelpro" activities are a
clear illustration of the problem. An-
other example is the break-in of Daniel
Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. This il-
legal act was perpetrated in September
1971 by members of the "plumbers," a
special unit established within the White
House and ultimately accountable to the
President himself. After the break-in
was publicly exposed, the "plumbers"
claimed that they were acting under the
explicit authority of the President in an
effort to protect "national security." But
available public evidence suggests that
Mr. Nixon did not give his approval to
the break-in. Indeed, the White House
transcripts indicate that President Nixon
did not learn of the break-in until March
1973-18 months after it occurred. In
short, a blatant criminal act?which in-
cluded the violation of one doctor's pri-
vacy?was pertetrated by Government
agents and those with ultimate respon-
sibility had no procedure to stop it.
The central question is how many
other incidents of illegal spying by the
Government remain undisclosed? And
how many more such incidents must be
disclosed before Congress recognizes the
need for immediate action? -
There is no question, however, that
those sensitive to civil liberties have long
understood the need for congressional
action to end the dangers of Govern-
ment snooping. As early as 1971 I intro-
duced legislation for that purpose. Now
the public at large has also awakened to
the need for legislation to protect their
rights against Government snooping.
Numerous opinion polls indicate that the
people's principal concern today Is the
preservation of their freedom?freedom
which is too easily and too often taken
for granted. These polls, including some
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November. 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
conducted by Louis Harris, have made
the following findings:
Fifty-two percent of the public believes
that "things have become more represssive
in this country in the past few years;"
Seventy-five percent of the public believes
that "wiretapping and spying under the ex-
cuse of national security is a serious threat
to people's privacy;"
Seventyt'seven percent of the public be-
lieves Congress should enact legislation to
curb government wiretapping;"
Seventy-three percent of the public be-
lieves Congress should make political spying
a major offense.
On the basis of these and other find-
ings, pollster Harris drew two basic con-
clusions. First, "government secrecy can
no longer be excused as an operational
necessity, since it can exclude the par-
ticipation of the people in their own gov-
ernment, and, indeed, can be used as a
screen for subverting their freedom."
Second, "the key to any kind of success-
ful future leadership must be iron bound
integrity."
The message of these opinion polls is
clear: Congress must enact legislation to
end abusive government surveillance
practices which violate the fundamental
rights and liberties guaranteed by our
Constitution. The government should not
be able to use wiretaps and other elec-
tronic devices to eavesdrop on citizens
for "national security" purposes when
there is no involvement of a foreign
power and no judicial warrant. The Gov-
ernment should not be able to use income
tax returns and other computerized, con-
fidential information for political pur-
poses. The Government should not be
able to conceal its illicit activities by in-
voking the "separation of powers" or the
need for secrecy. In a word, the Gov-
ernment should not be able to escape its
obligation to the Constitution and the
rule of law. Otherwise, we shall find that
unrestrained Government power has re-
placed individual liberty as the hallmark
of our society.
One does not have to attribute ma-
levolent motives to government officials
in order to realize the need for congres-
sional action. Good intentions are not
the criteria for judging the lawfulness of
propriety of Government action. In fact,
the best of intentions often produce the
greatest dangers to individual liberty. As
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis once
observed:
Experience should teach us to be most on
our guard to protect liberty when the Gov-
ernment's purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel inva-
sions of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in in-
sidious encroachment by-men of zeal, well-
meaning but without understanding.
Relying on _this historical judgment,
the Supreme Court held in the 1972
Keith case that the Government cannot
wiretap American citizens for "domestic
security" purposes without court author-
ization. In issuing this decision, the court
declared, as a matter of constitutional
law, that the Government's self-disci-
pline is inadequate to protect the indi-
vidual freedoms guaranteed by the
fourth amendment. The Court's judg-
ment was not premised on the malicious
dispositions of those who inhabit the ex-
ecutive branch. Rather, the judgment
flowed from the conflicting interests
which the Government is required to
serve. Speaking for a unanimous Court,
Justice Lewis Powell examined the evo-
lution and contours of the freedoms pro-
tected by the fourth amendment. He
then stated:
These Fourth Amendment freedoms can-
not properly be guaranteed if domestic se-
curity surveillances may be conducted solely
within the discretion of the executive
branch. The Fourth Amendment does not
contemplate the executive officers of Govern-
ment as neutral and disinterested magis-
trates. Their duty and responsibility is to
enforce the laws, to investigate and to prose-
cute.... The historical judgment, which the
Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unre-
viewed executive discretion may yield too
readily to pressure to obtain incriminating
evidence and overlook potential invasion of
privacy and protected speech.
In this context, a congressional over-
sight committee would be a two-edged
sword in the effort to end the abuses of
Government snooping. On the one hand,
this committee could provide assurances
to the public that Government surveil-
lance activities are limited to those con-
ducted by lawful means and for legiti-
mate purposes. On the other hand, the
oversight committee could help the ex-
ecutive branch to insure that Govern-
ment agents do not misuse the public
authority entrusted to them. Fulfillment
of these two functions by the oversight
committee would do much to eliminate
illegal and unethical Government spy-
ing.
In considering creation of a congres-
sional oversight committee, Congress
should not yield to self-serving asser-
tions by the executive branch that the
power to investigate and conduct sur-
veillance is exclusively within its juris-
diction and that Congress has no right
to sensitive information concerning such
investigations and surveillance activities.
This argument is nonsense. Certainly
there is no language in the Constitu-
tion which allows Government surveil-
lance activities to escape congressional
scrutiny. Indeed, such an escape clause
would be at odds with the fundamental
premise of our constitutional system that
all power is "fenced about," that every
coordinate branch of Government is sub-
ject to the check of the other branches.
If Government investigative and sur-
veillance activites can be maintained by
Government secrecy, there would be no
way for the Congress to know whether it
should exercise its power to check the
executive branch.
Moreover, a lack of congressional over-
sight would cripple Congress ability to
protect those individual freedoms guar-
anteed to everyone by the Constitution.
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison
acknowledged Congress as "the confi-
dential guardians of the rights and lib-
erties of the people." Congress cannot
fulfill its responsibility to protect those
rights and liberties unless it first has the
facts concerning the scope and nature of
Government investigative and surveil-
lance activities. Access to those facts is
also important if Congress is to exercise
its other responsibilities. Thus, the Con-
S 19843
stitution empowers Congress?not the
President?to regulate interstate com-
merce; the Constitution empowers Con-
gress?not the President?to appropriate
public moneys for Government opera-
tions, including investigative and sur-
veillance activities; the Constitution em-
powers Congress?not the President?to
enact laws concerning the punishment
of criminal offenses and the protection
of individual privacy. Having been
granted these powers, the Congress
should obtain the information neces-
sary to insure that they are exercised
wisely.
The need for this congressional over-
sight committee, then, should not be un-
derestimated. The individual's right to
privacy is one of our most cherished lib-
erties. It is fundamental to the concept
of democratic self-government where
each individual's private thoughts and
beliefs are beyond the reach of Govern-
ment. Without that right to privacy, the
individual's freedom to participate in
and guide his Government is jeopar-
dized. Government then becomes a mon-
ster to be feared rather than a servant
to be trusted.
As Justice Stephen Field stated in
1888:
Of all the rights of the citizens, few are of
greater importance or more essential to his
peace and happiness than the right of per-
sonal security, and that involves not merely
protection of his person from assault, but ex-
emption of his private affairs, books and
papers from the scrutiny of others. Without
enjoyment of this right, all others would lose
half their value.
A right so vital to individual liberty
and, indeed, to our constitutional sys-
tem deserves rigorous protection by Con-
gress?the people's chosen represent-
atives. The amendment being offered
today provides a timely opportunity to
establish that protection and assure the
American public that individual freedom
is still the foundation of our political
system.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, last No-
vember Senator NELSON and I introduced
S. 2738 to establish a watchdog joint
congressional committee to oversee ac-
tivities of the Federal Government af-
fecting the right to privacy of all Ameri-
can citizens. Our purpose was to create
and focus in one congressional commit-
tee the responsibility for overseeing do-
mestic surveillance and investigative ac-
tivities of Federal agencies as those
activities relate to the need to protect
and defend individual privacy and free-
dom for all American citizens from seri-
ous and destructive erosion. Today I am
pleased to join with Senator NELSON to
offer a modified version of this legisla-
tion as an amendment to S. 3418, a bill
to create a Federal Privacy Commission
to monitor and regulate data banks.
Individual privacy and freedom, which
are at the heart of our system Of demo-
cratic self-government, are under severe
pressure today. Modern technology has
vastly increased the ease with which in-
trusions on individual privacy may be
conducted. By 1967 over 50 Federal agen-
cies were engaged in investigative activi-
ties employing over 20,000 investigators.
These included such diverse agencies as
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19844
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Novembei. 21, 1974
the Food and Drug Administration, the
Securities and Exchange Commission,
the Treasury Department, the Justice
Department, and many others. Since that
time the number of agencies and investi-
gators has almost certainly increased
and it has become clear to the Ameri-
can people that there is a danger that
the power of the Federal Government
may be abused to indiscriminately em-
ploy modern techniques of surveillance
for illegitimate purposes or by unregu-
lated procedures. This danger represents
a serious threat to the integrity"of indi-
vidual rights and, therefore, to our en-
tire way of life in America.
The American people are deeply dis-
turbed about evidence that has accumu-
lated in recent years of widespread Gov-
ernment insensitivity and disregard for
the rights of individual citizens. Water-
gate and related scandals have brought
to light a callous disregard for the law
and for the sanctity of individual rights
within the highest circles of government.
Such activities as the formation of the
'Plumbers" for the purpose of carrying
on internal security operations which in-
cluded wiretapping and burglary smacks
of a secret police operation that has no
place in American life.
Over the past week there have been
new revelations that Government agen-
cies have engaged in secret intelligence
gathering and "dirty tricks" operations
aimed at political and activist organiza-
tions. These revelations have further
shaken the confidence of the American
people in the integrity and methods of
Federal investigative agencies.
A lawsuit filed by a public interest law
firm brought the disclosure that a secret
unit within the IRS named the "Special
Service Staff" began gathering intelli-
gence in the summer of 1969 as a result
of direct White House pressure. The Spe-
cial Service Staff unit collected intelli-
gence and investigated 99 political and
activist organizations and was not dis-
banded until after the Watergate scan-
dals became public. The use of the IRS
to perform unauthorized law enforce-
ment type functions for essentially polit-
ical purposes is a flagrant and inexcus-
able abuse of power. This action under-
mines public confidence which is abso-
lutely essential if the IRS is to perform its
jab of administering the tax laws. More
importantly, it runs counter to funda-
mental values of freedom of expression
and equal treatment under the law to
have an agency of Government collecting
data to be used against organizations
with political views that are not favored
by the current administration.
The purpose of the Joint Committee
which Senator NELSON and I have sug-
gested would be to assure public account-
ability of Federal investigative agencies
by assuring better congressional over-
sight of their activities. As was noted edi-
torially in the Washington Star on
November 20:
it is imperative that Congress begin exer-
cising much closer oversight of operations for
which it provides the legal basis and the
financing. It should not be left to high-level
bureaucrats, especially in the agencies with
awesome investigative authority, nor to
WInite House politicians to decide what is or
is not good for the people and then use high-
ly questionable means to excise that which
they consider bad.
I firmly believe that the Congress does
bear a heavy responsibility to assure that
Federal investigative agencies do not dis-
regard the civil liberties of the American
people. The legislation which Senator
NELSON and I have suggested will give us
the tools to do this job.
Senseless violations of individual
rights have occurred, in part, because we
in the Congress have not pursued with
sufficient vigor our responsibility to
closely oversee the activities of the in-
numerable Federal agencies which have
an impact an the right to privacy of mil-
lions of Americans. As a result, the
American people are very much con-
cerned about the need for increased
efforts to protect our cherished tradition
of individual liberty in the wake of dis-
closures of such blatant abuses. Recent
polls indicate that 75 to 80 percent of
the American people favor tough new
laws making unlawful wiretapping a
major criminal offense.
I am pleased that the Congress has
begun to respond to the need for legisla-
tion designed to better protect individual
rights. S. 3418 is an important bill which
will do a great deal to assure the right
to privacy for millions of Americans
about whom the Federal Government
has collected and maintains records in
computer data banks. For this reason, I
have been active in the development and
joined as a cosponsor of this legislation.
I believe the amendment that Senator
NELSON and I are now offering would
strengthen and broaden the scope of S.
3418 by addressing the equally important
issue of regulating and overseeing the ac-
tivities of Federal investigative agencies.
The committee we are suggesting would
be invaluable as a means of focusing and
improving congressional oversight of
Federal agencies to assure that they do
not overstep their statutory and consti-
tutional authority in ways that have an
adverse impact on individual freedom.
At present, 12 or more congressional
committees oversee the activities of the
uncounted but innumerable Federal
agencies which conduct investigative ac-
tivities. The comprehensive overview of
these agencies that would be provided by
our legislation would provide a more
effective safeguard against the use of in-
vestigative and surveillance powers in
ways that fly in the face of our tradi-
tional commitment to personal freedom
and liberty.
I am pleased that Senator MUSKIE will
hold hearings on this amendment on the
9th and 10th of December.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Wisconsin yield?
Mr. NELSON. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. ERVIN. I thank the Senator for
his very complimentary statement of my
work in the field of individual rights I
have always had the aid of the distil-
guished Senator from Wisconsin on that,
and I am proud to be, along with him
and one or two other Members of the
Senate, one of the authors of the bill to
repeal the no-knock law.
I wish to commend his action in this
matter and the action of the distin-
guished Senator from Maine. I think that
Is the proper course to take because if we
sometimes put too big a load on one little
legislative nag he has a hard time making
the journey to his ultimate destination.
I thank the Senator for his course of
action and the Senator from Maine for
giving the assurance that he will hold
hearings on the proposal which, I think,
deserves wise and careful thought.
Mr. NET SON. I thank the Senator
from North Carolina. I only regret that
he has decided voluntarily not to join us
again in the next session because I think
that about 90 percent of the influence I
have on this kind of an issue is as a re-
sult of my association with the Senator
from North Carolina, which I now lose.
Mr. WEICKER. If the Senator from
Wisconsin will yield for one moment. I
commend the Senator from Wisconsin
and the Senator from Washington for
their legislation.
I want to thank the distinguished Sen-
ator from Maine for proposing hearings
on this bill, and also on the bill proposed
by Senator BAKER and myself.
As each week goes by and more of these
abuses come to the public's knowledge,
I think it is terribly important that we
act. We all realize the difficulties that this
type of legislation, the type proposed by
Senator NELSON and Senator BAKER, have
had in the past. But it has got to be clear
to this body that nobody has been tak-
ing responsibility for any oversight rela-
tive to these various agencies.
We owe it to the public now to take
this entire area of law enforcement and
intelligence gathering and make it ac-
countable to the people of the United
States through their elected representa-
tives.
I would hope that we not only have
the hearings but also we make this one of
the first orders of business for Congress
In the months ahead.
I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. NELSON. I thank the Senator.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I with-
draw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator's amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, by
a happy coincidence, the House at this
very moment is considering almost iden-
tical legislation to this, legislation intro-
duced by my son who represents the 20th
District of California.
Mr. President, I am very happy to be
a cosponsor of this legislation and happy
to have introduced a piece of legislation
quite similar to it.
Mr. President, I am proud to rise today
in support of the committee bill to pro-
tect individual privacy in the collection
and use of personal data by Federal
agencies.
Mr. President, the need for protection
of personal privacy has come to the fore
only in recent years, although its source
Is found in the Constitution itself.
Reports uniformly calling for the
adoption of safeguards for the fair stor-
ing and handling of personal informa-
tion have been published by the Depart-
ments of Conununicationsand Justice in
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 19845
Canada, in 1971, the Younger Committee
on Privacy in Great Britain in 1972, the
International Commission of Jurists in
1972, the National Academy of Sciences
Project on Computer Databanks, also in
1972, and the Secretary's Advisory Com-
mittee on Automated Personal Data
Systems of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare in 1973.
In late 1973, legislation was introduced
in the House of Representatives (HR.
10042) by Congressman GOLDWATER, JR.,
and in the Senate (S. 2810) by me, to
implement the common principles
shared by these various studies. I believe
the committee bill before us today in-
cludes these same safeguards insofar as
the operations of Federal agencies and
departments are concerned. The basic
safeguards are:
First. There must be no personal data
system whose very existence is secret.
Second. There must be a way for an
individual to find out what information
about him is in a record and how that
information is to be used.
Third. There must be a way for an
Individual to correct information about
him, if it is erroneous.
Fourth. There must be a record kept
of every signifidant access to any personal
data in the system, including the identity
of all persons and organizations to whom
access has been given.
Fifth. There must be a way for an
Individual to prevent information about
him collected for one purpose from be-
ing used for other purposes, without his
consent.
Mr. President, it is my belief that in
order for the individual to truly exist,
some reserve of privacy must be guaran-
teed to him. Privacy is vital for the flour-
ishing of the individual personality and
to "the imaginativeness and creativity of
the society as a whole." So said the Re-
port of the Committee on Privacy of
Great Britain in 1972.
By privacy, Mr. President, I mean the
great common law tradition that a per-
son has a right not to be defamed
whether it be by a machine or a person.
I mean the right "to be let alone"?from
intrusions by Big Brother in all his guises.
I mean the right to be protected against
disclosure of information given by an
individual in circumstances of confidence,
and against disclosure of irrelevant em-
barrassing facts relating to one's own
private life, both rights having been in-
cluded in the authoritative definition of
privacy agreed upon by the International
Commission of Jurists at its world con-
ference of May, 1967.
By privacy, I also mean what the 'U.S.
Supreme Court has referred to as the
embodiment of "our respect for the in-
violability of the human personality,"
and as a right which is "so rooted in the
traditions and conscience of our people
as to be ranked as fundamental."
What we must remember today is that
privacy in the computer age must be
planned. Privacy, as liberty, is all too
easily lost. We must act now while there
is still privacy to cherish.
AMENDMENT NO. 1914
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
call up for myself and the senior Sena-
tor from Illinois (Mr. PERCY), our
amendment No. 1914, to halt the spread
of the social security number as a uni-
versal population identifier.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
MORATORIUM ON USE OR. SOCIAL SECURITY
1 NUMBERS
SEC. 307. (a) It shall be unlawful for?
(1) any Federal, State, or local government
agency to deny to any individual any right,
benefit, or privilege provided by law because
of such individual's refusal to disclose his
social security account number, or
(2) any person to discriminate against
any individual in the course of any business
or commercial transaction or activity be-
cause of such individual's refusal to disclose
his social security account number.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall
not apply with respect to?
(1) any disclosure which is required by
Federal law, or
(2) any information system in existence
and operating before January 1, 1975.
(c) Any Federal, State, or local govern-
ment agency which requests an individual
to disclose his social security account num-
ber, and any person who requests, in the
course of any business or commercial trans-
action or activity, an individual to disclose
his social security account number, shall in-
form that individual whether that disclosure
Is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory
or other authority such number is solicited,
what uses will be made of it, and what rules
of confidentiality will govern it.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,
when parents cannot open bank accounts
for ?their children without obtaining
social security numbers for them; when
all schoolchildren in many ninth grade
classes are compelled to apply for social
security numbers; when a World War I
veteran is asked to furnish his social
security number in order to enter a Vet-
erans' Administration hospital; and
when the account number is used and
required for numerous other purposes
totally unrelated to the original social
security program; then I believe it is
time for society to stop this drift to-
ward reducing each person to a num-
ber.
There already have been issued a total
of over 160 million social security num-
bers to living Americans. The total num-
ber issued in 1972 increased almost 50
percent over 1971, while the number
Issued to children age 10 and younger
rose 100 percent.
There is no statute or regulation which
prohibits, or limits, use of the account
number. To the contrary, a directive is-
sued by President Roosevelt 32 years ago,
is still in effect requiring that any Fed-
eral agency which establishes a new sys-
tem of personal identification must use
the social security number.
Numerous Americans deplore this de-
velopment. They resent being constantly
asked or required to disclose their social
security number in order to obtain bene-
fits to which they are legally entitled.
They sense that they are losing their
identity as unique human beings and
are being reduced to a digit in some
bureaucratic file.
Scholars who have studied the situa-
tion have fears which run far deeper.
These writers believe that the growing
use of the social security number as a
population number will brand us all as
marked individuals.
What is meant is that when the social
security number becomes a universal
identifier, each person will leave a trail of
personal data behind him for all of his
life which can be reassembled to confront
him. Once we can be identified to the Ad-
ministrator in government or in business
by an exclusive number tied to each of
our past activities?our travels, the kinds
of library books we have checked- out, the
hotels we have stayed at, our education
record, our magazine subscriptions, our
health history, our credit and check
transactions?we can be pinpointed
wherever we are. We can be manipulated.
We can be conditioned. And we can be
coerced.
Mr. President. the use of the social
security number as a method of national
population numbering is inseparable
from the rapid advances in the capabil-
ities of computerized personal data
equipment. The state of the art in com-
puter data storage is now so advanced
that the National Academy of Sciences
reported in 072:
That it is technologically possible today,
especially with recent advances in mass stor-
age memories, to build a computerized, on-
line file containing the compacted equivalent
of 20 pages of typed information about the
personal history and seleded activities of
every man, woman, and child in the United
States, arranging the system so that any
single record could be retrieved in about 30
seconds.
The concern I have about the spread
of the social security identifier is also
tied to the ravenous appetite of the
Washington bureaucracy for informa-
tion. A House Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice Subcommittee reported in 1970 that
Washington's paperwork files would fill
12 Empire State buildings stacked on top
of each other. These files already include
over 2 billion records traceable to per-
sonal individuals.
Where will it end? Will we allow every
individual in the United States to be as-
signed a personal identification number
for use in all his governmental and bus-
iness activities? Will we permit all com-
puterized systems to interlink nationwide
so that every detail of our personal lives
can be assembled instantly for use by a
single bureaucrat or institution?
The time to think about the future is
now. We must build into the law safe-
guards of human privacy while a na-
tional numbering system is not yet an
accomplished fact. Accordingly, Senator
PERCY and I propose to place a morato-
rium on the use of social security num-
bers for purposes unrelated to the origi-
nal program.
Our amendment will make it unlawful
for any governmental body at the Fed-
eral, State, or local level to deny to any
person a right, benefit, or privilege be-
cause the individual does not want to dis-
close his social security account number.
The amendment also provides that it
shall be unlawful for anyone to dis-
criminate against another person in any
business or commercial dealings because
the person chooses not to disclose his
account number..
The prohibitions of our amendment
would take effect beginning on January
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19846
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE November 21, 1974
1, 1975. Any information system started
after that date will be subject to the
amendment, but any information system
in existence before then is exempt.
Mr. President, medical and sociological
evidence proves that the need for pri-
vacy is a basic, natural one, essential both
to individual physical and mental health
of each human being and to the creativ-
ity of society as a whole. The Supreme
Court of the United States has stated on
repeated occasions that personal privacy
is also a fundamental right of U.S.
citizenship, guaranteed by the Constitu-
tion to every citizen. Mr. President, it is
for us to determine today just how much
Privacy shall remain for the individual
in the future, and I hope the Senate will
act favorably upon both our amendment
and the committee bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that Senator HELMS' name be added
as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PERCY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield to the
Senator.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I shall be
very brief. Mr. President, it is a distinct
pleasure to join Senator GOLDWATER, to-
gether with my esteemed colleague, Sen-
ator RIBICOFF, who asked to be included
as a cosponsor of the pending amend-
ment, in offering an amendment to limit
use of the social security number. The
senior Senator from Arizona is an ac-
knowledged leader in the Senate on mat-
ters relating to the social security num-
ber and privacy. On the same matters, I
have had long extended discussions with
Congressman BARRY GOLDWATER, JR.,
from California, who is a principal au-
thor in the House of the- privacy legis-
lation shortly to be considered by that
body.
I consider him to be vigilant defender
of citizens' individual rights of privacy.
Our concern is that the social security
number is fast becoming the single com-
mon identification number for each and
every American citizen. For many years
we have heard proposals to compel all
school children of a certain grade level
to receive a social security number. It
has even been suggested that every new-
born infant be labeled with such a num-
ber. To a great many Americans, the
image of such a policy put into practice
Is abhorrent. Yet the problems surround-
ing the misuse of the social security
number are more than symbolic of our
new era of data banks and our fears
of a centrally controlled Big ,Brother
society.
In 23 States, it is impossible to vote
In a local, State or even naticinal elec-
tion without first supplying a social se-
curity number. In the State of Virginia,
for example, you cannot vote, register an
automobile, or even obtain a driver's
license unless you first disclose your
social security number.
In West Virginia, it is required for
fishing licenses. The Federal Reserve
Board requires it to join their car pool.
Senate wives once had to give it before
entering the White House when visiting
with Mrs. Nixon for tea. The social se-
curity number appears on every Senate
staff member's identification card. The
number is used widely throughout the
? Government, and it is even used as the
principal identification number by the
U.S. Army. All of these uses continue.
and yet if you look at your own social
security card, at the bottom, it reads,
For social security and tax purposes--not
for identification.
The social security number was clearly
not intended by its creators to become
the universal identifier. But in the race
to computerize every known fact stored
by the Government about its citizens, the
warning on our cards has been ignored.
It is not so much that the social security
number had to be used by the computer
programmers and data collectors. It was
there and it was convenient. Apparent-
ly no one gave thought 15 or 20 years
ago to the possibility that massive com-
puterization of personal data files on the
basis of a single unprotected number
could someday pose a problem.
That lack of foresight was unfortu-
nate?for now hundreds of Government
computer systems and thousands of pri-
vate computer systems uee the social
security number in the indexing and
identification of individuals. The possi-
bility is growing that anyone with ac-
cess to the proper computer terminal
could type in a social security number
and thereby order the computer to print
out details concerning what cars we own,
and what our driving record is like, how
we spend our money and how we pay our
bills, how we did in school, what we tell
our doctor and what he tells us in re-
turn.
The amendment that we offer is a
modest proposal to limit the expansion of
the use of the social security number.
We recognize that we cannot yet justify
a law requiring the reprograming of mas-
sive computer systems maintained by the
military, by universities, and by private
employers. After careful consideration,
we have determined that a moratorium
ought to be placed on the ability of both
Government and private organizations to
develop new programs and new proce-
dures that require an individual to fur-
nish his social security number.
Under our amendment, Federal Gov-
ernment and private organizations that
begin using the social security number
after January 1, 1975, cannot deny a
right, benefit, or privilege to an individual
who refuses to disclose his number, un-
less the disclosure t required by Federal
law. Furthermore, all requests by an or-
ganization of an individual for his social
security number must be accompanied by
the following information: whether dis-
closure is mandatory, what is the legal
authority for the request, what uses will
be made of the number, and what riles
of confidentiality will apply.
Mr. President, these provisions directly
reflect the specific recommendations of
the oft-cited text "Records, Computers,
and the Rights of Citizens," which was
published in 1973 by the Secretary of
HEW's Committee on Automated Per-
sonal Data Systems. The amendment is
also consistent with the general position
presented in the Social Security Admin-
istration's "1971 Task Force Report on
the Social Security Number."
Our amendment overcomes the ques-
tions raised earlier by several of my col-
leagues. These questions centered around
the disruption of established procedures
and the uncertain but large cost in-
volved in changing recordkeeping pro-
cedures nationwide. The amendment will
not require redesigning forms and repro-
graming computers. It will not disrupt
established procedures and it will not
create unwarranted cost burdens, be-
cause it specifically exempts any dis-
closure of the social security number
which is required by Federal law, or any
use which is in existence and operation
prior to January 1, 1975.
Mr. President, the amendment that
we now propose is but a small tribute to
the tireless efforts over many years by
the most respected senior Senator from
North Carolina, Senator ERVIN, to beat
down invasions of privacy on numerous
fronts. Our amendment does not pretend
to solve all of the problems raised by
abuses of the social security number, but
It will halt the unchecked spread of these
abuses and bring us to a uniform na-
tional policy.
Mr. ERVrN. Will the Senator from Ari-
zona yield?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I will be happy to
yield.
Mr. ERVIN% I think the amendment
offered by the Senator from Arizona, co-
sponsored by the distinguished Senator
from Illinois, is very meritorious, and I
hope the. Senate will adopt it. I want to
take this occasion to commend the Sena-
tor from Arizona for the good work he
has done in supporting this entire legis-
lation.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the Sena-
tor.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, has the
amendment been disposed of?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I was wondering if
It had been disposed of.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is still pending. The Chair
was not certain whether the Senator
from Nebraska wanted to address the
amendment.
If not, the question is on the amend-
ment of the Senator from Arizona (put-
ting the question).
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Nebraska.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I rise to
address some questions and express some
misgivings about the pending measure.
It is a measure which seeks to establish
a Federal privacy board to oversee hte
gathering and disclosure of information
concerning individuals, to provide man-
agement systems in Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and other
organizations, regarding such informa-
tion, and for other purposes.
It seeks to gain these objectives, Mr.
President, by granting very extensive
powers and duties to the Privacy Com-
mission which the legislation creates.
Mr. President, the general declared
objectives of the bill are desirable and
worthy. I support these objectives. There
have been many abuses in the area of
privacy with which this bill deals. Many
past abuses have been identified and
have been corrected. As new abuses of
privacy appear, there have been good
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November' 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 19847
faith efforts by both the congressional
and executive branch to remedy them.
But notwithstanding such efforts,
there are still a number of areas in which
great improvement can be made, to pro-
tect the privacy of individual data col-
lected and maintained by the Govern-
ment, by proper statutory authority and
other regulatory efforts. There is little
doubt that there is much room for im-
provement in the manner in which our
Government treats the personal infor-
mation of its citizens.
It is, however, Mr. President, the ef-
fectiveness, the propriety, .and the wis-
dom of the form which this bill takes in
order to safeguard personal information
which raises some question.
While there are other observations
which could be addressed to various spe-
cific provisions of the bill, I shall briefly
refer only to two major aspects of the
legislation in my present remarks.
One aspect has to do with the nature
and scope of the duties and responsi-
bilities of the Federal Privacy Commis-
sion provided for in the bill.,
The second major aspect pertains to
the inclusion of criminal justice and the
law enforcement records and files within
the purview of the legislation.
As to the first, Mr. President, it should
be noted that the scope and range of
activities permitted the board are very
broad. The board may concern' itself not
only with Federal agencies and offices,
- but also with organizations in the private
sector, in State and regional government,
and in charitable and political organi-
zations.
Happily, it is excluded from examining
religious organizations, but aside from
that I doubt very much that any system
of data gathering would escape the mi-
croscopic as well as the macroscopic eye
of the Federal Privacy Commission.
Mr. President, the present law, to-
gether with many longstanding prece-
dents, assigns oversight responsibilities
regarding many of the Federal agencies
and activities to the Congress. There are,
for example, oversight powers, presently
being exercised by the Committees on the
Judiciary, in both bodies of Congress,
dealing with the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation and its related information
gathering activities.
Similarly, there are the Committees
on Commerce in both bodies of Congress
which concern themselves, and have for
many decades, with the regulatory
bodies, such as the Interstate Commerce
? Commission, the Civil Aeronautics
Board, and the Federal Trade Commis-
sion.
We also have the Committee on Fi-
nance in the Senate and the Ways and
Means Committee in the House which
concern themselves with the Internal
Revenue Service and With the various
activities that are lodged in the Treas-
ury Department.
These are examples where, through the
years?either by statute or by inherent
constitutional powers, Congress has ex-
ercised oversight on Federal activities
and agencies.
Normally when Congress seeks to dele-
gate its powers and responsibilities it
does so in a limited fashion. But here,
Mr. President, under the terms of this
bill, the Federal Privacy Board would be
vested with vast responsibility and su-
pervisory power.
Such a delegation of responsibility as
Is represented in this bill is a little at
variance with what we like to see: This
Is because when we create powers in
bodies of this kind Congress has gen-
erally tried to define in more or less pre-
cise language?preferably more pre-
cise?the bounds of such power.
Mr. President, the Board created by
this act would supersede and impose it-
self upon all existent statutory, or ac-
tual, oversight and supervision of the
various other agencies and activities
that are involved. It would create an-
other layer of Federal officials who would
go abroad and interest themselves in get-
ting into almost limitlesg numbers of ac-
tivities and areas of human conduct in
this country. It would indeed be far flung
In its organization. It would have to be,
of course, if it were going to be effective
for its declared purposes. It would be
armed with money and with penetrating
powers?power to get witnesses and rec-
ords in almost any public or private area
in which it might care to interest itself.
Mr. President, it is respectfully sug-
gested that this type of supervisory ac-
tivity will tend to result in confusion and
conflict and indecision. It may tend to
diminish the immediate and direct in-
terest of Congress in the exercise of its
oversight role.
As indicated the scope of coverage of
the Commission covers virtually all of
-the data collecting activity of the Gov-
ernment. It includes civil as well as
criminal data.
The remainder of my remarks pertain
to the assignment to the Federal Privacy
Commission of criminal justice records
and of law enforcement records in their
totality, barring none. The field of crim-
inal justice records I submit is of such
complexity that it should not be dealt
with on the same terms as civil.records.
It should be the subject of separate reg-
ulation.
The field of criminal justice records
and the related information, if it were
not handled properly, would be danger-
ous to informants, operatives, agents,
and officers of the law.
Mr. President, there is no need for this
legislation to get into the regulation of
criminal justice records. There is pres-
ently pending in Congress legislation?
which now is narrowing down to its
final stages?that deals specifically with
criminal justice history, with criminal
information centers, with data banks,
court records, and all the other informa-
tion which pertains to law enforcement
This legislation, S. 2963 and S. 2964, is
well along, and it is near resolution. It
has been the subject of extensive hear-
ings. Many hours have gone into perfect-
ing its provisions.
It is a difficult field in itself and with
Its specific points?very difficult. Because
of its complexity, the legislation has not
been treated superficially and has there-
fore taken a period of time In which to
reach the near completion stage it now
occupies.
With. all this effort, in the passage of
the pending bill, S. 3418, we would have
superimposed upon the criminal justice
field very general rules which were de-
signed for civil record systems and do not
properly fit law enforcement. This would
cause no end of confusion and no end of
conflict.
Generally, it has been assumed that crimi-
nal justice or law enforcement information
(whether used by Government or in the pri-
vate sector) gives rise to problems requiring
treatment different from that of information
used to carry out social, health, or money
benefit programs, to administer revenue and
regulatory laws, to select and manage em-
ployees and outside contractors, and to con-
duct the multiplicity of other operations by
Government or business. However, even
within the broad range of separate informa-
tional relationships between individuals and
Government or between individuals and busi-
ness, where criminal detection and appre-
hension or enforcement of regulatory laws
is not the object, wide differences occur. Ma-
terial differences occur in the kinds and vol-
ume of information used, in the manner of
collecting and disseminating information, in
the degrees of data sensitivity, in the uses
made of the information, and in the risks of
possible abuse.
The Committee on the Judiciary is for-
mulating this criminal justice data legis-
tion, S. 2963 and S. 2964. The Judiciary
Committees of the House and the Senate,
have, through the years, acquired a great
deal of experience and seasoning in this
area. I submit that it is only fitting and
proper, as well as wise, to reserve the
responsibility of drafting complex legis-
lation to those committees which devel-
oped background and expertise on the
topic in question.
The job can be done, Mr. President, to
protect privacy in the area of law en-
forcement records and criminal infor-
mation centers. It can be done in a
way to assure privacy and to assure rele-
vance, to assure timeliness and com-
pleteness and accuracy of the data in-
volved. That will be done. But it can be
done best by those who are versed and
knowledgeable in that field.
It is imperative that competent, sea-
soned, and expert authorities handle sit-
uations of that kind. The goal, after all,
in law enforcement is good police work,
good investigation work, good prosecu-
tion, sentencing, and corerction. Legisla-
tion should be enacted which considers
these various aspects of law enforcement.
In acting in this area we must insure that
we have struck a proper and equitable
balance between the individual's right to
privacy and society's interest in good and
effeCtive law enforcement.
Mr. President, again I say that I do
believe that the thrust of this bill, with
its broad regulatory Commission and its
effort to apply the same regulations to
civil and criminal data?arrest records
as well as intelligence information?is
the wrong means to approach the prob-
lem with which we are attempting to
deal. Happily, in the other body, there
Is being perfected a companion bill
which has approached the matter in a
vastly different way. It is my hope that
in due time, rather than trying to amend
this bill on the floor of the Senate, which
would be a mighty poor way of trying to
legislate in such a complex field, that
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S19848
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE November 21, 1974
we should make an effort to considef
the product of the other body.
Again, I want to say that the objec-
tives of S. 3418 are good. They are fine
and there will be a great deal of popu-
lar support for an attempt to _correct
practices which sometimes result ir
abuse of privacy. But it is not the label
cf the bill, it is not its declared pro-
grams for which we should vote; it is
rather the fashion in which it is sought
to achieve those objectives that really
co unts.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Alr. PERCY. Mr. President, I certainly
think that the remarks of our distin-
euished colleague, Senator HRUSKA, are
worthy of comment and the concerns he
has raised are worthy of consideration
S. 3418 requires that criminal history
and arrest records?that is, routine rec-
ords of arrest and court decisions or rap
sheets?be subject to the requirements
cf the bill. '
Hut our bill does make a careful, proper
distinction between this type of criminal
record and another type. The latter type
are criminal intelligence and investiga-
tive files.
These files, of course, are of a sensitive
nature, and S. 3418, in section 203, pro-
vides that agencies maintaining such
files may exempt them from the provi-
s ems of the bill providing that people
may have access to their own records.
We believe this exception to be proper
and ample to meet the legitimate con-
cerns of the law enforcement agencies.
The kinds of exception that arose, that
have given such great emphasis to this
bill, are the kind of situation which a
mail cover picks up the fact that a high
school girl?in this case, it was a girl by
the name of Lori Paton?wrote a letter
In connection with a high school theme
to an agency that happened to be on the
FBI's subversive list. The mail surveil-
lance picked up that she was correspond-
ing with such an agency, and she was
therefore named in the record, and a
high school girl had an FBI record.
All she was doing was writing a high
school theme. She was not a subversive,
blit there she was, she had a file with the
FBI. The family literally had to go to
court and sue the Government in order
to have that record taken out, along with
all the other people that might be in
suith a position.
Our bill is so carefully drafted, that it
would peimit her to obtain access to her
file. However, if the information in her
file were in fact criminal Intelligence in-
formation, part of a current investiga-
tion of criminal activities, our bill would
safeguard the ability of law enforcement
personnel to withhold information until
the possibility of prosecution had passed.
Certainly, we have no intention of in-
terfering with criminal records and that
type of thing, which the distinguished
Senator pointed out must be preserved.
I think the bill has been carefully
drawn in this regard. Nothing in S. 3418
would do damage to the quality of arrest
records, for instance.
No excessive burdens for law enforce-
ment agencies are created by this bill.
Indeed, the specific legislation that the
administration has sent to Congress to
deal with criminal arrest records, and
the two Senate bills?Eavnst and
Hausxa?all of which are far more de-
tailed and comprehensive in their treat-
ment-of arrest records, are not incondst-
ent with the treatment provided by S.
3418. All of these bills provide the same
basic protections: an individual can see
his own "rap sheet," the information
must be accurate and up-to-date, and
standards are established to regulate the
disclosure and access to arrest record
files.
S. 3418 provides these same minimum
safeguards, to become effective 1 year
after enactment. This delay allows time
to permit a more explicit criminal rec-
ords bill to be passed. However, uneal a
bill passes there is no reason not to pro-
vide minimum standards.
The need for criminal records coverage
is demonstrated by the NCIC?Nation-
al Crime Information Center?a central-
ized national computer center that col-.
lects and disburses information about
wanted persons, stolen property, and
criminal history records, now operates
without legal privacy restrictions. As of
December 1, 1973, there were more than
5 million active files in tins system. Com-
puter terminals located in cities and
towns all across the nation create easy
access to these records. "They could lead
to access by more users and for check-
ing on more individuals than is socially
desirable"?from the July 1973 HEW re-
port on privacy. If harmful information
about a person were placed in the file, it
would be disseminated and available na-
tionwide.
The HEW report says:
In practice, the NCIC does not have effec-
tive control over the accuracy of all the in-
formation in its files. If a subscribing sys-
tem enters a partially inaccurate record, or
fans to submit additions or corrections to
the NCIC files (e.g., the return of a stolen
vehicle or the disposition of an arrest), there
Is not much that the NCIC can do about It.
Our bill would require the FBI, which
administers the NCIC, to develop proce-
dures to insure that information dis-
seminated by NCIC is accurate, complete
and up-to-date.
The HEW report continues to say
that?
Once a subscribing police department 'on-
tributes an arrest report to the NCIC, that
report is available to any "qualified re-
questor" in the system.
In some states, this means employers and
licensing agencies (for physicians, barbers,
plumbers and the like). Thus, unless a vim-
Inal record information system is designed
to keep track of all the ultimate users of each
record released, and of every person who has
seen it, any correction or emendation of the
original record can never be certain to reach
holder of a copy.
Our bill requires a complete log of all
disclosures of personal information to
individuals outside the agency maintain-
ing the data.
Mr. HRUSKA. On that score, my Main
point pertains. To do something like
that should be not through some beard
that has no expertise or exposure to that
type of thing; the Congress, through its
oversight powers over the FBI and the
Department of Justice and so on, would
be able to take care of that. The pro-
posed legislation, S. 2963 and S. 2964
does, and if it is in the field of security,
or if it is in the field of something else,
the proper legislative body, oversight
body, can deal with that very satisfac-
torily, without getting into this nebulous
and innovative area and something
really new that would be loosed upon
the width and breadth of the land.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I wish to
reply very briefly to the distinguished
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. HRUSKA).
This bill does not empower the Privacy
Commission to have any jurisdiction
over any other agency of Government
except to the extent that that other
agency of Government is engaged in
collecting or storing or disseminating
personal information about individuals.
Outside of that, it has no jurisdiction
whatever.
The term, "personal information" is
defined in subsection 2 of section 301 of
the bill, on page 48.
The bill is a very simple bill when you
stop to analyze it sufficiently. In the first
place, it says that Government shall not
call on individuals for any information
unless that information is reasonable or
necessary to enable the agency asking
for it to perform its statutory duties.
Then it requires Federal agencies to re-
strict that information?that is, per-
sonal information only. They will re-
strict its disclosure to officials who have
some public duty to perform that re-
quires them to have access to that infor-
mation.
Then it provides that no information
will be released to unauthorized persons.
Those are very simple requirements.
With reference to law enforcement
provisions, it expressly provides that the
head of any law enforcement agency
can exempt the agency from certain cru-
cial provisions of the bill. It will not im-
pede the agency's operations as a law
enforcement agency.
With reference to the CIA, the Senate
has adopted an amendment today,
among other amendments, which virtu-
ally relieve the CIA from coverage by
the act, except to the extent that it must
file some reports.
This is a very simple bill, with simple
features. It is necessary to give the Pri-
vacy Commission some power to enforce
it; otherwise, it will be just a hollow
piece of legislative mockery on the stat-
ute books. I sincerely hope that the
Senate will pass it.
AMENDMENT NO. 1992
Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1992, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
Mr. WEICKER. I ask unanimous con-
sent that further reading of the amend-
ment be waived, and that the amend-
ment be printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING CateteiCER (Mr.
PEARSON) . Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WEICKER'S amendment (No. 1992)
Is as follows:
On page 54, line 8, strike out "This Act"
and insert in lieu thereof "Titles I, IT, and III
of this Act".
On page 54, line 14, strike out "this Act"
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
ADD roved For Release 2.0,02/01/28 ? C1ATBDP7MRWR000700150081-9 ?
November 21, 1974 CONGRESs toN AL KtCOK 19849
and insert in lieu thereof 'titles I, II, and III
of this Act".
On page 54, immediately below line 14,
insert the following new title:
"TITLE IV?FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
"Ssc. 401. This title may be cited as the
'Net Worth Disclosure Act'.
"SEC. 402. (a) Each individual referred to
in subsection (b) shall file annually with
the Comptroller General of the United States
a full and complete statement of net worth
to consist of:
"(1) A list of the identity and value of
each asset held by him, or jointly by him
and his spouse or by him and his child or
children, and which has a fair market value
In excess of $1,500 as of the end of the calen-
dar year prior to that in which he is required
to file a report under this Act.
"(2) A list of the identity and amount of
each liability owed by him, or jointly by him
and his spouse or by him and his child or
children, and whicti is in excess of $1,500 as
of the end of the calendar year prior to that
In which he is required to file a report under
this Act. .
"(b) The provisions of this Act apply to
the President, the Vice President, each Mem-
ber of the Senate, each Member of the
House of Representatives (including Dele-
gates and the Resident Commissioner from
Puerto Rico), and each officer and employee
of the United States within the executive
and legislative branches of Government re-
ceiving compensation at an annual rate in
excess of $30,000.
"(c) Reports required by this Act shall be
in such form and shall contain such infor-
mation in order to meet the provisions of this
Act as the Comptroller General may pre-
scribe. All reports filed under this Act shall
be maintained by the Comptroller General
as public records, open to inspection by mem-
bers of the public, and copies of such records
shall be furnished upOn request at a rea-
sonable fee.
"SEC. 403. Each person to whom this Act
applies on January 1 of any year shall file
the report required by this on or before
February 15 of that year. Each person to
whom this Act first applies during a year
after January 1 of that year shall file the re-
port required by this Act on or before the
forty-fifth day after this Act first applies
to him during that year.
"Suc. 404. Any person who knowingly and
willfully fails to file a report required to be
filed under this Act, or who knowingly and
willfully files a false report required to be
filed under this Act, shall be fined not more
than $2,000, or imprisoned for not more than
two years, or both.
"Sac. 405. This title shall become effective
on January 1, 1975.".
Mr. WEICKER. &I% President, to di-
gress briefly, I do not know how many
more occasions I will have to speak of my
admiration for the distinguished Sena-
tor from North Carolina, an admiration
that has grown during my years here in
the Senate, as I have seen him devote his
energies to a piece of paper that, very
frankly, has almost been forgotten, spe-
cifically, the Constitution of the United
States.
You know, there is no greatness in this
land that does not spring from that doc-
ument. That which is good, tangibly good,
that we see around us, is the manifesta-
tion of its great concepts and its great
ideals. At a time when so many people
had forgotten those concepts and ideals,
It was the Senator from North Carolina
who gave them legislative meaning and,
Indeed, very practical meaning, to the
people of this country.
So, regardless of our respective posi-
tions on any amendments that I have to
offer to this bill, the fact is that I want
to express now my humble admiration
for Senator ERVIN'S great contribution
to this Nation, at a time when such was
very specifically called for. He was the
only one, at a certain time, to stand up
and be counted.
I am today offering an amendment to
the Federal Privacy Board Act to require
the full disclosure of net worth by high-
ranking officials in the executive and
congressional branches of Government
This amendment is the same as the net
worth disclosure bill, S. 4059, which I
originally introduced before the Senate
on September 30.
I ask unanimous consent that the
name of the distinguished Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. BARTLETT) be added as a
cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING GevICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WEICKER. It is a matter of par-
ticular concern to me that the Congress
has not yet enacted legislation to guar-
antee to the public the right to know the
financial interests of those who guide
their Government. I strongly believe that
the public has that right and that the
disclosure of financial worth by policy-
makers is one step toward strengthen-
ing the public trust in Government.
Obviously, we consider this matter of
the financial interests of public officials
to be of importance, otherwise we would
not be spending the time spent already in
making such inquiries of a potential
Vice President of the United States.
There is not one single confirmation
hearing that we conduct in the Senate
that does not have as a key part of the
hearing a statement of assets and liabili-
ties and the elimination of any assets and
liabilities which we demand, where any
conflict of interest might arise.
During floor consideration of the Fed-
eral Election Campaign Act, I supported
and the Senate passed an amendment
that would have required public report-
ing by elected Federal officials of per-
sonal financial affairs. This amendment
would have covered each candidate for
election to Congress, Members of Con-
gress, the President, the Vice President
and certain U.S. officers and employees,
at GS-16 level or earning more than
$25,000 per year.
Reports of financial interests would
have been filed with the Federal Elec-
tion Commission and would have in-
cluded:
First, amounts of Federal, State, and
local income or property taxes paid;
Second, amount and source of each
Item of income or gift over $100;
Third, identity of assets and liabilities
over $1,000;
Fourth, all dealing in securities and
commodities over $1,000; and
Fifth, all purchases or sales of interest
in real property involving over $1,000,
except for personal residence.
However, this amendment, passed- in
the Senate by voice vote, was deleted
afterwards during conference considera-
tion of the Federal Election Campaign
Act. The Federal Election Campaign Act,
as passed into law, contained no pro-
vision for financial disclosure?public
financial disclosure?by elected and
appointed Federal officials.
The amendment that I am proposing
today is simple and straightforward. It
is net as comprehensive as the previous
disclosure amendment that was deleted
In conference?but seeks to establish in
law minimal disclosure requirements for
elected Federal officials.
Those covered by the act would be the
President, the Vice President, Members
of the Senate, Members of the House of
Representatives, and all employees of
the executive and legislative branches re-
ceiving compensation at an annual rate
of more than $30,000.
What and when do they have to file?
Annually with the Comptroller General
a list of all assets and liabilities over
$1,500, on the basis of fair market value
as of December 31 of the previous year.
All reports filed with the Comptroller
General are to be maintained by the
Comptroller General as public records,
open to inspection by members of the
public.
The act would become effective as of
January 1975. The time period covered
would be the preceding calendar year.
Therefore, by February 15 of 1975, all
persons covered by this legislation would
have to indicate what their net worth
was as of December 31, 1974. Anyone who
had been appointed or elected in a pub-
lic election during the course of 1975
would have to file such a statement with-
in 45 days of his election or appointment.
I recognize that the bill we are deal-
ing with concerns privacy, a need for
which, as I have already indicated, has
always been of deep concern to the dis-
tinguished Senator from North Caro-
lina. Indeed, the distinguished Senator
from Illinois has also been a leader in
assuring this most basic right.
I predict right now that the question
of the right to privacy will be one of the
great issues of the 1970's and 1980's. It
goes to the very basis of the Constitution
which the Senator from North Carolina
has so ably defended over the years.
I think it is important to point out
on every occasion that we can that the
difference between our political system
and that of any other nation in today's
world, or indeed throughout history, is
that our Constitution and our political
system focus on the individual, not on
society as a whole?not on the mass,
but on the individual.
If we want something that is efficient,
trouble free, and expeditious, it cannot
be the Constitution of the United States.
How can we have something that is quiet,
efficient, and trouble free when it con-
cerns itself with 210 million people? It is
impossible. That is why the issue of
privacy is important?so that we preserve
that spirit which has guaranteed to each
human being in this country a full
flowering of their abilities and their as-
pirations and their hopes. That oppor-
tunity for individual flowering has given
us a magnificent historical experience.
So this is not an academic issue, to be
debated by scholars and professors, but
indeed it goes to the very heart of our
experience as a nation.
Mr. President, just to wrap up my
comments relative to this amendment,
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
19850
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE November 21, 197-1
there are those areas, however, where I
think that what we do not want is pri-
vacy and secrecy. We want opennesa;
we want sunshine. Specifically, I speak
of that which deals with those in posi-
tions of public trust.
I find it rather ironic that we have
recently sat through a number of wel:?
publicized Senate hearings and still Co
not impose upon ourselves the same re-
quirements we have been imposing upon
those being investigated. If we want
credibility in this country, indeed, whet
Is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander. I think quite properly this must
be so in this country, so that people
might understand our actions in relation
to our economic interests.
This is the reason that, despite my
desire to guarantee the privacy of in-
dividuals, I want our lives as elected of-
ficials to be totally open to scrutiny by
the American people.
I propose to achieve such an end by
virtue of this amendment which is very,
very simple, a listing of those assets and
liabilities over $1,500 once a year by
every one of us, by the President, the
Vice President, his Cabinet officers, those
highly paid staff members, which docu -
mentaton would be available to the pub-
Lie upon request.
I would hope, Mr. President, that my
colleagues would see fit to impose this
obligation- on themselves, and I think it
would do a great deal to bring us up the
ladder of respect in the eyes of the
American people.
I might add that I believe most of the
:individuals whom I see in this Chamber
have done that anyway. I am not point-
Mg any finger, but I would just like t3
see us go ahead and make it a matter
01 law rather than a matter of individual
discretion.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, as I ob-
served earlier, if we take one legislative
nag and put too heavy a load on it, the
nag might not be able to reach its in-
tended destination.
Ever since I have been in the Senate
there have been amendnfents proposed
from time to time on the floor with ref-
erence to disclosure of the assets of Sen-
ators.
I have never known, however, of an:
committee to conduct any hearing on
any bill of that kind, and I think it is a
matter that ought to be explored by th?
e
appropriate committee, or there ought to
be a hearing, or there ought to be a de-
cision based on a hearing on this
subject.
I respectfully submit that this amend-
ment is not really germane to this bill.
This bill is a bill to regulate how the
agencies of the Federal Government shall
conduct themselves in respect to the
collection, the storage, the use and the
dissemination of personal information,
and I hope that the Senator from Con-
necticut will not press his amendment
for that reason.
I do not want to jeopardize this bill.
think we have got a good bill here.
I am going to introduce in a few
days a bill encompassing some of the
election reforms recommended by the
Senate Select Committee on Presiden-
tial Campaign Activities which have not
been enacted into law, and I think the
Senatcir's amendment would be quite ap-
propriate for consideration in connec-
tion with that legislation.
I will cease to be chairman of the
Government Operations Committee on
the expiration of my present term in
the Senate. I trust, according to al the
precedents, that my colleague, the dis-
tinguished Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. RIBICOFF), will be my successor.
I hope that he can give the Senator as-
surance that it would be considered,
either in the introduction of legislation
to implement the recommendations of
the Senate select committee or as an
Independent bill.
I hope that the Senator from Con-
necticut (Mr. WEICKER) will not press his
amendment because it might jeopardize
this particular bill which is restricted in
Its nature to Government action rather
than action of individuals.
I want to thank the distinguished
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Wzrxza)
for his most gracious and generous re-
marks that he made concerning my ac-
tivities as a Member of the Senate.
Ever since he came to the Senate, he
has had offices across the hall from my
offices, and I have had very many con-
tacts with him.
I do not know any Senator who has
ever rendered more intelligent and more
courageous service in any parti eular
field that the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. WEICKER) rendered to this country
and to this Senate as a member of the
Senate select committee. I cannot pay
him too high a tribute for his intelligent
and courageous actions in that respect.
Mr. WEICKER. I thank the Senator.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I have been apprised
of the colloquy between the Senator from
North Carolina, the chairman of the
Government Operations Committee and
my esteemed colleague from Connecticut,
Senator WEICKER.
First, I can only make assurances,
subject to the Senate naming me to
succeed our esteemed chairman, Mr.
ERVIN, chairman of the Govern nent
Operations Committee.
But should I be designated as c7-iair-
man of the Government Operations
Committee when we meet in session next
year, I assure my colleague from Con-
necticut that in connection with the
hearings on the Ervin bill, which is an
outgrowth of the. important reforms sug-
gested by the Select Committee on Presi-
dential Campaign Activities, I would also
believe it appropriate to have hearings
on the proposal of my colleague from
the State of Connecticut.
1 would assure him that, in conjunc-
tion with the hearings on the Ervin bill,
we could proceed with hearings or the
Weicker bill and adopt it, if the com-
mittee so agrees, Mr. WEICKER.
Mr. WEICKER. I thank my colleague.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator from Connecticuit (Mr. WEICKER)
yield to the Senator from Indiana?
Mr. WEICKER. Yes.
Mr. IlAYH. I listened with a great deal
of interest to what I thought was a very
eloquent, appropriate, and on-the-mark
assessment of the validity behind the
amendment of my distinguished friend
and colleague, the Senator from Connec-
ticut.
This is very much along the same lines
of a measure introduced by the Senator
from Indiana some time ago, and r
would like to suggest to my other dis-
tinguished colleague, the Senator from
Connecticut, that if we are exploring
that situation next year, which I cer-
tainly hope we will, we look at the need
to broaden disclosure beyond the cur-
rent boundary lines as well as examining
our measure suggested by our distin-
guished colleague from Connecticut.
As the Senate may recall, we had a
very difficult battle on this floor relative
to the merits of a certain Supreme Court
judge. One of the significant aspects of
that debate, and one of the issues which
I feel we did not agree upon, was a con-
flict of interest that concerned many of
us and led to his not being confirmed
by the Senate.
At that time, it seemed to me that we
should deal with judicial conflicts of in
as well as in the legislative and
executive branches.
So I would suggest that in looking into
this, we include the importance of dis-
closure with regard to judicial conflicts
of interest, as to their propriety or ap-
pearance of propriety, and that we also
explore lowering that dollar figure down
to $1,800. We have a number of people
on our staffs and in executive positions
who are making decisions behind closed
doors, away from public assessment and
disclosure to our constituents generally
who have, perhaps, as much influence in
making decisions as some of the rest of
us who are in the limelight all the time
So I want to compliment my distin-
guished colleague, the Senator from
Connecticut, and I would like to join with
him and ask him to join with me in study-
ing this.
I also hope that my other friend and
colleague, the Senator from Connecticut
who has been here now for 12 long years
with the Senator from Indiana, will start
the 48thby exploring the very important
aspects of putting it all on top of the
table and letting our constituents then
judge whether this really is a conflict of
interest.
Mr. RIBICOF'F. May I respond to my
distinguished colleague from Indian
that should such a proposal be included
In the bill to be presented by the Sen-
ator from Connecticut or by the Senator
from Indiana, and it is referred to the
Government Operations Committee, we
could certainly explore through hearings
the proposal of the Senator from In-
diana at the same time. I would certain-
ly so assure the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, I cer-
tainly accept the assurances of my dis-
tinguished colleague from Connecticut
and the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. PERCY. And the Senator from
Illinois, as ranking minority member.
would like to join in assuring the Senator
from Connecticut that hearing will be
held.
Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, under
those circumstances, admittedly it is cer-
tainly less than germane. You see, the
last time the amendment was offered it
was on a bill which it was said was not
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
germaneeither, so I thought we might
try something that was less than ger-
mane to have it become law.
I know that we will have hearings and
believe me, it would certainly enhance the
image of this body. The eyes of the Amer-
ican people should be addressed to this
separate subject, and legislation should
be enacted right away. With those re-
marks, I ask that the amendment which
I have offered be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
The Senator has the right to
withdraw his amendment.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and the nays on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
a sufficient second?
The yeas and the nays were ordered.
Mr, WEICKER. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The second assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
On page 43, line 2, strike the (; ) and in-
sert the following:
provided such personal information is
transferred or disseminated in a form not in-
dividually identifiable."
On page 47, line 23, strike the (-) and
insert the following:
provided such personal information is
transferred or disseminated in a form not
individually identifiable."
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the amend-
ment referred to by the Senator from
Connecticut is meritorious and I hope the
Senate will adopt it.
Mr. WEICKER. I thank the Senator
from North Carolina. What this does is
attack the confidentiality of. our income
tax returns. It is as simple as that. With
my amendment?the relevant informa-
tion is available. However, as far as the
Individual return and identity of the re-
turn is concerned, no, it is not available
to the Census Bureau, and should not be.
I am delighted my amendment is accept-
able to the Senator from North Carolina.
I hope we can get the point home to
the people downtown. I file my tax re-
turn for the purposes of collection of
taxes and nothing else.
This amendment does that. The gen-
eralized information is available, but not
the specific return.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Connecticut.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, we are not
operating under controlled time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is
correct.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I would like
to add my word of commendation to the
distinguished Senator from North Caro-
lina for the significant contribution he
has made as represented here in this bill.
I would like to go further, if I might,
as one who has had the good fortune of
sitting with him as a member of the Con-
stitutional Rights Subcommittee for a
number of years, to suggest that the
product of this bill is like one acorn in
the forest compared to the hours of work
Contributed by our distinguished friend
from. North Carolina.
My friend from North Carolina and I
have not always agreed on issues that
have been before this body, but I must
say it has been like a breath of fresh air
for some of us who believe that the first
10 amendments of the Constitution are
as absolutely indispensable today as
when they were introduced long ago, to
see a champion like the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina stand up
and lead the charge in defending these
rights from attack.
I must say, I have a lump in my throat,
if I might say it as unemotionally as I
know how, to think of the void that will
exist when he leaves the Congress.
I suppose most of us here are dedicated
to the principles of the Bill of Rights,
but I know of no other person who has
had a greater feel for the indispensa-
bility of these amendments and a willing-
ness to put the work and the effort be-
hind that dedication. I just cannot thank
him enough.
He has been more prominently on the
national scene as a result of his work in
the Watergate hearings, and we owe him
a debt for that, but I think perhaps an
even greater debt goes to the effort he
has been leading a long time before any-
body heard of Watergate.
I think if this Nation and this body
had listened to what the Senator from
North Carolina was trying to say over
the years, and certainly if the Depart-
ment of Justice and some of those folks
who succumbed to temptation dawn at
the White House had listened to what he
was trying to say, there would never have
been a Watergate.
Now, may I ask my distinguished col-
league from North Carolina if he would
care to give us his opinion, for the rec-
ord, relative to the importance of the
Committee on the Judiciary continuing
to explore any violations of our individual
rights, privacy, and the area of personal
information systems and data banks?
I note this is a joint effort of govern-
mental operations and the Judiciary
Subcommittee of which he was chair-
man.
I would not, by default, want the Judi-
ciary Committee, which he served so
faithfully through the years and which
was moving in this area, to lose juris-
diction or the opportunity to continue
the vigilance he established at quite a
high level.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, first I want
to thank my good friend from Indiana
for his most generous and gracious re-
marks.
I also want to say that while he and I
have differed at times on certain issues,
that we have never disagreed about the
value of the Bill of Rights as a guarantee
of the freedom of all Americans.
On all occasions when I have been
fighting for the Bill of Rights, he has
been by my side.
The Government Operations Com-
mittee had jurisdiction of this particular
bill because it does affect the structure
of the Government in that it creates a
Federal Privacy Board.
I recognize also in the sense that the
S 19851
Judiciary Committee, through its Sub-
committee on Constitutional Rights, had
a concrete jurisdiction because this in-
volves some of the basic constitutional
rights of Americans.
I do not think passage of this bill will
alter in any way the provisions of the
rules which give the Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights as part of the Judi-
ciary Committee jurisdiction to investi-
gate and initiate legislation dealing with
constitutional rights in the field of pri-
vacy or any other field where they exist.
Mr. BAYH. I appreciate the Senator's
assessment in this area.
Might I also ask him to give us the
benefit of his thoughts or. feeling in
some additional areas. I understand
there are restrictions between what We
might like to accomplish and what we
feel we have 51 votes for. One of the con-
cerns that the Senator from Indiana had
addressed in other legislation is the exist-
ence of other kinds of information-
gathering systems that are now under
the jurisdiction of State or local govern-
ments, or indeed in the private sector
with particular concern expressed about
the credit rating business. Could the Sen-
ator giva us his thoughts on this?
Mr. ERVIN. Well, the Government Op-
erations Committee and the Subcom-
mittee on Constitutional Rights agreed
to restrict the provisions of this bill very
narrowly and to make it apply primarily
to the information-gathering activities
affecting an individual on the part of the
Federal agencies.
We originally did have provision to ap-
ply it to the States, but there was some
considerable opposition to it. As a prag-
matic matter we restricted coverage of
the bill, as far as States are concerned,
to a study of State agencies. The provi-
sions of the bill do apply to a State
agency which is created by a grant or
contract with the Federal agency where
It sets up a computer system. Otherwise,
it does not apply to States.
We also restricted its application inso-
far as individuals' private affairs are con-
cerned for the pragmatic reason we felt
that if we tried to deal with the whole
subject in one bill, we would be inviting
considerable opposition.
I agree with the Senator from Indiana
that it is a very serious question which
arises as to the privacy of Americans by
the activities of credit corporations and
that there should be some legislation in
the Federal field to safeguard the indi-
vidual's right of privacy in respect to
such credit organizations and similar
organizations engaged in commercial
business.
Mr. BAYH. I certainly appreciate the
Senator's thoughts on this. Might I ask
him to give his attention to one other
area?
I am quite concerned about the exemp-
tion clause in section 203, subsections (a)
and (b). I am concerned because when-
ever you set up an exemption, the ques-
tion is how broad is the exemption.
As the Senator from Indiana reads
this, we are talking specifically about na-
tional defense and foreign policy, and
intelligence and investigation informa-
tion.
Does the Senator suggest that this
should be narrowly defined, particularly
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19852
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE November 21, 1974
when we look at foreign policy? It is a
rather broad construction that could be
interpreted from this exemption.
Mr. ERVIN. I think that "national se-
curity" embraces foreign policy in a
sense. There is an executive order which
says that national security embrace:
only two things: our national defense
that is, our defense posture, our armed
services and plans in that connection;
and our sensitive dealings with foreign
countries.
I think that the first one of these
exemptions would include those things
While the bill does allow the head of
an agency engaged in investigatory work
for criminal law enforcement purpose:
to exempt the agency if he finds the pro-
visions regulating the dissemination of
these records, and so on, of individuals
would impede the accomplishment of his
department's professional duties or stat-
utory duties.
I think those are narrow restrictions.
I think they are essential if we are going
to get a bill that will command the
majority of both Houses of Congress, and
one that will be signed into law by the
President. We have to take those prac-
tical considerations into effect.
Also, I would doubt the advisability
of Congress' creating a new agency and
giving it some jurisdiction to veto the
action of long-established law enforce-
ment agencies.
Mr. BAYH. My concern, as I am sure
the Senator from North Carolina under-
stands, is based on the fact that it is
some of those agencies that have been
the primary culprits in violating these
rights which he cherishes and has done
so much to protect in the past.
Mr. ERVIN. Yes. Of course, that
one trouble: wherever power is lodged
it is always subject to be abused. But yot
have to lodge power somewhere in ordei
to get things done.
Mr. BAYH. In talking about nationa:.
defense and foreign policy, and in talk-
ing about intelligence and investigative
information, is it the Senator's assess-
ment that we are talking about three
agency heads there, or three genera:
departments?
Mr. ERVIN. The FBI, in the first place
Also, the Secret Service. Also, the Cus-
toms people who have certain law en-
forcement powers. Generally, you woulc.
have the CIA also.
However, we offered an amendment
which was adopted and which only re-
quires the CIA to make reports to the
Commission with respect to its installa-
tions and does not require them to
divulge information. When they stay
within their field, as they apparently
did not do in the case of Chile, they are
concerned solely with national security
in foreign areas.
Mr. BAYH. I assume we are also talk-.
ing about the Secretary of Defense? And
the Secretary of State, perhaps?
Mr. ERVIN. Yes, to a limited degree,
where he is engaged in enforcing mili-
tary law.
Mr. BAYH. What concerns me is that
it could not be a reasonable interpreta-
tion that, for example, the Secretary of
Agriculture or somebody dealing with
Public Law 480 which affects our foreign
policy, or the Secretary of Commerce,
which, in some instances, would also be
affecting our foreign policy, to be able to
utilize these two exemptions as a way to
get themselves out from under the re-
strictions of this legislation.
Mr. ERVIN. I do not think it would
bother anybody except those engaged in
investigative work either to protect na-
tional security or the enforcement of the
criminal laws. That is not the function
of the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. BAYH. I share that belief, but I
think it makes a lot more sense and
makes better legislative history coming
from my distinguished friend from
North Carolina.
One last question: In subsection (c)
on page 45, where we talk about a deter-
mination to exempt any such system,
and go on and talk about the head of
any such agency on line 23, are we talk-
ing specifically and only about those
agencies covered in subsection (a) and
(b) ?
Mr. ERVIN. That is right.
The word "such" there is just like we
lawyers so frequently say the said agen-
cies or aforesaid agencies specified in
those two preceding sections.
Mr. BAYH. I appreciate the patience
of my good friend as well as his great
contribution.
Mr. ERVIN. Thank you very much.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration. I understand
that both the majority and minority
members have agreed to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OleteiCER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 22, line 17, insert the following
new section:
"h(1) Whenever the Commission submits
any budget estimate or request to the Presi-
dent or the Office of Management and
Budget, it shall concurrently transmit a copy
of that request to Congress.
(2) Whenever the Commission submits any
legislative recommendations, or testimony, or
comments on legislation to the President or
Office of Management and Budget, it shall
concurrently transmit a copy thereof to the
Congress. No officer or agency of the United
States shall have any authority to require
the Commission to submit its legislative
recommendations, or testimony_ or com-
ments on legislation, to any officer or agency
of the United States for approval, comments,
or review, prior to the submission of such
recommendations, testimony, or commer is to
the Congress."
Mr. BlDEN. Mr. President, the amend-
ment I have offered would help to insure
that the Privacy Protection Commission
lirhich would be established by this bill.
Would truly be an independent regula-
tory agency. The amendment would re-
quire that the Commission submit to
Congress a copy of virtually every com-
munication it has with the President or
the Office of Management and Budget
in regard to budgetary or policy matters.
Furthermore, when the Commission
offered legislative recommendations to
Congress, neither the President, the Of-
fice of Management and Budget nor any
other Federal agency or officer?could re-
quire that the Commission clear its re-
marks with them first.
Mr. President, as events of the last 2
years have indicated. We can ill-afford
to allow the executive branch to control
our supposedly independent agencies.
These agencies are instruments not
only of the executive, but also of the
Congress. This amendment will allow
Congress to act as a watchdog to deter-
mine that it receives the agencys' views
as to policy and budget, not the execu-
tive's. In other words, we will be able
to determine for ourselves not only the
needs of the Commission, but its advice
and its problems.
Furthermore, by playing this watch-
dog role, perhaps we can curtail the com-
mon practice of an agency submitting
an overly large budget knowing full well
that the Office of Management and Budg-
et would cut it.
This amendment would not only allow
us to scrutinize the actions of the Execu-
tive regard to the Commission, but to also
scrutinize the actions of the Commission
Itself.
In 1972, an identical provision was en-
acted as part of the legislation creating
the Consumer Product Safety Commis-
sion. The provision has apparently
proved to be very effective. For the first
time, discussions between the budget
office and a regulatory agency have been
transmitted to Congress. Since we must
vote on the appropriations for such agen-
cies, it seems only natural that we be
able to see budget estimateS from the
agencies themselves, not after they have
been sifted through the executive
branch.
Mr. President, in this Congress we
have taken great strides toward reas-
serting our control over such things as
the budget. We have attempted to assure
that the three branches of Government
are truly coequal. My amendment to
this bill would be one more step in that
direction.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, as I under-
stand, this amendment merely requires
the Privacy Board to be created by this
legislation to file with the Congress its
budget at the same time it files its budget
request with the President. I think it is
a wholesome, meritorious amendment.
I hope the Senate will adopt it.
Mr. EIDEN. Everybody has been com-
plimentary to the Senator from North
Carolina. I would like to add my compli-
ments, though I have not shared any
lengthy amount of time with him in the
Senate.
I compliment him on one thing that
has been in short supply here?consis-
tency.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Delaware.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I would like
to ask to be printed in the RECORD at
this point the marked portions of the
committee report as marked by me from
page 4 through page 14, which shows why
we need this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
? Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 19853
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT
These hearings continued the oversight by
the Government Operations Committee of
the development and proper management of
automated data processing in the Federal
Government and its concern for the effect of
Federal-State relations of national and inter-
governmental data systems involving elec-
tronic and manual transmissions, sharing,
and distribution of personal information
about citizens.
Senator Ervin announced the joint hear-
ings as Chairman of both subcommittees, in
a Senate speech on June 11 in which he
summarized the issues and described some of
the complaints from citizens which have
been received by Members of Congress, as
follows:
"It is a rare person who has escaped the
quest of modern government for information.
Complaints which have come to the Consti-
tutional Rights Subcommittee and to Con-
gress over the course of several administra-
tions show that this is a bipartisan issue
which effects people in all walks of life. The
complaints have shown that despite our rev-
erence for the constitutional principles of
limited Government and freedom of the in-
dividual, Government is in danger of tilting
the scales against those concepts by means
of its information-gathering tactics and its
technical capacity to store and distribute
information. When this quite natural tend-
ency of Government to acquire and keep and
share information about citizens is enhanced
by computer technology and when it is sub-
jected to the unrestrained motives of count-
less political administrators, the resulting
threat to individual privacy make it neces-
sary for Congress to reaffirm the principle of
limited, responsive Government on behalf of
freedom.
"The complaints show that many Ameri-
cans are more concerned than ever before
about what might be in their records because
Government has abused, and may abuse, its
powers to investigate and store information.
"They are concerned about the transfer of
information from data bank to data bank
and black list to black list because they have
seen instances of it.
"They are concerned about intrusive sta-
tistical questionnaires backed by the sanc-
tions of criminal law or the threat of it be-
cause they have been subject to these prac-
tices over a numbers of years."
S. 3418 provides an "Information Bill of
Rights" for citizens and a "Code of Fair In-
formation Practices" for departments and
agencies of the executive branch.
Testimony and statements were received
from Members of Congress who have spon-
sored legislation and conducted investiga-
tions into complaints from citizens; from
Federal, State, and local officials including
representatives of the Administration and
certain departments, and agencies, the Do-
mestic Council Committee on Right to Priv-
acy, the Commerce Department, Bureau of
the Census, National Bureau of Standards,
the General Services Administration, the Of-
fice of Telecommunications Policy; the Na-
tional Governors Conference, the National
Legislative Conference, the National Associa-
tion for State Information Systems, and the
Government Management Information Sci-
ences. Many interested organizations and
Individuals with expert knowledge of the
subject advised the Committee. These in-
cluded the former Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, Elliot Richardson, au-
thors of major studies, experts in computer
technology, constitutional law, and public
administration, the American Civil Liberties
Union, Liberty Lobby, the National Commit-
tee for Citizens in Education, the American
Society of Newspaper Editors, and others.
The provisions of the bill as reported, re-
flect the bill as introduced, with revisibns
based on testimony of witneses at hearings,
consultations with experts in privacy, com-
puter technology, and law, representatives
of Federal agencies and of many private or-
ganizations and businesses, as well as the
staffs of a number of congressional com-
mittees engaged in investigations related to
privacy and governmental information sys-
tems.
The Committee finds that the need for
enactment of these provisions is supported by
the investigations and recommendations of
numerous congressional committees, reports
of bar associations, and other organizations,
and conclusions of governmental study com-
missions.
To cite only a few, there are:
Earlier studies of computers and informa-
tion technology by the Senate Committee on
Government Operations and the current
hearings and studies relating to S. 3418;
The hearings and studies on computers,
data banks and the bill of rights and other
investigations of privacy violations before
the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee;
The hearings and studies of computer
privacy and government information-gath-
ering before the Judiciary Administrative
Practices Subcommittee;
The hearings on insurance industries and
other data banks before the Judiciary Anti-
trust Subcommittee;
The hearings on abuses in the credit
reporting indudstries and on protection of
bank records before the Senate Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee;
Investigations over many years by the
House Government Operations Committee;
and
Finally, there are many revelations dur-
ing the hearings before the Select Commit-
tee on Watergate of improper access, trans-
fer and disclosure of personal files and of
unconstitutional, illegal or improper in-
vestigation of and collection of personal
information on individuals.
Particularly supportive of the principles
and purposes of S. 3418 are the following
reports sponsored by Government agencies:
1. "Legal Aspects of Computerized In-
formation Systems" by the Committee on
Scientific and Technical Information, Fed-
eral Council of Science and Technology, 1972.
2. "Records, Computers and the Rights
of Citizens", Report of the Secretary's Ad-
visory Committee on Automated Personal
Data Systems, Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare, July 1973.
3. "Databanks in a Free Society, Com-
puters, Record-Keeping and Privacy", of
the Computer Science and Engineering
Board, National Academy of Sciences, by Alan
F. Westin and Michael Baker,
4. Technical Reports by Project Search
Law Enforcement Assistance Administra-
tion, Department of Justice.
6. A draft study by the Administrative
Conference of the United States on Inter-
agency Transfers of Information.
6. Report by the National Governors Con-
ference,
7. Reports by international study bodies.
The ad hoc subcommittee has initiated
two surveys of the Governors and of the
attorneys general of the States which are
producing responses supportive of congres-
sional legislation on privacy and Federal
computers and information technology. They
also reveal strong efforts in State and teal
governments to enact similar or stronger leg-
islation to protect privacy.
The need for the bill is also evident from
the sample of legal literature and public
administration articles and press articles re-
printed in the appendix of the subcommittee
hearings.
Finally, there are the complaints of in-
formation abuses received by many Mem-
bers of Congress and diligently investigated
by each of them.
Dr. Alan P. Westin, director of the 1972
National Academy of Sciences Project, re-
ported that the study suggested "six major
areas of priority for public action: laws to
give individuals a right of notice, access,
and challenge to virtually every file held by
local, State, and national government, and
most private record systems as well; promul-
gation of clearer rules for data-sharing and
data-restriction than we now have in most
important personal data files; rules to limit
the collection of unnecessary and overbroad
personal data by any organization; increased
work by the computer industry and profes-
sionals on security measures' to make it pos-
sible for organizations to keep their prom-
ises of confidentiality; limitations on the
current, unregulated use of the Social Secu-
rity number; and the development of inde-
pendent, 'information-trust' agencies to hold
especially sensitive personal data, rather
than allowing these data to be held auto-
matically by existing agencies."
Witnesses cited the failure of legislation
and judicial decisions to keep pace with the
growing efficiency of data usage by promul-
gating clear standards for data collection,
data exchange, and individual access rights.
Similarly, many other witnesses before Con-
gress agreed with his judgment that the
mid-1970's is precisely the moment when
such standards need to be defined and in-
stalled if the managers of large data systems,
and the specialists of the computer industry,
are to have the necessary policy guidelines
around which to engineer the new data sys-
tems that are being designed and imple-
mented.
Dr. Westin cautioned:
"To delay congressional action in 1974-75,
therefore, is to assure that a large number
of major data systems will be built, and
other existing computerized systems ex-
panded, in ways that will make it extremely
costly to alter the software, change the file
structures, or reorganize the data flows to
respond to national standards. And beyond
the money, such late changes threaten to
jeopardize many operations in vital public
services that will be increasingly based on
computerized systems?national health in-
surance, family assistance plans, national
criminal-offender records, and many others.
In fact, these systems may become so large,
so expensive, and so vital to so many Ameri-
cans that public opinion will be put to a
terrible choice?serious interruption of serv-
ices or installation of citizen-rights meas-
ures."
The spread of the data bank concept, the
Increasing computerization of sensitive sub-
ject areas relating to people's personal lives
and activities, and the tendency of govern-
ment to put information technology to uses
detrimental to individual privacy were de-
tailed by Professor Authur Miller. He stated:
"Americans today are scrutinized, meas-
ured, watched, counted, and interrogated
by more governmental agencies, law enforce-
ment officials, social scientists and poll tak-
ers than at any other time in our history.
Probably in no Nation on earth is as much
individualized information collected, re-
corded and disseminated as in the United
States.
"The information gathering and surveil-
lance activities of the Federal Government
have expanded to such an extent that they
are becoming a threat to several of every
American's basic rights, the rights of pri-
vacy, speech, assembly., association, and peti-
tion of the Government.
?
"I think if one reads Orwell and Huxley
carefully, one realizes that "1984" is a state
of mind. In the past, dictatorships always
have come with hobnailed boots and tanks
and machineguns, but a dictatorship of
dossiers, a dictatorship of data banks can be
just as repressive, just as chilling and just
as debilitating on our constitutional protec-
tions. I think it is this fear that presents the
greatest challenge to Congress right now."
Approved For'Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19854
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE November 21, 1974
arofessor Miller characterized the reported
bill as "a major step in developing a ration-
ale regulatory scheme for achieving an effec-
tive balance between a citizen and the GOP -
ernment in the important field of informa-
tion privacy. The creation of a Privacy Pro-
tection Commission with broad power of
investigation, reporting, and suasion seema
to me to be an effective way of developing
policy in this rapidly changing environment.
Also worthy of enthusiastic support is Title
H of the proposed legislation. We simply
taanot allow more time to pass without de-
veloping standards of care with regard to
the gathering and handling of personal in-
lomaation. In that regard. S. 3418 goes a long
way to establish the much needed informa-
tion bill of rights."
rhe four-year survey by the Constitutional
Rights Subcommittee, intended as an aid to
Congress in evaluating pending legislatior, ,
demonstrates the need for requiring the fol-
lowing Congressional action:
elxplicit statutory authority for the crea-
lien of each data bank, as well as prior ex-
amination and legislative approval of all
decisions to computerize files;
Privacy safeguards built into the increas-
ingly computerized government files as the7
are developed, rather than merely attempt-
ing to supplement existing systems with pri-
vacy protections;
Notification of subjects that personal in-
formation about them is stored in a Fed-
eral data bank and provision of realistie
opportunities for individual subjects to re-
view and correct their own records;
Constraints on interagency exchange of
personal data about individuals and the cre-
ation of interagency data bank coopera-
tives;
The implementation of strict security pre-
cautions to protect the data banks and the
to they contain from unauthorized
or illegal access; and
Continued legislative control over the pur-
poses, contents and uses of government data
fly etems.
HEW REPORT
another report reflecting major provisions
of S. 3418 is that rendered by the Secretary's
Advisory Committee on Automated Personal
Mita Systems to the Department of Healtl,
Education and Welfare. Former Secretary
Elliot Richardson described their findings
in his testimony.
the report found that "concern about corn-
pater-based record keeping usually centers
on its implications for personal privacy, and
understandably so if privacy is considered
to entail control by an individual over the
uses made of information about him. In many
circumstances in modern life, an individual
most either surrender some of that contrcl
or forego the services that an organization
Provides. Although there is nothing inher-
ently unfair in trading some measure of
privacy for a benefit, both parties In the
Exchange should participate in setting the
terms."
-Under current law, a person's privacy is
poorly protected against arbitrary or abusive
reeord-keeping practices." For this reason, as
well as because of the need to establish stand-
ards of record-keeping practice appropriate
to the computer age, the report recommends
the enactment of a Federal "Code of Fair
information Practice" for all automated per-
tonal data systems. The Code rests on five
basic principles that would be given legal
enact as "safeguard requirements" for auto-
mated personal data systems.
rhere must be no personal data record -
keeping systems whose very existence is
secret.
There must be a way for an individual to
tihd out what information about him is in
.-ecord and how it is used,
['here must be a way for an individual to
prevent information about him that was ob-
tained for one purpose from being used or
made available for other purposes without
his consent.
There must be a way for an indiralual
to correct or amend a record of identifiable
information about him.
Any organization creating, maintaining,
using, or disseminating records of identifiable
personal data must assure the reliability of
the data for their intended use and must
take precautions to prevent misuse of the
data?
The Advisory Committee recommended
"the enactment of legislation establish mg a
Code of Fair Information Practice for all
automated personal data systems as follows:
The Code should define "fair information
practice" as adherence to specified safe-
guard requirements.
The Code should prohibit violation of any
safeguard requirement as an "unfair iefor-
mation practice."
a he Code should provide that an unfair in-
formation practice be subject to both civil
and criminal penalties.
'rile Code should provide for injunctions
to prevent violation of any safeguard re-
quirement.
The Code should give individuals the right
to oring suits TOP unfair information prac-
tices to recover actual, liquidated, and puni-
tive damages, in individual or class actions.
It should also provide for recovery of reason-
able attorneys' fees and other costs of litiga-
tion incurred by individuals who bring suc-
cessful suits."
Pending the enactment of a code of fair
information practice, the Advisory Commit-
tee also recommended that all Federal agen-
cies apply these requirements to all Federal
systems, and assure through formal rule-
making that they are applied to all other
systems within reach of the Federal govern-
ment's authority. Beyond the Federal Gov-
ernment, they urged that state and local gov-
ernments, the institutions within reach of
their authority, and all private organiza-
tions adopt the safeguard requirenienes by
whatever means are appropriate.
Revolutionary changes in data collection,
storage and sharing were described by Sena-
tor Goldwater, who was one of many wit-
nesses who called for enactment of the rec-
ommendations of the HEW Advisory Com-
mittee. He stated:
"Computer Storage devices now exist which
make it entirely practicable to record thou-
sands of millions of characters of inferme.-
tion, and to have the whole of this always
available for instant retrieval . . . Distance
is no obstacle. Communications circuits,
telephone lines, radio waves, even laser
beams, can be used to carry information In
bulk at speeds which can match the cone-
puter's own. Time-sharing is normal . . .
we are now hearing of a system whereby
it is feasible for there to be several thou-
sands of simultaneous users or terminals.
Details of our health, our education, our
employment, our taxes, our telephone calls.
our insurance, our banking and financial
transactions, pension contributions, our
books borrowed, our airline and hotel reser-
vations, our professional societies, our family
relationships, all are being handled by com-
puters right now. Unless these computers,
both governmental and private, are specifi-
cally programmed to erase unwanted history,
these details from our past can at any time
be reassembled to confront us . . . we must
program the programmers while there le still
some persona/ liberty left."
The Committee has found that the con-
cern for privacy is a bipartisan issue and
knows no political boundaries. President
Ford, as Vice-President, chaired a Domestic
Record's, Computers, and the Rights of
Citizens, 'U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare, 1973, p. xx.
Council Committee on the Right of Privacy
which was established by President Nixon
in February 1974. In a recent address on the
subject, he stated:
"In dealing with troublesome privacy
problems, let us not, however, scapegoat the
computer itself as a Frankenstein's monster.
But let us be aware of the implications posed
to freedom and privacy emerging from the
ways we use computers to collect and dis-
seminate personal information. A concerned
involvement by all who use computers is
the only way to produce standards and poli-
cies that will do the job. It is up to us to
assure that information is not fed into the
computer unless it is relevant.
"Even if it is relevant, there is still a
need for discretion. A determination must
be made if the social harm done from some
data outweighs its usefulness. The decision-
making process is activated by demands of
people on the government and business for
instant credit and instant services. Computer
technology has made privacy an issue of
urgent national significance. It is not the
technology that concerns me but its abuse.
I am also confident that technology capable
of designing such intricate systems can also
design measures to assure security."
FEDNET
In the same address, the Vice-President
called attention to FEDNET and problems
involved in a proposed centralization of com-
puter facilities which concerned several Con-
gressional committees and which provisions
in S. 3418 would correct. He stated:
"The Government's General Services Ad-
ministration has distributed specifications
for bids on centers throughout the country
for a massive new computer network. Is
would have the potential to store compre-
hensive data on individuals and institutions.
The contemplated system, known as FED-
NET, would link Federal agencies in a net-
work that would allow GSA to obtain per-
sonal information from the files of many
Federal departments. It is portrayed as the
largest single governmental purchase of civil-
ian data communication in history.
"I am concerned that Federal protection
of individual privacy is not yet developed to
the degree necessary to prevent raaleNET
from being used to probe into the lives of
individuals, Before building a nuclear reac-
tor, we design the safeguards for its use. We
also require environmental impact state-
ments specifying the anticipated effect of the
reactor's operation on the environment. Prior
to approving a vast computer network affect-
ing personal lives, we need a comparable pri-
vacy impact statement. We must also con-
sider the fallout hazards of kaIDNET to tradi-
tional freedoms."
Examples
The revelations before the Select Commit-
tee to Investigate Presidential Campaign Ac-
tivities concerning policies and practices of
promoting the illegal gathering, use or dis-
closure of information on Americans who
disagreed with governmental policies were
cited by almost all witnesses as additional
reasons for immediate congressional action
on S. 3418 and other privacy legislation. The
representative of the American Civil Liber-
ties Union stated:
"Watergate has thus been the symbolic
catalyst of a tremendous upsurge of interest
in securing the right of privacy: wiretapping
and bugging political opponents, breaking
and entering, enemies lists, the Huston plan,
national security justifications for wiretap-
ping and burglary, misuse of information
compiled by government agencies for politi-
cal purposes, access to hotel, telephone and
bank records; all of these show what govern-
ment can do if its actions are shrouded in
secrecy and its vast information resources are
applied and manipulated in a punitive, selec-
tive, or political fashion."
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November 21 1974
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 19855
Despite - such current concern, Congres-
sional studies and complaints to Congress
show that the threats to individual privacy
from the curiosity of administrators and
salacious inquiries of investigators predated
"Watergate" by many years. These have been
described at length in the hearing record on
S. 3418.
For example, under pain of civil and crim-
inal sanctions, many people have been se-
lected and told to respond to questions on
statistical census questionnaires such as the
follOwing:
How much rent do you pay?
Do you live in a one-family house?
If a woman, how many babies have you
had? Not counting still births.
How much did you earn in 1967?
If married more than once, how did your
first marriage end?
Do you have a clothes dryer?
Do you have a telephone, if so, what is the
number?
Do you have a home food freezer?
Do you own a second home?
Does your TV set have UHF?
Do you have a flush toilet?
' Do you have a bathtub or shower?
The studies show that thousands of ques-
tionnaires are sent out yearly asking personal
questions, but people are not told their re-
sponses are voluntary; many think criminal
penalties attach to them; it is difficult for
them to find out what legal penalties attach
to a denial of the information or what will
be done with it. If they do not respond, re-
ports show that they are subjected to tele-
phone calls, certified follow-up letters, and
personal visits. Much of this work is done by
the Census Bureau under contract, and
many people -believe that whatever agency
receives the responses, their answers are sub-
ject to the same mandatory provisions and
confidentiality rules as the decennial census
replies. A Senate survey revealed that in 3
years alone the Census Bureau had provided
their computer services at the request of 24
other agencies and departments for con-
ducting voluntary surveys covering over 6
million people. Other independent voluntary
surveys were conducted by the agencies
themselves on subjects ranging from bomb
shelters, to smoking habits, to birth control-
methods, to whether people who had died
had slept with the window open. The form
usually asked for social security number, ad-
dress and phone number.
One such survey technique came to light
through complaints to Congress from elderly,
disabled or retired people in all walks of life
who were pressured to answer a 15-page form
sent out by the Census Bureau for the De-
partment of Health, Education and Welfare
which asked:
What have you been doing in the last 4
weeks to find work?
Taking things all together, would you say
you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too
happy these days?
Do you have any artificial dentures?
Do you?or your spouse?see or telephone
your parents as often as once a week?
What is the total number of gifts that you
give to individuals per year?
How many different newspapers do you re-
sive and buy regularly?
About how often do you go to a barber shop
or beauty salon?
What were you doing most of last week?
Applicants for Federal jobs in some agen-
cies and employees in certain cases, have been
subjected to programs requiring them to
answer forms of psychological tests which
? contained questions such as these:2
2 Senate Report 93-724, to accompany S.
1688. "To Protect the Privacy and Rights of
Federal Employees." The report describes
other similar programs for soliciting, col-
lecting or using personal information from
and about applicants and employees. S. 1688
has been approved by the Senate five times.
I am seldom troubled by constipation.
My sex life is satisfactory.
At times I feel like swearing.
I have never been in trouble because of
my sex behavior.
I do not always tell the truth.
I have no difficulty in starting a holding
my bowel movements.
I am very strongly attracted by members
of my own sex.
I like poetry.
I go to church almost every week.
I believe in the second coming of Christ.
I believe in a life hereafter.
My mother was a good woman.
I believe my sins are unpardonable.
I have used alcohol excessively.
I loved my Mother.
' I believe there is a God.
Many of my dreams are about sex matters.
At periods my mind seems to work more
slowly than usual.
I am considered a liberal "dreamer" of
new ways rather than a practical follower of
well-tried ways. (a) true, (b) uncertain, (c)
false.
When telling a person a deliberate lie, I
have to look away, being ashamed to look
him in the eye. (a) true, (b) uncertain, (c)
false.
First Amendment Programs: the Army
Section 201(b) (7) prohibits departments
and agencies from undertaking programs
for gathering information on how people ex-
ercise their First Amendment rights. Sec-
tion 201(a) prevents them from collecting
and maintaining information which is not
relevant to a statutory purpose.
The need for these provisions have been
made evident in many ways. In addition to
federal programs for asking people questions
such as whether they "believe in the second
coming of Christ," there have been numer-
ous other programs affecting First Amend-
ment rights.
One of the most pervasive of the intru-
sive information programs which have con-
cerned the Congress and the public in re-
cent years involved the Army surveillance of
civilians, through its own records and those
of other federal agencies. The details of these
practices have been documented in Con-
gressional hearings and reports and where
summarized by Senator Ervin as follows:
Despite First Amendment rights of Amer-
icans, and despite the constitutional division
of power between the federal and state gov-
ernments, despite laws and decisions defin-
ing the legal role and duties of the Army, the
Army was given the power to create an in-
formation system of data banks and, com-
puter programs which threatened to erode
these restrictions on governmental power.
"Allegedly for the purpose of predicting
and preventing civil disturbances which
might develop beyond the control of state
and local officials, Army agents were sent
throughout the country to keep surveillance
over the way the civilian population ex-
pressed their sentiments about government
policies. In churches, on campuses, in class-
rooms, in public meetings, they took notes,
taperecorded, and photographed people who
dissented in thought, word or deed. This
included clergymen, editors, public officials,
and anyone who sympathized with the
dissenters.
"With very few, if any, directives to guide
their activities, they monitored the member-
ship and policies of peaceful organizations
who were concerned with the war in South-
east Asia, the draft, racial and labor prob-
lems, and community welfare. Out of this
surveillance the Army created blacklists of
a Hearings before the Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights of the Judiciary Com-
mittee, 4 Columbia Human Rights Review
(1972) Hearings, 92d Cong., 2d sess. February
1971.
organizations and personalities which were
circulated to many federal, state and local
agencies, who were all requested to supple-
ment the data provided. Not only descrip-
tions of the .contents of speeches and politi-
cal comments were included, but irrelevant
entries about personal finances, such as the
fact that a militant leader's credit card was
withdrawn. In some cases, a psychiatric diag-
'noels taken from Army onother medical rec-
ords was included.
"This information on individuals wts .pro-
grammed into at least four computers ac-
cording to their political beliefs, or their
memberships, or their geographic residence.
"The Army did not just collect and share
this information. Analysts were assigned the
task of evaluating and labeling these people
on the basis of reports on their attitudes, re-
marks and activities. They were then coded
for entry into computers or microfilm data
banks."
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, as
a member of the Government Opera-
tions Committee, I am pleased to support
S. 3418, which is designed to protect the
right of privacy of individual citizens in
the collection,,maintenance and dissemi-
nation of personal information.
The right of individual privacy is vital
to any free society.
That right is a basic concept which
permeates the very fiber of our Constitu-
tion, even though it is not an explicit
constitutional guarantee. The freedoms
guaranteed by the first amendment?free
speech; a free press, and freedom of as-
sembly and religion?at the very least
Imply the right to be "let alone" by the
Government. The principle is further
demonstrated by the constitutional pro-
hibition against the Government invad-
ing the privacy of homes or businesses by
conducting unreasonable search and
seizure and the right against self-
incrimination is another section that
deals with privacy.
The individual's right to privacy has
long been recognized by the courts which
have consistently protected it from both
governmental and nongovernmental in-
tervention. As technological advances?
cameras, wiretaps, sound recordings,
and so forth?provided new opportunities
for infringement upon these rights, the
courts responded in an affirmative man-
ner. Unfortunately, due to the nature of
the courts, this response has often been
slow and incomplete. Case law is built
gradually over a period of years and is
often incomplete because it is usually
decided on narrow issues of law. Thus,
what is needed now is a coordinated and
comprehensive approach to the problems
that can be provided only by the
Congress.
Technology is again advancing, this
time in the form of computers. This new
technology brings with it, as advance-
ments often do, the possibility for negli-
gent use or deliberate misuse. This is
what we must guard against. With the
development of the computer it has be-
come possible to collect, instantly re-
trieve and analyze vast amounts of per-
sonal information. Access to this person-
al data has been expanded by the com-
puter's ability to retrieve data across
agency, institutional, governmental and
geographic boundaries.
A prime example of the type of ad-
vanced computer system we may be deal-
ing with in the future is the proposed
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19856
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE November 21,
PEDNET. This giant computerized in-
formation system, brainchild of the Gen-
eral Services Administration, was de-
signed to centralize the data processing
and telecommunications operations of
numerous Federal agencies. Withous
proper safeguards, vast amounts of per-
soma information retained by the van-.
ous agencies would be instantly available
at hundreds of terminals scattered
throughout the United States. And that
information covers every spectrum?ed-
ucational. medical, financial and jus
dicial?of the lives of hundreds of thou
sands of private citizens. Fortunately this
system has been temporarily sidetracked.
But the threat of "Big Brother' was
clearly there.
Our recent experience with Watergate
and related matters points up the need
for enacting safeguards to protect the
collection and use of such information
The compilation of an enemies list, for
example, must be viewed as only the first
step in an abuse of power, for the next
logical step would be the compilation of
"useful" information about those on the
list. And what more ready source exists
than the bulging files of the Federa'.
Government.
The need for protective legislation a.
well documented. The record is replete-
with calls for safeguards in this area
Congress has been probing this problem
for years with the leadership of such
members as the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Ellyn's). In
June of this year, the Committee on
Government Operations ad hoc Subcom-
mittee on Privacy and Information Sys-
tems in conjunction with the Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee- on Consti-
tutional Rights conducted hearings on
S. 3418. The roster of witnesses included
high ranking civil servants and recog-
rived nongovernment experts. The gen-
eral consensus of those testifying was
taat there is a definite need to protect
individual privacy in this area. Former
Attorney General Elliot Richardson, for
example, stated at those hearings:
I certainly hope . . . a major bill will be
enacted to establish in law the fundamental
principles of fair information practice that
arc necessary to safeguard the right of per-
sonal privacy as it relates to record keeping
about individual Americans.
..3everal major studies drew the same
conclusion.
The HEW Advisory Committee on Au-
tomated Personal Data Systems issued
its report. "Records. Computers, and The
Riahts of Citizens," in 1973. This com-
mittee determined that under current
law, a person's privacy is not adequately
protected against arbitrary or abusive
recordkeeping practices and that there
is a need to establish standards of rec-
orakeeping practices which are appropri-
ate to the computer age.
another study, made by the Judiciary '
Committee's Subcommittee on Constitu-
Conal Rights, entitled "Federal Data
Banks and Constitutional Rights," pro-
duced some sobering statistics. Agencies
maintaining 84 percent of the Federal
data banks analyzed-858?were unable
to cite explicit statutory authority for
their existence and 18 percent could not
cite any statutory authority.
While the actual and potential abases
of personal information systems -alive
been well documented, we should not
view all such systems as sinister threats
to personal privacy. Information regard-.
Ing private individuals is a vital element
of any government. Officials must aave
certain information and statistics if they
are to devise and implement programs
and policies Which fit the needs of the
people. This requires the collection,
analysis, and dissemination of some
personal information. Most agencies_ ac-
complish this without infringing upon
individual rights. However, the need for
safeguards is not negated by this. The
threat still exists and must be dealt with.
1 believe that S. 3418 would promote
accountability and responsibility in Fed-
eral agencies by establishing minimum
standards for gathering, handling, and
processing personal information by Fed-
eral departments and agencies. Only
information that is relevant and neces-
sary for a statutory purpose of the
agency could be collected, solicited, and
maintained.
aurthermore, information would have
to be accurate, complete, timely, and rel-
evant to the agencies' needs. Disclosure
of information could only be made under
certain defined conditions.
With some necessary exceptions--for
example, if national defense would be
endangered?an individual would be al-
lowed to revievr his or her files and
challenge the content. To enforce h- ; or
her rights under the act, the individual
would have access to the courts.
A significant feature of the bill is the
creation of the Privacy Protection Com-
mission to assist agencies in complying
with the letter and spirit of the act; in-
vestigate abuses; and make recommen-
dations to Congress regarding the need
for additional legislation to protect in-
dividual privacy in a computer age. The
Commission would also compile an an-
nual directory of Federal personal in-
formation files such as those maintained
on civilians by the military several years
ago.
There even would be some relief for
those who find themselves inundated
with unwanted or junk mail. An in-
dividual could have his or her name re-
moved from a mailing list.
I believe that the time to act on this
matter is now. Delay may well be costly
in terms of freedoms lost and increased
financial burdens.
Dr. Alan Westin, professor of public
law and government, Columbia Univer-
sity, has warned in his testimony before
the Committee on Government Opera-
tions, that a delay will assure that a
large number of major data systems will
be built in ways that will make it ex-
tremely expensive to alter the software,
change the file structures or reorganize
the data flows. Let us not delay at our
own expense.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, it is my
privilege to join my colleagues from
North Carolina (Mr. Maass), Illinois Mr.
PERCY), Maine (Mr. Musxm), Connecti-
cut (Mr. ItrincosT), Washington Mr.
Jacxsors) , and Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER)
hi cosponsoring Et 3418, the so-celled
privacy bill.
1974
I tihnk it is fair to term S. 3418 a
"privacy" bill because it seeks to reduce.
If not eliminate, the peril to personal
privacy and individual rights presented
by governmental data banks and in-
formation gathering systems. Moreover,
traveling in the wake of the recent dis-
closures of the dubious uses to which In-
ternal Revenue Service files, FBI data
banks, and military information systems
have been directed, and in light of the
massive information recording facilities
possessed by other Federal agencies
privacy legislation designed to effect fair
- information practices and to provide for
a single mission oversight and clearing-
house Privacy Protection Commission is
particularly appropriate.
As an advocate of increased congres-
sional and Presidential oversight of Fed-
eral intelligence gathering, surveillance,
and law enforcement agencies, I believe
that an independent Privacy Protection
Commission, as proposed by S. 3418, will
facilitate legislative and executive over-
sight through creating a central clear-
inghouse for ascertaining the character
and existence of all Federal information
systems and by bearing a positive re-
sponsibility to monitor governmental
data system procedures and policies. Per-
haps more importantly, title II of S. 3418
outlines Federal standards governing the
gathering and distribution of informa-
tion relating to U.S. citizens and per-
manent resident aliens. These standards
affirm that the existence of governmen-
tal recordkeeping systems should be pub-
lic knowledge; that governmental agen-
cies should maintain only such records
as are related to and permitted by its
statutory authority; that Federal infor-
mation systems containing personal data
are accurate, relevant, and complete;
that personal files be kept secure and
confidential; and that interagency pool-
ing or transfers of personal data be re-
corded, disclosed, and relevant to the
needs of the agency to which the infor-
mation is transferred. The standards
provided in title II of the bill also strictly
limit the collection of information re-
garding a citizen's exercise of his first
amendment rights?thereby reaching the
concern produced by ongoing revela-
tions of FBI, IRS, and military compila-
tions of information concerning dissident
or political action groups.
To those of my colleagues who may
be concerned regarding the impact of S.
3418 upon the intelligence and law-en-
forcement community, I would note that
section 203 of the bill provides respon-
sible foreign policy, national defense.
and law enforcement related exemptions
from the bill's personal information dis-
? closure requirements, disclosure of the
source of personal information, and the
right of the individual to be informed of
the existence of personal information
on file. It should be emphasized that the
standards and sanctions imposed by S.
3418 pertain only to personal informa-
tion regarding American citizens and
resident aliens and should not impair
the ability of U.S. intelligence agencies
to collect and keep confidential informa-
tion regarding foreign agents and non-
resident aliens.
Senate passage, and I hope it will
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Allill'oved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November 21, 1V74 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 19857
pass, of this privacy bill should not be
construed as imputing any unworthy '
motives to the executive branch or the
officials of Federal agencies currently
involved in information collection and
data bank operations. What this bill is
designed to do is to limit personal data
collection to a necessary minimum, to
apprise the citizenry of the existence
and character of all governmental data
systems, to insure that data collection
does not impair individual constitutional
rights, and to provide the public with an
awareness of how much and under what
authority personal information is being
assembled and assimilated by the Fed-
eral Government.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, 41
years ago, George Bernard Shaw, in a
speech, commented:
There is no such thing as privacy in this
country.
Unfortunately, the statement remains
true today.
Over the past two decades, the com-
puter has allowed the Government to
expand its information-gathering facil-
ities. In 1972, the National Academy of
Sciences reported:
That it is technologically possible today,
especially with recent advances in mass stor-
age memories, to build a computerized, on-
line file containing the compacted equiva-
lent of 20 pages of typed information about
the personal history of selected activities of
every man, woman, and child in the United
States, arranging the system so that any
single record could be retrieved in about
30 seconds.
This possibility requires that we ask
a fundamental question about the rights
of the individual citizen in our society.
Is it in our best interests to allow the
Government to continue to expand its
files on citizens and to gather detailed
Information on any citizen without
proper safeguards for the privacy of
those individuals?
As early as 1967, the Senate Adminis-
trative Practices Subcommittee revealed
that?
Our names alone are in government files
2,800 million times. Our social security num-
bers are listed 2,800 million times. Police
records number 264,500 million; medical his-
tories, 342 million; and psychiatric histories,
279 million.
The Federal Government now main-
tains over 800 data-collection systems.
These data systems contain over 1 bil-
lion records on individuals. Yet, of the
over 800 Federal data collection systems,
only 10 percent are specifically author-
ized by law?more than 40 percent do
not inform individuals that records are
being kept on them?half the systems
do not permit individuals to review or
correct their own files.
Today, the Government maintains
"files" on a large majority of Americans.
Often, these files contains information
of a most personal nature. Often the in-
formation is outdated and incorrect. Yet,
decisions affecting people's lives are
made based on these same files. It ap-
pears that a large and unmeasured toll
appears to be taken on the constitution-
al principles of accountability, respon-
sibility, and limited government.
Both the Republican and Democratic
policy platforms have placed privacy as
a high priority concern. President Ford,
in his speech before the joint session
of Congress on August 12, 1974, com-
mented:
There will be hot pursuit of tough laws
to prevent illegal invasions of privacy in
both government and private activities.
The HEW Advisory Committee on Au-
tomated Personal Data Systems recom-
mended the enactment of a Federal
"Code of Fair Information Practice,"
based on five basic principles, for all au-
tomated personal data systems. The
principles are incorporated into the in-
dividual rights guaranteed in S. 3418,
the bill before us today, which I am
pleased to be a sponsor:
To know that no secret data system
exists;
To know what information about that
individual is in a record and how it is
used;
To prevent information obtained for
one purpose from being used for other
purposes without consent of the in-
dividual; and
To correct or amend information
about that individual.
S. 3418 establishes an independent
Privacy Protection Commission to deal
systematically with the range of admin-
istrative and technological problems
throughout Federal Government agen-
cies and to study privacy abuses in the
private sector as well as in State and lo-
cal government agencies. The commis-
sion will serve as an effective balance be-
tween citizens and the Government in
order to further develop policy in our
rapidly changing technological environ-
ment. There is a need for a staff of ex-
perts to furnish assistance to Govern-
ment agencies and to inform Congress
and the public of the scope and kinds of
data-handling used by Government and
private organizations. The commission
would continually check the need for
new or expanded data systems and pro-
vide citizens with adequate information
about which agencies maintain, dis-
tribute, or use information about them.
The bill requires that an individual be
Informed when a file is kept on him and
that he be given an opportunity to chal-
lenge information in the file. The bill re-
quires that all files be regularly updated,
that information be disclosed only in ac-
cord with strict guidelines, and that rec-
ords be kept of all such disclosures.
New advances in computer technology
doubtless provide our society with ad-
vantages. Our technology allows Govern-
ment and industry to operate more effi-
ciently and cheaply. It allows quick ac-
cess to information?information that
becomes too easily available. We would
be foolish to contend that the computer
presents us with no dangers. We would be
wrong not to consider the very real
threats presented by loosely controlled or .
unregulated comptiter data systems. I be-
lieve S. 3418 is a necessary check an Gov-
ernment data systems.
Justice Brandeis' wisdom in his dis-
senting opinion in the first wiretap case
to reach the Supreme Court, Olmstead v.
United States (1927) , in crediting the
framers of the Constitution with having
"conferred, as against the Government,
the right to be left alOne?the most com-
prehensive of rights and the right most
valued by civilized man" must be re-
membered. He urged that privacy must
be protected by nothing less than the
prevention of "every unjustifiable intru-
sion by the Government upon the privacy
of the individual, whatever the means
employed."
No specific statute allowed the Army to
blacklist persons involved in the anti-
war movement. No act of Congress au-
thorized the Army to send the names
of blacklisted persons to numerous State
and Federal agencies. Congress never in-
tended that persons be subjected to sur-
veillance and intimidation, because they
chose to exercise their first amendment
rights.
I lend my support to S. 3418 and will
vote for its passage.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the names
of Mr. CRANSTON and Mr. NELSON be
added as cosponsors of the bill under con-
sideration (S. 3418) to establish a Fed-
eral Privacy Board.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I commend
the distinguished Senator from Connect-
icut (Mr. nIBICOPF) for the great con-
tribution which he has made to the de-
velopment of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading and was read the
third time.
The PRESIDING latelviCER. The
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Texas (Mr. BENT-
SEN), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
EASTLAND) , the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. FuLearcuT) , the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. McGovEarr) , the Sen-
ator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE), the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. MoN-
TOYA), the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MusluE) , the Senator from Rhode Island
(Mr. PASTORE), the Senator from Ala-
bama (Mr. SPARKIVIAN) , and the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY) is ab-
sent on official business.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
HUMPHREY), the Senator from Rhode Is-
land (Mr. PASTORE) and the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) would
each vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Utah (Mr. BENNETT) , the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. DOMINICK)
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
FANNIN) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
New York (Mr. Bucxrzy) and the Sen-
ator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS) are
absent on official business.
I further announce that the Senator
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R0007001,50081-9
S 19858 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE ovemper. 21, 1974
from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) is absent
due to illness in the family.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. HATFIELD) would vote "yea."
The result was announced?yeas 74,
nays 9, as follows:
[No. 496 Leg.]
YEAS-74
Abourezk Ervin Metcalf
Allen Fong Metzenbaum
Baker Goldwater Moss
Bartlett Gravel Nelson
Bayh Griffin Nunn
Beall Gurney Packwood
Hellman Hart Pearson
Bible Hartke Pell
Biden Haskell Percy
Brock Hathaway Proxmire
Brooke Helms Randolph
Burdick Hollings Ribicoff
Byrd, Huddleston Roth
Parry F., Jr. Hughes Schweiker
Byrd, Robert C. Inouye Scott, Hugh
cannon Jackson Stafford
Case Javrts Stennis
Clvdes Johnston Stevens
Church Kennedy Stevenson
Clark Long Taft
Cook Magnuson Talmadge
Cranston Mansfield Tunney
Doe McClure Weicker
Do menici McGee Williams
Eagleton McIntyre Young
NAYS-9
Aiken Hruska Thurmond
Cotton McClellan Tower
Curtis Scott,
Hansen William L.
NOT VOTING-17
Bennett Fulbright Montoya
Bentsen Hatfield Muskie
Buckley Humphrey Pastore
Dominick Mathias Sparkman
Eastland McGovern Symington
Fannin Mondale
So the bill (S. 3418) was passed, DS
follows:
An act to establish a Privacy Protection
Commission, to provide management sys-
-etros in Federal agencies and certain
other organizations with respect to the
gathering and disclosure of information
,concerning individuals, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I?PRIVACY PROTECTION
COMMISSION
ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION
SEC. 101. (a). There is established as an
independent agency of the executive branch
of the Government the Privacy Protection
Commission.
(b) (1) 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 mem-
bers of the public at large who, by reason
of their knowledge and expertise in any of
the following areas: civil rights and liber-
ties, law, social sciences, and computer
technology, business, and State and local
government, are well qualified for service
on the Commission and who are not other-
wise officers or employees of the United
States. Not more than three of the members
of the Commission shall be adherents of
the same political party.
(3) One of the Commissioners shall be
appointed Chairman by the President:
(3) A Commissioner appointed as Chair-
man shall serve as Chairman until the ex-
piration of his term as a Commissioner of
the Commission (except that he may con-
tinue to serve as Chairman for so long as he
remains a Commissioner and his successor
as Chairman has not taken office). An in-
dividual may be appointed as a Commis-
sioner at the same time he is appointed
Chairman.
(c) The Chairman shall preside at all
meetings of the Commission and a quorum
for the transaction of business shall con-
sist of at least three members present (but
the Chairman may designate an Acting
Chairman who may preside in the absence
of the Chairman). Each member of the Com-
mission, including the Chairman, shall have
equal responsibility and authority in all
decisions and actoris of the Commission,
shall have full access to all information re-
lating to the performance of his duties or
responsibilities, and shall have one vote.
Action of the Commission shall be deter-
mined by a majority vote of the members
present. The Chairman (or Acting Chair-
man) shall be the official spokesman of the
Commission in its relations with the Con-
gress. Government agencies, persons, or the
public, and, on behalf of the Commission,
shall see to the faithful execution of the
policies and decisions of the Commission,
and shall report thereon to the Commission
from time to time or as the Commission
may direct.
(d) Each Commissioner shall be compen-
sated at the rate provided for under section
5314 of title 5 of the United States Code, re-
lating to level IV of the Executive Schedule.
(e) Commissioners shall serve for terms of
three years. No Commissioner may serve more
than two terms. Vacancies in the member-
ship of the Commission shall be filled in the
same manner in which the original appoint-
ment was made.
(I) Vacancies in the membership of the
Commission, as long as there are three Com-
missioners in office, shall not impair the
power of the Commission to execute the
functions and powers of the Commission.
(g) The members of the Conunission shall
not engage in any other employment during
their tenure as members of the Commission.
(h) (1) Whenever the Commission submits
any budget estimate or request to the Presi-
dent or the Office of Management and Budg-
et, it shall concurrently transmit a copy of
that request to Congress.
(2) Whenever the Commission submits any
legislative recommendations, or testimony,
or comments on legislation to the President
or Office of Management and Budget, it shall
concurrently transmit a copy thereof to tile
Congress. No officer or agency of the UnLed
States shall have any authority to require
the Commission to submit its legislative rec-
ommendations, or testimony, or comments on
legislation, to any officer or agency of he
United States for approval, comments, or
review to the submission of such recommen.-
datio:as, testimony, or comments to the Con-
gress.
PERSONNEL OF THE COMMISSION
SEC. 102. (a) (1) The Commission shall ap-
point an Executive Director who shall per-
form such duties as the Commission may
determine. Such appointment may be made
without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code.
(2) The Executive Director shall be com-
pensated at a rate not in excess of the maxi-
mum rate of 05-18 of the General Schedule
under section 5332 of title 5, United States
Code.
(b) The Commission is authorized to ap-
point and fix the compensation of such offi-
cers and employees, and prescribe their func-
tions and duties, as may be necessary to carry
out the provisions of this Act.
(c) The Commission may obtain the serv-
ices of experts and consultants in accord-
ance with the provisions of section 3109 of
title 5, United States Code.
FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION
SEC. 103. (a) The Commission shall?
(1) publish annually a United States Di-
rectory of Information Systems containing
the information specified to provide notice
under section 201(0) (3) of this Act Of each
information system subject to the provisions
of this Act and a listing of all statutes which
require the collection of such information by
a Federal agency;
(2) investigate, determine, and report any
violation of any provision of this Act (or
any regulation adopted pursuant thereto)
to the President, the Attorney General, the
Congress, and the General Services Adminis-
tration where the duties of that agency are
involved, and to the Comptroller General
when it deems appropriate; and
(3) develop model guidelines for the im-
plementation of this Act and assist Federal
agencies in preparing regulations and meet-
ing technical and administrative require-
ments of this Act.
(b) Upon receipt of any report required
of a Federal agency describing (1) any pro-
posed information system or data bank, or
(2) any significant expansion of an existing
information system or data bank, integra-
tion of files, programs for records linkage
within or among agencies, or centralization
of resources and facilities for data processing,
the Commission shall?
(A) review such report to determine (i)
the probable or potential effect of such pro-
posal on the privacy and other personal or
property rights of individuals or the confi-
dentiality of information relating to such
individuals, and (ii) its effect on the preser-
vation of the constitutional principles of
federalism and separation of powers; and
(B) submit findings and make recommen-
dations to the President, Congress, and the
General Services Administration concerning
the need for legislative authorization and
administrative action relative to any such
proposed activity in order to meet the pur-
poses and requirements of this Act.
(c) After receipt of any report required
under subsection (b), if the Commission de-
termines and reports to the Congress that
a proposal to establish or modify a data bank
or information system does not comply with
the standards established by or pursuant to
this Act, the Federal agency submitting such
report shall not proceed to establish or
modify any such data bank or information
system for a period of sixty days from the
date of receipt of notice from the Commis-
sion that such data bank or system does not
comply with such standards.
(d) In addition to its other functions the
Commission shall?
(1) to the fullest extent practicable, con-
sult with the heads of appropriate depart-
ments, agencies, and instrumentalities of
the Peden] 1 Government, of State and local
governments, and other persons in carrying
out the m ?visions of this Act and in con-
ducting tie study required by section 106
of this Ad ;
(2)' perform or cause to be performed such
research activities as may be necessary to
implement title U of this Act, and to assist
Federal agencies in complying with the re-
quirements of such title;
(3) determine what specific categories of
information should be prohibited by statute
from collection by Federal agencies on the
basis that the collection of such information
would violate an individual's right of
privacy; and
(1) prepare model legislation for use by
State and local governments in establishing
procedures for handling, maintaining, and
disseminating personal information at the
State and local level and provide such tech-
nical assistance to State ond local govern-
ments as they may require in the prepar-
ation and implementation of such legisla-
tion.
CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
SEC. 104. (a) Each department, agency, and
instrumentality of the executive branch of
the Government, including each independent
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 19859
agency, shall furnish to the Commission,
upon request made by the Chairman, such
data, reports, and other information as the
Commission deems necessary to carry out
its functions under this Act.
(b) In carrying out its functions and exer-
cising its powers under this Act, the Com-
mission may accept from any Federal agency
or other person any identifiable personal
data if such data is necessary to carry out
such powers and functions. In any case in
which the Commission accepts any such
information, it shall provide appropriate
safeguards to insure that the confidentiality
of such information is maintained and that
upon completion of the purpose for which
such information is required it is destroyed
or returned to the agency or person from
which it is obtained, sis appropriate.
POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
SEC. 105. (a) (1) The Commission may,
In carrying out its functions under this Act,
conduct such inspections, sit and act at
such times and places, hold hearings, take
such testimony, require by subpena the at-
tendance of such witnesses and the produc-
tion of such books, records, papers, corre-
spondence, and documents, administer such
oaths, have such printing and binding done,
and make such expenditures as the Commis-
sion deems advisable. A subpena shall be is-
sued only upon an affirmative vote of a ma-
jority of all members of the Commission.
Subpenas shall be issued under the signa-
ture of the Chairman or any member of the
Commission designated by the Chairman and
shall be served by any person designated by
the Chairman or any such member. Any
member of the Commission may administer
oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing
before the Commission.
(2) In case of disobedience to a subpena
issued under paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion, the Commission may invoke the aid of
any district court of the United States in
requiring compliance with such subpena.
Any district court of the United States
within the jurisdiction where such person
is found or transacts business may, in case
of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena
Issued by the Commission, issue an order
requiring such person to appear and -testify,
to produce such books, records, papers, cor-
respondence, and documents, and any failure
to obey the order of the court shall be pun-
ished by the court as a contempt thereof.
(3) Appearances by the Commission under
this Act shall be in its own name. The Com-
mission shall be represented by attorneys
designated by it.
(4) Section 6001(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting im-
mediately after "Securities and Exchange
Commission," the following; "the Privacy
Protection Commission,".
(b) The Commission may delegate any of
its functions to such officers and employees
of the Commission as the Commission may
designate and may authorize such successive
redelegations of such functions as it may
deem desirable.
(c) In order to carry out the provisions
of this Act, the Commission is authorized?
(1) to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and
regulations governing the manner of its op-
erations, organization, and personnel;
(2) to adopt, amend, and repeal interpre-
tative rules for the implementation of the
rights, standards, and safeguards provided
under this Act;
(3) to enter into contracts or other ar-
rangements or modifications thereof, with
any government, any agency or department
of the United States, or with -any person,
firm, association, or corporation, and such
contracts or other arrangements, or modifica-
tions thereof, may be entered into without
legal consideration, without performance or
other bonds, and without regard to section
3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended
(41 U.S.C. 5);
(4) to make advance, progress, and other
payments which the Commission deems nec-
essary under this Act without regard to the
provisions of section 3648 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529);
(5) receive complaints of violations of this
Act and regulations adopted pursuant there-
to; and
(6) to take such other action as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this
Act.
COMMISSION STUDY OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
SEC. 106. (a) (1) The Commission shall
make a study of the data banks, automated
data processing programs, and information
systems of governmental, regional, and pri-
vate organizations, in order to determine the
standards and procedures in force 'for the
protection of personal information, and to
determine the extent to which those stand-
ards and procedures achieve the purposes of
this Act.
(2) The Commission periodically shall re-
port its findings to the President and the
Congress and shall complete the study re-
quired by this section not later than three
years from the date this Act becomes effec-
tive.
(3) The Commission shall recommend to
the President and the Congress the extent,
if any, to which the requirements and prin-
ciples of this Act should be applied to the
information practices of those organizations
by legislation, administrative action, or by
voluntary adoption of such requirements and
principles. In addition, it shall submit such
other legislative recommendations as it may
determine to be necessary to protect the pri-
vacy of individuals while meeting the legiti-
mate needs of government and society for
information.
(b) (1) In the course of such study and
in its reports, the Commission shall exam-
ine and analyze?
(A) interstate transfer of information
about individuals which is being undertaken
through manual files or by computer or
other electronic or telecommunications
means;
(B) data banks and information programs
and systems the operation of which signifi-
cantly or substantially affect the enjoyment
of the privacy and other personal and prop-
erty rights of individuals;
(C) the use of social security numbers,
license plate numbers, universal identifiers,
and other symbols to identify individuals in
data banks and to gain access to, integrate,
or centralize information systems and files;
and
(D) the matching and analysis of statis-
tical data, such as Federal census data, with
other sources of personal data, such as auto-
mobile registries and telephone directories,
in order to reconstruct individual responses
to statistical questionnaires for commercial
or other purposes, in a way which results in
a violation of the implied or explicitly recog-
nized confidentiality of such information. '
(2) The Commission shall include in its
examination information activities in the
following areas: medical, insurance, educa-
tion employment and personnel, credit,
banking and financial institutions, credit
bureaus, the commercial reporting industry,
cable television and other telecommunica.
tions media, travel, hotel, and entertainment
reservations, and.electronic check processing.
The Commission may study such other in-
formation activities necessary to carry out
the congressional policy embodied in this
Act, except that the Commission shall not
investigate information systems maintained
by religious organizations.
(3) In conducting the study, the Com-
mission slip--
(A) determine what laws, Executive or.
dere, regulations, directives, and judicial de-
cisions govern the activities under study and
the extent to which they are consistent with
the rights of privacy, due process of law, and
other guarantees in the Constitution;
(B) determine to what extent govern-
mental and private information systems af-
fect Federal-State relations or the principle
of separation of powers;
(C) conduct a thorough examination of
standards and criteria governing programs,
policies, and practices relating to the collec-
tion, soliciting, processing, use, access, inte-
gration, dissemination, and transmission of
personal information;
(D) to the maximum extent practicable,
collect and utilize findings, reports, and rec-
ommendations of major governmental, legis-
lative and private bodies, institutions, orga-
nizations, and individuals which pertain to
the problems under study by the Commis-
sion; and
(E) receive and review complaints with
respect to any matter under study by the
Commission which may be submitted by
any person.
REPORTS
SEC. 107. The Commission shall, from time
to time, and in an annual report, report to
the President and the Congress on its activi-
ties in carrying out the provisions of this
Act. -
TITLE II?STANDARDS AND MANAGE-
MENT SYSTEMS FOR HANDLING INFOR-
MATION RELATING TO INDIVIDUALS
SAFEGUARD. REQUIREMENTS FOR. ADMINISTRATIVE,
INTELLIGENCE, STATISTICAL-REPORTING, AND
RESEARCH PURPOSES
SEC. 201. (a) Each Federal agency shall?
(1) collect, solicit, and maintain only such
personal information as is relevant and nec-
essary to accomplish a statutory purpose of
the agency;
(2) collect information to the greatest
extent practicable directly from the subject
individual when the information may result
in adverse determinations about an individ-
ual's rights, benefits, and privileges under
Federal programs; and
(3) inform any individual requested to
disclose personal information whether that
disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by
what statutory authority it is solicited, what
uses the agency will make of it, what penal-
ties and specific consequences for the indi-
vidual, which are known to the agency, will
result from nondisclosure, and what rules
of confidentiality will govern the informa-
tion.
(b) Hach Federal agency that maintains
an Information system or file shall, with
respect to each such system or file?
(1) insure that personal information
maintained in the system or file is accurate,
complete, timely, and relevant to the pur-
pose for which it Is collected or maintained
by the agency at the time any access is
granted to the file, material is added to or
taken from the file, or at any time it is used
to make Eli determination affecting the sub-
ject of the file;
(2) refrain from disclosing any such per-
sonal information within the agency other
than to officers or employees who have a need
for such personal information in the per-
formance of their duties for the agency;
(3) maintain a list of all categories of per-
sons authorized to have regular access to
personal information in the system or file;
(4) maintain an accurate accounting of
the date, nature, and purpose of all other
access granted -Co the system or file, and all
other disclosures of personal information
made to any person outside the agency, or to
another agency, including the name and
address of the person or other agency to
whom disclosure was made or access was
granted, except as provided by section 202(b)
of this Act;
(5) establish rules of conduct and notify
and instruct each person involved in the de-
sign, development, operation, or maintenance
of the system or file, or the collection, use,
maintenance, or dissemination of information
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19860
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE November 21, 1974
about an individual, of the requirements of
this Act, including any rules and procedures
adopted pursuant to this Act and the penal-
ties for noncompliance;
(61 establish appropriate administrative,
technical and physical safeguards to insure
the security of the information system and
confidentiality of personal information and
to protect against any anticipated threats
or :wizards to their security or integrity which
could result in substantial harm, embar-
rassraent, inconvenience, or unfairness to any
individual on whom personal information is
maintained; and
(7) establish no program for the purpose
of collecting or maintaining information de-
scribing how individuals exercise rights guar-
aneeed by the first amendment unless the
head of the agency specifically determines
that such information is relevant and neces-
sary to carry out a- statutory purpose of the
agency.
(c; Any Federal agency that maintains an
information system or file shall?
(1; make available for distribution upon
the request of any person a statement of the
existence and character of each such system
or file;
(2) on the date on which this Act becomes
effective and annually thereafter, notify the
Commission and give public notice of the
existence and character of each existing sys-
tem or file simultaneously, and cause such
notice to be published in the Federal Regis-
ter; and
(3) include in such notices at least the
following information:
(A) name and location of the system or
file:
(B) nature and purposes of the system or
file;
(C) categories of individuals on whom
personal information is maintained and cate-
gories of personal information generally
maintained in the system or file, including
the nature of the information and the ap-
proximate number of individuals on whom
information is maintained;
(D) the confidentiality requirements and
the extent to which access controls-apply to
such information;
(E) categories of sources of such personal
information;
(F) the Federal agency's policies and prac-
tices regarding implementation of sections
201. and 202 of this Act, information storage,
duration of retention of information, and
elimination of such information from the
system or file;
G) uses made by the agency of the per-
sonal information contained in the system
or file;
H) identity of other agencies and cate-
gories of persons to whom disclosures of
personal information are made, or to whom
access to the system or file may be granted,
together with the purposes therefor and the
administrative constraints, if any, on such
disclosures and access, including any such
constraints on redisclosure;
(I) procedures whereby an individual can
(i) be informed if the system or file contains
personal information pertaining to himself
or herself, (it) gain access to such informa-
tion, and (iii) contest the accuracy, com-
pleteness, timeliness, relevance, and neces-
sity for retention of the personal informa-
tion: and
$:J) name, title, official address, and tele-
phone number of the officer immediately re-
sponsible for the system or file.
,(d) (1) Each Federal agency that main-
tains an information system or file shall as-
sure to an individual upon request the fol-
lowing rights:
(A) to be informed of the existence of any
personal information pertaining to that in-
dividual;
(13) to have full access to and right to
Inspect the personal information in a form
comprehensible to the individual;
(C) to know the names of all recipients of
information about such individual including
the recipient organization and its relation-
ship to the system or file, and the purpose
and date when distributed, unless such in-
formation is not required to be maintained
pursuant to this Act;
(D) to know the sources of personal in-
formation (i) unless the confidentiality of
any such source is required by statute, then
the-right to know the nature of such-source;
or (ii) unless investigative material used to
determine the suitability, eligibility, or qual-
ifications for Federal civilian employment,
military service, Federal contracts, or access
to classified information, is compiled by a
Federal agency in pursuit of an authorized
investigative responsibility, and in the course
of compiling such materials, information
prejudicial to the subject of the investiga-
tion is revealed through a source who fur-
nishes such information to the Government
under the express provision that the ident:ty
of the source will be held in confidence, and
where the disclosure of such informatien
would identify and be prejudicial to the
rights of the confidential source, then the
right to know the nature of such tnformatien
and to examine that information if it is
found to be material or relevant to an ad-
ministrative or judicial proceeding by a Fed-
eral Judge or Federal administrative officer:
Provided, That investigative material shall
not be made available to promotion boards
Which are empowered to promote or advance
individuals in Federal employment, except
when the appointment would be from a non-
critical to a critical security position;
(E) to be accompanied by a person chosen
by the individual inspecting the information,
except that an agency or other person may
require the individual to furnish a written
statement authorizing discussion of that in-
dividual's file in the person's presence;
(F) to receive such required disclosures
and at reasonable standard charges for docu-
ment duplication, in person or by mail, if
Upon written request, with proper identifica-
tion; and
(0) to be completely informed about the
uses and disclosures made of any such in-
formation contained in any such system or
file except those uses and disclosures made
pursuant to law or regulation permitting
public inspection or copying.
(2) Upon receiving notice that an indi-
vidual wishes to challenge, correct, or ex-
plain any _personal information about him
in a system or file, such Federal agency shall
comply promptly with the 'following mini-
muin requirements:
(A) investigate and record the current
status of the personal information;
(B) correct or eliminate any information
that is found to be incomplete, inaccurate,
not relevant to a statutory purpose of the
agency, not timely or necessary to be re-
tained; or which can no longer be verified;
(C) accept and include in the record of
such information, if the investigation does
not resolve the dispute, any statement of
reasonable length provided by the individual
setting forth his position on the disputed
information;
(D) in any subsequent dissemination or
use of the disputed information, clearly
report the challenge and supply any sup-
plemental statemene filed by the individual;
(E) at the request of such individual, fol-
lowing any correction or elimination of
challenged information, inform past recip-
ients of its elimination or correction; and
(F) not later than sixty days after re-
ceipt of notice from an individual making a
request concerning personal information,
make a determination with respect to such
request and notify the individual of the de-
termination and of the individual's right to
a hearing -before an official of. the agency
which shall if requested by the individual,
be conducted as follows:
(1) such hearing shall be conducted in
an expeditious manner to resolve the dis-
pute promptly and shall be held within thir-
ty days of the request and, unless the indi-
vidual requests a formal hearing, shall be
conducted on an informal basis, except that
the individual may appear with counsel,
present evidence, and examine and cross-
examine witnesses;
(11) any record found after such a hear-
ing to be incomplete, inaccurate, not rele-
vant, not timely nor necessary to be retained,
or which can no longer be verified, shall
within thirty days of the date of such find-
ings be appropriately modified or purged;
and
OM the action or inaction of 'any agen-
cy on a request to review and challenge
personal data in its possession as provided
by this section shall be reviewable de novo
by the appropriate United States district
court.
An agency may, for good cause, extend the
time for making a determination under this
subparagraph. The individual affected by
such an extension shall be given notice of
the extension and the reason therefor.
(e) When a Federal agency provides by a
contract, grant, or agreement for, and the
specific creation or substantial alteration, or
the operation by or on behalf of the agency
of an information system or file and the
primary purpose of the grant, contract, or
agreement is the creation, substantial altera-
tion, or the operation by or on behalf of the
agency of such an information system or
file, the agency shall, consistent with its
anthority, cause the requirements of sub-
sections (a), (b) , (c), and (d) to be applied
to such system or file. In cases when con-
tractors and grantees or parties to an agree-
ment are public agencies of States or the Dis-
trict of Columbia or public agencies of politi-
cal subdivisions of States, the requirements
of subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) shall be
agency determines that the State or the Dis-
trict of Columbia or public agencies of
political subdivisions of the State have
adopted legislation or regulations which im-
pose similar requirements.
(f) (1) Any Federal agency maintaining or
proposing to establish a personal informa-
tion system or file shall prepare and submit
a report to the Commission, the General
Services Administration, and to the Congress
on proposed data banks and information
systems or files, the proposed significant ex-
pansion of existing data banks and informa-
tion systems or files, integration of files, pro-
grams for records linkage within or among
agencies, or centralization of resources and
facilities for data processing, which report
shall include?
(A) the effects of such proposals on the
rights, benefits, and privileges of the in-
dividuals on whom personal information is
maintained;
(B) a statement of the software and hard-
ware features which would be required in
protect security of the system or file and
conedentality of information;
(C) the steps taken by the agency to ac-
quire such features in their systems, includ-
ing description of consultations with repre-
sentatives of the National Bureau of Stand-
ards; and
(D) a description of changes in existing
Interagency or intergovernmental relation-
ships in matters involving the collection,
processing, sharing, exchange, and dissemi-
nation of personal information.
(2) The Federal agency shall not proceed
to implement such proposal for a period of
sixty days from date of receipt of notice from
the Commission that the proposal does not
comply with the standards established under
or pursuant to this Act.
(g) Each Federal agency covered by this
Act which maintains an information system
or file shall make reasonable efforts to serve
advance notice on an Individual before any
personal information on such individual is
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
Novintbor 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 19861
made available to any person under com-
pulsory legal process.
(h) No person may condition the granting
or withholding of any right, privilege, or
benefit, or make as a condition of employ-
ment the securing by any individual of any
information which such individual may ob-
tain through the exercise of any, right se-
cured under the provisions of this section.
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
SEC. 202. (a) No Federal agency shall dis-
seminate personal information unless?
(1) it has made written request to the in-
dividual who is the subject of the infor-
mation and obtained his written consent;
(2) the recipient of the personal infor-
mation has adopted rules in conformity with
this Act for maintaining the security of its
information system and files and the con-
fidentiality of personal information con-
tained therein; and
(3) the information is to be used only for
the purposes set forth by the sender pur-
suant to the requirements for notice under
this Act.
(b) Section 202(a) (1) shall not apply when
disclosure would be?
(1) to those officers and employees of that
agency who have a need for such information
in ordinary course of the performance of
their duties;
(2) to the Bureau of the Census for pur-
poses of planning or carrying out a census or
survey pursuant to the provisions of title 13,
United States Code: Provided, That such
personal information is transferred or dis-
seminated in a form not individually identi-
fiable.
(3) wliere the agency determines that the
recipient of such information has provided
advance adequate written assurance that the
information will be used solely as a statisti-
cal reporting or research record, and is to be
transferred in a form that is not individually
identifiable; or
(4) pursuant to a showing of compelling
circumstances affecting health or safety of
an individual, if upon such disclosure noti-
fication is transmitted to the last known
address of such individual.
(e) Section 201(b) (4) and paragraphs (1),
(2), and (3) of subsection (a) of this section
shall not apply when disclosure would be to
the Comptroller General, or any of his au-
thorized representatives, in the course of the
performance of the duties of the General Ac-
counting Office. Nothing in this Act shall im-
pair access by the Comptroller General, or
any of his authorized representatives, to
records maintained by an agency, Including
records of personal information, in the
course of performance of such duties.
(d) (1) Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the efforts of the Govern-
nrient pursuant to the provisions of chapter
35, title 44 of the United States Code (com-
monly known as the Federal Reports Act)
or any other ' statute, to reduce the burden
on citizens of collecting information by
means of combining or eliminating unneces-
sary reports, questionnaires, or requests for
information.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to affect restrictions on the exchange
of information between agencies as required
by chapter 35, title 44 of the United States
Code (commonly known as the Federal Re-
ports Act).
(e) Subsection (a) (1) of this section shall
not apply when disclosure would be to an-
other agency or to an instrumentality. of any
governmental jurisdiction for a law enforce-
ment activity if such activity is authorized
by statute and if the head of such agency
or instrumentality has made a written re-
quest to or has an e.gteement with the agency
which maintains the system or file specify-
ing the particular portion of the information
desired and the law enforcement activity for
which the information is sought.
EXEMPTIONS
SEC. 203. (a) The provisions of section 201
(c) (3) (E), (d), arid section 202, shall not
apply to any personal information contained
In any information system or file if the head
of the Federal agency determines, in accord-
ance with the provisions of this section, that
the application of the provisions of any of
such sections would seriously damage na-
tional defense or foreign policy or where the
application of any of such provisions would
seriously damage or impede the purpose for
which the information is maintained.
(b) The provisions of section 201(d) and
section 202 shall not apply to law enforce-
ment intelligence information or investiga-
tive information if the head of the Federal
agency determines, in accordance with the
provisions of any of such sections would
seriously damage or impede the purpose for
which the information is maintained: Pro-
vided, That investigatory records shall be
exempted only to the extent that the pro-
duction of such records would (A) interfere
with enforcement proceedings, (B) deprive
a person of aright to a fair trial or an im-
partial adjudication, (C) disclose the identity
of a confidential source, and in the case
of a record compiled by a criminal law en-
forcement authority in the course of a
criminal investigation, or by an agency con-
ducting a lawful national security intelli-
gence investigation, confidential information
furnished only by the confidential source,
(D) disclose confidential investigative tech-
niques and procedures which are not other-
wise generally known outside the agency, or
(E) endangers the life or physical safety of
law enforcement personnel: Provided, That
investigative information may not be ex-
empted under this section where such in-
formation has been maintained for a period
longer than is necessary to commence crim-
inal prosecution. Nothing in this Act shall
prohibit the disclosure of such investigative
Information to a party in litigation where
required by statute or court rule.
(c) (1) A determination to exempt any
such system, file, or information may be
made by the head of any such agency in ac-
cordance with the requirements of notice,
publication, and hearing contained in sec-
tions 653 (b), (c), and (e), 556, and 557 of
title 5, United States Code. In giving notice
of an intent to exempt any such system, file,
or information, the head of such agency shall
specify the nature and purpose of the sys-
tem, file, or information to be exempted.
(2) Whenever any Federal agency under-
takes to exempt any information system, file,
or information from the provisions of this
Act, the head of such Federal agency shall
promptly notify the Commission of its intent
and afford the Commission opportunity to
comment.
(3) The exception contained In section 563
(d) of title 5, United States Code (allowing
less than thirty days' notice), shall not apply
in any determination made or any proceeding
conducted under this section.
ARCHIVAL RECORDS
SEC. 204. (a) Federal agency records which
are accepted by the Administrator of Gen-
eral Services for storage, processing, and
servicing in accordance with section 3103 of
title 44, United States Code, shall, for the
purposes of this section, be considered to be
maintained by the agency which deposited
the records and shall be subject to the pro-
visions of this Act. The Administrator of
General Services shall not disclose such rec-
ords, or any information therein, except to
the agency whieh maintains the records or
pursuant to rules established by that agency.
(b) Federal agency records pertaining to
identifiable individuals which were trans-
ferred to the National Archives of the United
States as records which have sufficient his-
torical or other value to warrant their con-
tinued preservation by the United States
Government shall for the purposes of this
Act, be considered to be maintained by the
National Archives and shall not be subject
to the provisions of this Act except section
201(b) (5) and (6).
(c) The National Archives shall, on the
date on which this Act becomes effective and
annually thereafter, notify the Commission
and give public notice of the existence and
character of the information systems and
files which it maintains, and cause such
notice to be published in the Federal Regis-
ter. Such notice shall include at least thd
information specified under sections 201
(c) (3)(A), (B), (D), (E), (F), (0), (I), and
(J) ?
EXCEPTIONS
SEC. 205. (a) No officer or employee of the
executive branch of the Government shall
rely on any exemption in subchapter II of
chapter 5 of title 5 of the United States
Code (commonly known as the Freedom of
Information Act) to withhold information
relating to an individual otherwise acces-
sible to an individual under this Act.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be con-
strued to permit the withholding of any
personal information which is otherwise re-
quired to be disclosed by law or any regula-
tion thereunder.
(c) The provisions of section 201(d) (1)
of this Act shall not apply to records col-
lected or furnished and used by the Bureau
of the Census solely for statistical purposes
or as authorized by section 8 of title 13 of
the United States Code: Provided, That such
personal information is transferred or dis-
seminated in a form not individually iden-
tifiable.
(d) The provisions of this Act shall not
require the disclosure of testing or exami-
nation material used solely to determine in-
dividual qualifications for appointment or
promotion in the Federal service if the dis-
closure of such material would compromise
the objectivity or fairness of the testing
or examination process.
(e) The provisions of this Act, with the
exception of sections 201(a) (2), 201(b) (2),
(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) , 201(c) (2), 201
(c) (8)(A), (B), (D)., and (F), and 202(a)
(2) and (3) shall not apply to foreign in-
telligence information systems or to sys-
tems of personal information involving in-
telligence sources and methods designed for
protection from unauthorized disclosure
pursuant to 50 U.S.C.A. 403.
MAILING LISTS
SEC. 206. (a) An individual's name and ad-
dress may not be sold or rented by a Federal
agency unless such action is specifically au-
thorized by law. This provision shall not be
construed to require the confidentiality of
names and addresses otherwise permitted to
be made public.
(b) Upon written request of any individ-
ual, any person engaged in interstate com-
merce who maintains a mailing list shall
remove the individual's name and address
from such list.
REGULATIONS
SEC. 207. Each Federal agency subject to
the provisions of this Act shall, not later
than six months after the date on which
this Act becomes effective, promulgate regu-
lations to implement the standards, safe-
guards, and access requirements of this title
and such other regulations as may be neces-
sary to implement the requirements of this
Act.
TITLE III?MISCELLANEOUS
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 301. As used in this Act?
(1) the term "Commission" means the Pri-
vacy Protection Commission;
(2) the term "personal information"
means any information that identifies or
describes any characteristic of an individual,
including, but not limited to, his education,
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
S 19862
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Novembef VI, 1974
financial transactions, medical history, crim-
inal or employment record, or that affords
a basis for inferring personal charaoteristics,
such as finger and voice prints, photographs,
or things done by or to such individual; and
the record of his presence, registration, or
membership in an organization or activity,
or admission to an institution;
(3) the term "individual" means a citizen
of the United States or an alien lawfully ad-
mitted through permanent residence;
(4) the term "information system" means
the total components and operations,
whether automated or manual, by which
per,3enal information, including name or
Identifier, is collected, stored, processed,
handled, or disseminated by an agency;
(5) the term "file" means a record or series
of records containing personal information
about individuals which may be maintained
within an information system;
(3) the term "data bank" means a file or
seriea of files pertaining to individuals;
(7) the term "Federal agency" means any
department, agency, instrumentality, or
establishment in the-executive branch of the
Government of the United States and in-
cludes any officer or employee thereof;
(3) the term "investigative information"
means information associated with an iden-
tifiable individual compiled by?
(A) an agency in the course of conducting
a criminal investigation of a specific crim-
inal act where such investigation is pursuant
to a statutory function of the agency. Such
information may pertain to that criminal act
and be derived from reports of informants
and investigators, or from any type of sur-
veiliance. The term does not include crim-
ina). history information nor does_ it include
Initial reports filed by a law enforcement
agency describing a specific incident, in-
dexed chronologically and eapressly required
by State or Federal statute to be made pub-
lic; or
(3) by an agency with regulatory juris-
diction which is not a law enforcement
age-Icy in the course of conducting an in-
vestigation of specific activity which falls
within the agency's regulatory .jurisdiction.
For the purposes of this paragraph, an
"agency with regulatory jurisdiction" is an
agency which is empowered to enforce any
Federal statute or regulation, the violation
of which subjects the violator to criminal
or civil penalties;
(9) the term "law enforcement intelligence
information" means information associated
with an identifiable individual compiled by
a law enforcement agency in the course of
conducting an investigation of an individual
in anticipation that he may commit a specific
criminal act, including information derived
from reports of informants, investigators, Of
from any type of surveillance. The term does
not include criminal history information nor
does it include initial reports filed by a law
enforcement agency describing a specific in-
cident, indexed chronologically by incident
and expressly required by State or Federal
statute to be made public;
(10) the term "criminal history informa-
tion" means information on an individual
consisting of notations of arrests, detentions,
indictments, informations, or other formal
criminal charges and any disposition arising
from those arrests, detentions, indictments,
informations, or charges. The term shall not
include an original book of entry or police
blotter maintained by a law enforcement
agency at the place of an original arrest or
place of detention, indexed chronologically
and required to be made public, nor shall It
include court records of public criminal pro-
ceedings indexed chronologically; and
(11) the term "law enforcement agency"
means an agency whose employees or agents
are empowered by State or Federal law to
make arrests for violations of State or Fed-
eral. law.
CRIMINAL PENALTY
Sze, 302. (a) Any officer or employee of any
Federal agency who willfully keeps an in-
formation system without meeting the notice
requirements of this Act set forth in section
201(c) shall be fined not more than $2,400
in each instance or imprisoned not more
than two years, or both.
(b) Whoever, being an officer or employee
of the Commission, shall disseminate any
personal information about any individual
obtained in the course of such officer or em-
ployee s duties in any manner or for any
purpose not specifically authorized by law
shall be fined not more than $10,000, or im-
prisoned not more than five years, or both.
CIVTL REMEDIES
SEC. 303. (a) Any individual who is denied
access to information required to be disclosed
under the provisions of this Act may bring
a civil action in the appropriate district court
of the United States for damages or other
appropriate relief against the Federal agency
which denied access to such information.
(b) The Attorney General of the United
States, or any aggrieved person, may bring
an action in the appropriate United States
district court against any person who 1S en-
gaged or is about to engage in any acts or
practices in violation of the provisions of this
Act, to enjoin such acts or practices.
(c) The 'United States shall be liable for
the actions or omissions of any officer or em-
ployee of the Government who violates the
provisions of this Act, or any rule, regulation,
or order issued thereunder in the same man-
ner and to the same extent as a private indi-
vidual under like circumstances to any per-
son aggrieved thereby in an amount equal
to the sum of?
(1) any actual damages sustained by an
individual;
(2) punitive damages where appropriate;
and
(3) in the case of any successful action to
enforce any liability under this section, the
costs of the action together with reasonable
attorney's fees as determined by the court.
(d) The United States consents to be sued
under this section without limitation on the
amount in controversy. A civil action against
the United States under subsection (c) of
this section shall be the exclusive remedy for
the wrongful action or omission of any offi-
cer or employee.
JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS
SEC. 304. (a) The district courts of the
United States have jurisdiction to hear and
determine civil actions brought under sec-
tion 303 of this Act and may examine the
information in camera to determine whether
such information or any part thereof may be
withheld under any of the exemptions in
section 203 of this Act. The burden is on the
Federal agency to sustain such action.
(b) In any action to obtain judicial review
of a decision to exempt any personal infor-
mation from any provision of this Act, the
court may examine such information In
camera to determine whether such infor-
mation or any part thereof is properly clas-
sified with respect to national defense, for-
eign policy or law enforcement intelligence
information or investigative information and
may be exempted from any provision of this
Act. The burden is on the Federal agency to
sustain any claim that such information may
be so exempted.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 305. This Act shall become effective
one year after the date of enactment except
that the provisions of title I of this Act shall
become effective on the date of enactment.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 306. There are authorized to be ap-
propriated such sums as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions of this Act,
MORATORIUM ON USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBERS
SEC. 307. (a) It shall be unlawful for?
(1) any Federal, State, or local govern-
ment agency to deny to any individual any
right, benefit, or privilege provided by law
because of such individual's refusal to dis-
close his social security account number, or
(2) any person to discriminate against any
Individual in the course of any business or
commercial transaction or activity because
of such individual's refusal to disclose his
social security account number.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall
not apply with respect to?
(1) any disclosure which is required by
Federal law, or
(2) any information system in existence
and operating before before January 1, 1975.
(c) Any Federal, State, or local govern-
ment agency which requests an individual to
disclose his social security account number,
and any person who requests, in the course
of any business or commercial transaction or
activity, an individual to disclose his social
security account number, shall inform that
individual whether that disclosure is man-
datory or voluntary, by what statutory or
other authority such number is solicited,
what uses will be made of it, and what rules
of confidentiality will govern it.
The title was amended so as to read:
"A bill to establish a Privacy Protection
Commission, to provide management
systems in Federal agencies and certain
other organizations with respect to the
gathering and disclosure of information
concerning individuals, and for other
purposes."
POLLUTION CONTROL FACILi ithS
AT TVA
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I ask
the Chair to lay before the Senate a
message from the House of Representa-
tives on HR. 11929.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CLARK) laid before the Senate a message
from the House of Representatives an-
nouncing its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
11929) to amend section 15d of the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 to
provide that expenditures for pollution
control facilities will be credited against
required power investment return pay-
ni and repayments and requesting a
conference with the Senate on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses there-
On.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I move that the Sen-
ate insist upon its amendment and agree
to the request of the House for a con-
ference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses thereon, and that the Chair
be authorized to appoint the conferees
on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. RAN-
DOLPH, Mr. MONTOYA, Mr. GRAVEL, Mr.
RAKER, and Mr. DOMENIC' conferees on
the part of the Senate.
JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, I ask
the Chair to lay before the Senate a mes-
sage from the House of Representatives
on S. 1064.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CLARK) laid before the Senate the
Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150081-9