Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 12, 2016
Document Release Date: 
January 10, 2002
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
November 20, 1974
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8.pdf5.58 MB
D 1278 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-DAILY DIGEST November 20, 1974 H. Res. 1468, providing for the consideration of H.R. Export-Import Bank: By a voice vote, the House 17234, Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 (H. Rept. agreed to the conference report on H.R. 15977, to amend 93-1486); the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945; clearing the H. Res. 1469, waiving certain points of order against measure for Senate action. Pages H 10882-H 10884 H.R. 17468, making appropriations for military con- Late Reports: Committee on Rules received permis- struction for fiscal year 1975 (H. Rept. 93-1487) ; and sion to file certain privileged reports by midnight to- H. Res. 1470, waiving certain points of order against night. Page H 10884 the conference report on S. 386, Urban Mass Transpor- Privacy: House considered H.R. 16373, to safeguard tation Act (H. Rept. 93-1488). Page H 10921 individual privacy from the misuse of Federal records Tennessee- Valley Authority Pollution Control Fa- and to provide that individuals be granted access to cilities: House disagreed to the amendment of thee: records concerning them which are maintained by Fed- Senate to H.R. 11929, to amend section ,5d of the Ten- - eral agencies, but came to no resolution thereon. Pro- nessee Valley Act of 1933 to provide that expenditures ceedings under the 5-minute rule will continue for pollution control facilities will be credited against tomorrow. required power investment return payments and re- Took the following action in the Committee. of the payments; and asked a conference with the Senate. Whole: Appointed as conferees: Representatives Jones of Ala- Agreed to the following amendments to the commit- bama, Kluczynski, Johnson of California, Harsha, and tee amendment: Baker. Page H 10856 An amendment that subjects the Agency determi- Presidential Veto-Rehabilitation: By a yea-and-nay nation to public scrutiny by providing 3o days for vote of 398 yeas to 7 nays (two-thirds of those present interested parties to submit to the Agency after publi- voting in the affirmative), the House overrode the Presi- cation in the Federal Register written data, views, or dent's veto of H.R. 14225, Rehabilitation Act and Ran- arguments as to its interpretation of "Routine Purpose"; dolph Sheppard Act Amendments of 1974- An amendment that provides if the head of an agency Pages H 10856-H 10864 utilizes the authority under subsection (j) to exempt a Bill Re-referred: Committee on Merchant Marine and system of records from this law, such action shall not Fisheries was discharged from further consideration exempt the agency from safeguards to .the public of S. 2149, to provide benefits to members of the Coast against abuse of such exemption authority as provided Guard Reserve. Subsequently, the bill was re-referred in subsection (i) ; and to the Committee on Armed Services. Page H 10864 An amendment that exempts investigatory material compiled solely for Federal employment, testing or ex- Presidential Veto-Freedom of Information: By a amination material used for appointment, employment, yea-and-nay vote of 371 yeas to 31 nays (two-thirds of or promotion in the Federal service, and evaluation ma- those present voting in the affirmative), the House over- terial used for promotion in the armed services (agreed rode the President's veto of H.R. 12471, Freedom of t to by a recorded vote of 192 ayes to 177 noes). Information Act. Pages H 10864-H 10875 Rejected an amendment that sought to allow court Presidential Vetoes-Private Bills: By a yea-and- assessment of punitive damages. nay vote of 236 yeas to 163 nays (two-thirds of those H. Res. 1419, the rule under which the bill was con- present not voting in the affirmative), the House sus- sidered, was agreed to earlier by a voice vote. tained the President's veto of H.R. 6624, a private bill. This bill and the President's veto message of another Pages H 10884-H 10902 private bill, H.R. 7768, were then referred to the Com- Referral: One Senate-passed measure was referred to mittee on the judiciary. Pages H 10875-H 10878 the appropriate House committee. Page H 10920 D.C. Educational Personnel: House concurred with Quorum Calls-Votes: Two quorum calls, three yea- amendments in the Senate amendment to the text of and-nay votes, and one recorded vote developed during H.R. 342, to authorize the District of Columbia to enter the proceedings of the House today and appear on into the interstate agreement on qualification of educa- pages Hio856, Hio863, Hio875, H1o877, Hio898, and tional personnel. House concurred in the Senate amend- Hio899-Hio9oo. ment to the title of the bill; and returned the measure Program for Thursday: Met at noon and adjourned at to the Senate. Pages H 10878-H 10882 6:28 p.m. until noon on Thursday, November 21, when Late Report: Committee on the District of Columbia the House will continue consideration of H.R. 16373, received permission to file a report by midnight tonight Privacy Act; and consider H. Res. 1387, place for on H.R. 17450, to provide a people's counsel for the amendments in Congressional Record; and S.J. Res. Public Service Commission of the.District of Columbia. 40, White House Conference on Libraries (open rule, Page H 10882 1 hour of debate). Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 .: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 November 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-DAILY DIGEST D 1277 Sylvania; and Cushing Dolbeare, National Rural Housing Coalition, Washington, D.C. Hearings continue tomorrow. REGULATORY REFORM Committee on Commerce: Committee continued hear- ings on S.J. Res. 253, to establish a national commission to study and report on the impact of the independent regulatory agencies upon commerce, receiving testi- mony from Helen Delich Bentley, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission; Lewis A. Engman, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission; John N. Nassikas, Chair- man, Federal Power Commission; Richard Simpson, Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission; George M. Stafford, Chairman, Interstate Commerce Commission; Robert D. Timm, Chairman, Civil Aero- nautics Board; and Richard E. Wiley, Chairman, Fed- eral Communications Commission. Hearings continue tomorrow. TRADE REFORM Committee on Finance: Committee, in executive ses- sion, ordered favorably reported with amendments H.R. Io71o, to stimulate U.S. economic growth. and promote economic relations with foreign countries, with the un- derstanding that the bill will not be taken upon the floor of the Senate until Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger appears before the committee to answer ques- tions concerning this matter. NOMINATION Committee on Government Operation.,: Committee concluded hearings on the nomination of Paul H. O'Neill, of Virginia, to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, after the nominee testi- fied and answered questions on his own behalf. STATE LOTTERIES Committee on the judiciary: Subcommittee on Crimi- nal Laws and Procedures held hearings on bills relative to dissemination of information concerning lawful State lotteries (S. 544, 547, 1186 and 3524), receiving testimony from William B. Saxbe,_Attorney General of the United States; Francis Burch, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, and numerous representatives of State lottery commissions. Hearings were recessed, subject to call. MARIHUANA RESEARCH AND LEGAL CONTROLS Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: Subcom- mittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics continued hear- ings to determine the current status of research on and to explore the scientific and legal issues concerning marihuana, receiving testimony from Michael R. Sonnenreich, Washington, D.C.; R. Keith Stroup, National Organization for the Reform of Marihuana Laws, Washington, D.C.; J. Pat Horton, Lane County District Attorney, Eugene, Oreg.; Prof. Richard J. Bonnie, University of Virginia Law School; and Lt. Joseph J. Delaney, representing the New Jersey Nar- cotic Enforcement Officers Association. Hearings continue on Tuesday, November 26. PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Committee on Public Works: Subcommittee on Economic Development concluded hearings on S. 4115, proposing increases in authorizations for public works and economic development programs for fiscal years 1975 and 1976, after receiving testimony from William L. Blunt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Economic Development, accompanied by Rick Michaels, Acting Chief Counsel, Economic Development Administra- tion, both of Department of Commerce; Dr. Weldon Barton, National Partners Union; Andrew Bennett, representing the Council for Urban Economic De- velopment; and William E. Towell, American Forestry Association, all of Washington, D.C. COMMITTEE BUSINESS Committee on Rules and Administration: Committee, in executive session, ordered favorably reported the following measures: S. Res. 428, requesting an additional $51,ooo for ex- penses of Committee on Public Works; and An original resolution (S. Res. 435) requesting an additional $3o,ooo for expenses of Committee on Rules and Administration. Also, committee continued consideration of the nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller, of New York, to be Vice President of the United States, but did not conclude action thereon, and will meet again on Friday, November 22. Houses of Representatives Chamber Action Bills Introduced: 16 public bills, H.R. 17469-17486; 1 private bill, H.R. 17487, and 6 resolut.ons, H. Con. Res. 685, and H. Res. 1466-1470 were introduced. Pages H 10921-H 10922 Bills Reported: Reports were filed as follows: H.R. 17450, to provide a people's counsel for the Pub- lic Service Commission of the District of Columbia, amended (H. Rept. 93-1485) ; Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 W--1Z_ I ~ s 7 -9 ? Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 H 10884 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE November 2-0, 1974 persists in helping foreign state airlines buy' aircraft at low interest rates. During the debate on the Export-Im- part Bank extension legislation this summer, I was particularly offended by the extraordinary degree of lobbying conducted by the Bank. It was obvious that a number of Bank officials had been assigned to the task of lobbying individ- ual Members. It is probable that the ex- pense involved in this lobbying ran into the tens of thousands of dollars. I am well aware that when an agency's bill is being considered by the Congress, representatives of that agency are "available" to help answer questions, provide information, and generally "puff" the merits of their agency. These civil servants may even sit in the gal- leries during the debate to "watch" how things are going. But the lobbying carried on by the Ex- imbank far exceeded this. I believe that officials of the Bank may have violated the Criminal Code, title 18, section 1913, prohibiting unsolicited legislative lobbying by Government offi- cials. As a result, on September 13, I re- quested a General Accounting Office in- vestigation of the Bank's lobbying ac- tivities. The GAO's report is not yet available-largely because the Bank has not been zealously responsive to the GAO. I find this delay most objection- able. I' believe it may be part of the Bank's continuing effort to avoid "bad publicity" prior to the passage of the conference report before the House to- day. I was not going to comment on this matter until the GAO report was avail- able-but I think that the Members should know that there are serious ques- tions involving activities of members of the Bank's staff. I believe that the General Accounting Office report will certainly lead to legis- lative recommendations and data which I am sure will be of interest to the Ap- propriations Committees. Following is a copy of my letter to the General Accounting Office: SEPTEMBER 13, 1974. Hon. ELMER B. STAATS, Comptroller General, General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. COMPTROLLER GENERAL: In review- ing the events surrounding the passage by the House of Representatives of H.R. 15977, the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, I believe that there have been violations of Title 18 of the United States Code, section 1913, re- lating to legislative lobbying by government officials. I would like to request the General Ac- counting Office to determine whether there has been a violation of 18 USC 1913 by any officials of the Export-Import Bank. If so, I request that the GAO transmit its findings to the Department of Justice so the appro- priate floes, sentences, and job terminations may be affected. In investigating this matter, I would hope that the GAO could provide answers to the following questions: 1) Does the Export-Import Bank fall under the coverage of 18 U.S.C. 1913? While the Bank is outside of the Budget, its ex- penditures and authorization are controlled by the Congress and it would certainly be my feeling that the section applies to the Bank. 2) How many Bank employees were as- signed to work on the passage of the Bank's authorizing legislation? How many man- The SPEAKER. Is there objection to hours were devoted to this lobbying effort? the request oft entleman from New Who is it liable for this decision? Even though I had long made clear oppo- sition to many features of the Expor Import legislation, my office received thre unsol- icited telephone calls from individu s iden- tifying themselves as representativ of the Export-Import Bank. I regret that y staff people who took the calls did not egister the names of the persons calling. e first call,was approximately two weeks b re the vote. The caller assured my staff per n that if I had any questions or concerns a ut the legislation, the Bank would be happ to an- swer my questions or provide info ation. The second call was of a similar ature. The third call informed my secret y that the Export-Import Bank bill was co ing up on the floor of the House. The cell "won- dered" if I was on the floor, and if ot, ex- pressed the hope that I would be ble to attend-the floor debate. 4) What written communicatio which had been made in recent companies in my Congressional Dist American exporting companies, groups requesting that they write bers of Congress in support of Prior to the vote, a number of ma support of the legislation. 6) What Bank officials came t House. I observed a man who w,{is identified to me as Chief Counsel of the Sank and two staff aides were present and calling Members off the floor. Was their aid aid assistance solicited or unsolicited? 7) In sum, how much money was spent on this lobbying effort? Thank you for your assistance in this inquiry. Sincerely yours, CHARLES A. VANNe, Member of Congress. Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered. The conference report was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous matter, on the conference report just agreed to. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON RULES TO FILE PRIVILEGED REPORTS Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules may have until midnight to- night to file privileged reports, were gress? licited loans PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1419 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution as fol- lows : H. Has 1419 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 16373.) to amend title 5, United States Code, by adding a section 552a to. safeguard indi- vidual privacy from the misuse of Federal records and to provide that individuals be granted access to records concerning them which are maintained by Federal agencies. After general debate, which shall be con- fined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Gov- ernment Operations, the bill shall be read debate? _-for amendment under the five-minute rule. t major it shall be in order to consider the amend- rging the under the five-minute rule. At the conclu- sion of such consideration, the Committee the House shall rise and report the bill to the House debate on with such amendments as may have been separate vote in the House on any amend- ment adopted In the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amend- ment in the nature of a substitute. The pre- vious question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the minority, to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATTA), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MURPHY of Illinois asked and was given permission'to revise and ex- tend his remarks.) Mr. MURPHY of Illinois.. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1419 provides for an open rule with 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974. House Resolution 1419 provides that it shall be in order to consider the amend- ment in the nature of asubstitute rec- ommended by the Committee on Gov- ernment Operations now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule. H.R. 16373 permits an individual to have access to records containing per- sonal information on him kept by Federal agencies for purposes of Inspection, copying, supplementation and correction, with certain exceptions, including law enforcement and national security rec- ords. H.R. 16373 also allows an individual to control the transfer of personal inforlna- tion about him from one Federal agency to another for nonroutine purposes by requiring his prior written consent. H.R. 16373 also provides a civil remedy Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Novemb 20, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 10883 - each loan invoWft- energy-related prod- ucts and services a statement assess- ing the impact of such loan on the availability of such ucts, services, or energy supplies for i the United Finally, I believe I sli point out that this legislation specif hat until such time as the Trade Re Act is approved by the Congress a igned into law by the President, no loo gr- antee, insurance, or credit shall ex- Mr.. Speaker, I urge adoption of conference report. Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise i support of H.R. 15977. (Mr. WIDNALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Speaker, had I not been one of the conferees on the Export-Import Bank Amendments of 1974, 1 would feel free to be much more laudatory of the shrewd bargaining and cohesive effort of the House conferees on this brill. In any case, I am pleased to ob- serve that the conference report before this body represents a successful. legis- lative effort in extending the authority of the Export-Import Bank with a well- rounded legislative directive in carrying out the Bank's functions. I think it is important to note also that the conference report on Ex-Im Bank should be viewed in conjunction with Export Administration Act amend- ments. Both are, of course, concerned with our national security and foreign policy as well as with the basic enabling of international trade and its effects on our domestic economy. The entire area of congressional policy has been reviewed in this bill. I believe that the coordination of spe- cifics such as the competitive nature of Eximbank's operations with its counter- part financing facilities in other coun- tries and its relationship to private capital available here, the considerations of other economic impacts, energy-re- lated projects and small business, and particularly the establishment of inter- est rates on its loans, along with the re- porting requirements levied in this bill, will give the Congress a much more com- prehensive opportunity to have an effect on the entire Eximbank operation. Moreover, a system of prior notifica- tion is set up in this bill as a compromise between the House and Senate provisions which will, in effect, give the Congress .an opportunity to act prospectively and not only in a remedial manner. The en- tire question of assistance for sales and projects in the Communist countries, the Soviet Union in particular, was the subject of intensive bargaining among the conferees and I can report that the compromise which we reached affords the broadest opportunity for trade which will be in our national interest while re- stricting effectively any questionable or marginal transactions. Additional curtailment of the partici- pation of the Soviet Union in Export- Import Bank operations is made clear in the section on the relationship to the Trade Reform Act. I believe that this bolsters the position of the House by providing a temporary measure until effective permanent legislation can be enacted. As my colleagues well know, the Ex- port-Import Bank has operated under a series of temporary extension since June 30 and its present authority to do business is slated to expire at the end of this month. It is imperative then that we act with dispatch to provide this needed authority to the Export-Import Bank. I can assure my colleagues that this bill represents a cohesive package Which will enable the Export-Import Bank to carry out-its functions in a manner mutually beneficial to our own economy and with e report for favorable action. ICHORD. Mr. Speaker, - will the :Mr. j~~. I will be glad to yield to th 3 gen- Mr. IC I understand that the co:ference ort does contain a pro- via ion that oan guaranteeor credit shill be exten to the Union of Soviet Socialist Repu s until the Congress ac.s on the Tra eform Act; is that :Mr. ICHORD. Is it o true, I would ask the gentleman from w Jersey, that the conference report do of raise the lof:n limitation of the ort-Import Mir. WIDNALL. I believe th true. :Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, ld such time as he may consume to the rman of the committee, the gentlem rom exoansion of the export of goods and related services, through export credit assistance, thereby contributing to the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment and real income and the increased development of the productive resources of our country. This authority, unless extended, will expire on November 30, 1974. There were 24 provisions of substance which were the subject of conference. The House receded to the Senate in 5 instances, and the Senate receded to the House in 12 instances. In seven instances the conferees agreed on compromise language. Mr. Speaker, there are few instances which I can recall in which the position of the House in conference was so sue- cessfully sustained. This is a tribute to the members of the Subcommittee on International Trade, and to its able and di,tinguished chairman, Mr. ASHLEY, who proved themselves so well prepared to deal with the issues in disagreement, following months of efforts to bring this legislation forward. In closing I want to commend the House conferees-and most especially the chairman of the International Trade Subcommittee of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, the Honorable TF.:oMAS L. ASHLEY-for the long hours and hard work devoted to this subject. He and the members of the subcommit- tee, all of whom participated as con- ferees, are to be commended for their efforts in bringing back to the House a bill which overwhelmingly represents the position of the House on this subject. Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. ASHLEY). (Mr. ASHLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my thanks to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PATMAN), for the generous and kind remarks he has offered. I wish also to thank my very good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MINrsH), for the help he has given me. Mr. Speaker, this is important legis- lation which has been the subject of lengthy consideration and deliberation. It faithfully reflects the will of the House and merits adoption. The Export-Import Bank must con- tinue to expand its support to the Amer- ican export sector, but it must do so under changed conditions and with a new sense of direction which the legisla- tion signals. The $5 billion increase in lending authority which this bill provides is needed and needed now. At the end of fiscal year 1974-the Bank had for the first time actually used the congressionally approved - budgetary limit set on loans for that year. This meant that for the first time projects on the order of $700 million were carried over into the new fiscal year. It has become clear that the additional billions we will have to pay for imported oil will bring us into a substantial deficit ch ening of the dollar, it will be essen- tial us to expand the trade surplus we have en achieving in machinery and transp equipment. Deter ting trade accounts have emerged - Europe, Japan, and in most of our best arkets in the less developed world. As of nations see their mone- tary reserves ling as a result of higher oil import cos - they are pushing their exports harder, 'ust as rising import prices have mere d our need to export. All. of this increa the needs of Amer- ican industry for th ervices of the Ex- port-Import Bank. attractiveness of the credit offered by rious countries will be a much larger fac r in sales com- petition. The conference ort provides the tools and the policy idance ap- propriate for the functioni of the Ex- port-Import Bank at this t e and in the years immediately ahead. Mr. VANIK. Mr. Speaker, I 1ve long been concerned about many of he Ex- port-Import Bank's policies. I do not understand their heavy loans for foreign oil and mineral development when we so desperately need energy capital here at home. American international airlines are in serious trouble-yet the Bank Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 November 20, 1974 ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE H 10885 by individuals who have been denied ac- cess to their records or whose records have been kept or used in contravention of the requirements of the act. The com- plainant, if successful, may recover actual damages and costs and attorneys fees, if the agency's infraction was will- ful, arbitrary or capricious. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Resolution 1419 in order that we may discuss, debate, and pass H.R. 16373. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I had a number of questions about this rule and the bill, but the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. MURPHY) described it in such a 'truly effective fashion that I at this point do not have any questions. I commend the gentleman for the scholarly presentation. Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for that comment. Mr. Speaker, 'I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATTA). (Mr. LATTA asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, this rule, House Resolution 1419 provides for the consideration of H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974. There will be 1 hour of gen- eral debate on the bill and it will be open to all germane amendments. In order to preserve the normal amending process, the rule makes the committee substitute in order as an original bill for the pur- pose of amendment. The general purpose of H.R. 16373 is to protect the privacy of individuals by regulating the Federal Government's col- lection and use of personal information. The bill includes provisions to do the following things: (a) The bill permits an individual to have access to records con- taining personal information on him kept by Federal agencies for purpose of in- spection and correction, with some ex- ceptions, such as national security and law enforcement records. (b) The bill will make known to the American pub- lic the existence. and characteristics of all personal information systems kept by every Federal agency. (c) The bill pro- hibits any Federal agency records from Including information on political and religious beliefs unless authorized by law or the individual himself. (d) The bill provides a civil remedy by individuals who have been denied access to their rec- ords or whose records have been kept or used in violation of this act. The plain- tiff may recover actual damages and costs and attorney's fees if the agency's violation was willful, arbitrary or capri- cious. (e)- The bill provides that anyone who obtains a Federal record containing personal information by false pretenses is subject to a fine up to $5,000. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that on October 9 the President sent a message up here in which he stated as follows : H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of. 1974, has my enthusiastic support, except for the pro- visions which allow unlimited individual ac- cess to records vital to determining eligi- bility and promotion in the Federal service and access to classified Information. I strongly urge floor amendments permitting workable exemptions to accommodate these situations. The cost of implementing this bill Is estimated to be between $200 million and $300 million a year, with a one-time "start up" cost of $100 million. Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I move the previous question on the res- olution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider wis laid on the table. Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Com- mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill.(H.R. 16373) to amend title 5, United States Code, by adding a section 552a to safeguard individual privacy from the misuse of Federal records and to provide that individuals be granted access to rec- ords concerning them which are main- tained by Federal agencies. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. ABZUG). The motion was agreed to. IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill, H.R. 16373, with Mr. BRADEMAS in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. HoLI- FIELD) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) will be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. HOLIFIELD). Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD). (Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it Is with a deep feeling of honor and pride that I present to the House of Representatives today H.R. 16373, "The Privacy Act of 1974." Like the Freedom of Information Act, this bill is also totally bipartisan. It was approved by the Committee on Govern- ment Operations by a unanimous roll- call vote of 39 to 0. It has the. enthusias- tic support of President Ford except on one point which the House itself will resolve when an amendment is offered on the floor. More important, I sincerely believe such legislation has the wide- spread support of the American people. I believe they want us to act on this bill without delay. It seems to me that the events of the past several years have a lesson in them.', Americans want to see more credibility in Government, and they want to see the removal of any undue Government power which could be used to invade their personal privacy. This landmark legislation, H.R. 16373, is a first step in that direction. It is in total harmony with the spirit of the Con- stitution. It gives individuals as a matter of right some meaningful control over how the Federal Government utilizes personal information about them. H.R. 16373, when passed and signed by the President, will be the first compre- hensive law dealing with the right of privacy of the individual citizen. At the outset, I should state that this bill affects only personally identifiable files or systems of files held by the Fed- eral Government. It does not seek to regulate those files maintained by State or local governments or by private en- tities. Although this bill appears complicated on its face, it breaks down into four straightforward provisions: First, notice; second, access; third, regulation of dis- closure, and fourth civil and criminal remedies. NOTICE Basically the bill provides that each and every system of records, as defined by the act, shall be made public by notice in the Federal Register. This notice shall list the essential characteristics of the system, the categories of persons to which it applies, its physical character- istics, the uses to which it is put, and the person responsible for its maintenance and operation. ACCESS Each individual shall be given access to his record within the system on his request, with the exception of files re- lated to criminal investigations or na- tional security. Along with access to the file, the Individual concerned shall have the right to challenge inaccurate infor- mation and supplement the file to ex- plain or contradict inaccuracies. DISCLOSURE Disclosure of the information by the agency holding the file shall be limited to those disclosures which are of the type previously announced in the Federal Reg- itser. Other disclosures of a "nonroutine nature" may be made only upon the prior written informed consent of the individ- ual concerned. REMEDIES Civil damages are available to individ- uals who are injured by determinations made on the basis of inaccurate or in- complete records and criminal penalties are provided for Illegal disclosure by Gov- ernment employees, or fraudulent access by individuals. I am going to say something very im- portant now, especially in light of dis- closures during the last week or so on the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service. H.R. 16373 also prohibits the Government from keeping secret personal information systems and collecting records on political and religi- ous beliefs. This proposed statute would thus provide greater safeguards for pro- tecting the lawful exercise of first amendment rights. The remainder of the provisions of the bill are designed to provide the legal teeth to enforce these rights and limitations. Special provision is made to protect America's legitimate and legally author- ized interests in national security and law enforcement. Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 H 10886 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 20, 1974 we have tried to tailor this bill so that it will protect individual rights and at the same time permit the Government to operate responsibly and perform its func- tions without unjustifiable impediments. As a result, we think it will go a long way in restoring confidence by the Ameri- can people that Government is indeed responsive and sensitive to individual rights. Simply put, this legislation will demonstrate that Congress is determined that Government will act as the servant of the people and not its master. Under a key provision of this bill, no Federal agency shall disclose any per- sonal information record to another agency or person unless this action is done by request of the individual or with his orior written consent. An exception is permitted in the case of routine transfers, such as when the Social Security Administration instructs the Treasury to issue a benefit check. Thus routine transfers of personal in- formation will be permitted between agencies so that the regular business of Government can proceed without delay. Nonroutine transfers, however, are another matter. In those cases, the prior written consent of the individual will be required by law. What Is a nonroutine transfer? That is a transfer of personal information used for a different purpose than for which it was originally collected. This in itself ds going to stop a lot of hanky-panky. It will make it legally impossible for the Federal Government in the future to put together anything resembling a "1984" personal dossier on a citizen. It means interagency computer data banks will not be able to share personal information unless the data is truly a routine transfer where its general use has already been made known to the in- dividual and his consent obtained. The consent requirement and other provisions of the bill are backed up with criminal and civil penalties. This also will help protect Americans and at the same time give Government officials a good reason to say "no" to any improper requests from anyone for personal infor- mation on any other American. This legislation also requires that Fed- eral agencies, in making determinations on individuals, utilize records which are accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. This assures fairness to the individual and, in our view, Is going to result in much better decisions by Government officials. Senator ERVUV has referred to the situ- ation existing now as "the Government's voracious appetite for personal informa- tion about each of us." His subcommittee reported that the Federal Government has at least 858 data banks of which 741 were computer- ized. Although 93 agencies did not report the number of records kept, those which did, reported a total number of records kept as 1 billion, 245 million individual records or an average of almost 6 rec- ords for every man, woman, and child in America. ^,Vhen such information is stored on glue it is easily transferred from one user to another. The potential danger to individual freedom is so great that it is easy to un- derstand why the concept of legislation to protect the privacy has support from a broad spectrum of political and philo- sophical beliefs. I think the Members should be aware of the fact that in the event of the fail- ure of Congress to act on this legislation, the President intends to issue an Execi- tive order which would put a similar pri- vacy system into effect. However, it would lack the necessary civil remedies and criminal penalties to provide our cit- izens with adequate redress. Besides, this task is a congressional responsibility and I think you will agree, we should face up to it. On another matter, our subcommittee has received numerous phone calls from State tax commissioners asking whether their tax information transfer agree- ments with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service will be harmed by this bill. The answer is "no," because I am certain the Treasury Department will publish that type of activity as a "routine transfer" permitted under this bill and other statutes. My colleagues, H.R. 16373 actually is the result of an awareness of the prob- lems of invasion of privacy which began growing more than a decade ago when the House Committee on Government Operations started its initial investiga- tions into this subject. Other committees also discovered what these problems are. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. The Nation has sur- vived numerous major and minor "floods." It is now time to build a strong dam to make certain we are not endan- gered again. I beseech you to support this bill and implement the Constitution, as we have a duty to do. i Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. DENNIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. With reference to the gentleman's statement that this would keep the Government from maintaining records as to political beliefs, would this bill prevent the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation from maintaining a list of Communist Party members or people who belong to organizations which are dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Government, or anything of that sort? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Lawful criminal investigations of that type would be exempt from the bill, but normal dissidents, exercising first amendment rights, would be covered. Mr. DENNIS. If it hinged on the crimi- nal field, it would come under the ex- emption which was referred to earlier? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. The gentleman is correct. Mr. I3ENNIS. And would the gentle- man. agree that if It dealt with indi- viduals or organizations dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Government, that that would fall within the criminal exemption? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Anything that falls within the criminal exemption is taken care of. We have tried to prepare it very carefully. Mr. DENNIS. Activity dedicated to violent overthrow of the Government would fall under criminal exemption, would the gentleman agree with me on that? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Yes. That is what I am saying. Mr. DENNIS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. AszUG). (Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend her re- marks.) Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, this Is in- deed a landmark piece of legislation. H.R. 16373 regulates the collection, main- tenance, and use by Federal agencies of information pertaining to individuals. It is a very significant first step in an at- tempt to guarantee the right of privacy to all Americans. It is the product of many, many months of hard work, and of many bills thathave been before the Congress which the committee has con- sidered in great depth. Much credit is due to my colleague, Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the For- eign Operations and Government Infor- mation Subcommittee, and to that sub- committee's staff members for the months of diligent effort in the drafting of this significant legislation. The bill which has been reported out of the com- mittee is a good bill, but I believe it is a bill which requires some additions and changes to strengthen it. The amend- ments which I plan to offer today in con- nection with this bill are amendments which would have been brought before the full committee, but, in order to ex- pedite the consideration and the bring- ing of the bill to the floor of the House, they were left for floor action. So, al- though I support the bill and, indeed, have been the author of one of the bills before the committee, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. KocH) and the gentlemen from California (Mr. GOLDWATER) who also had bills which were considered by the committee, Lfeel that there have to be some Improve- ments. There are three basic weaknesses in the bill: the numerous and unjustified exemption provisions, the failure to pro- vide either liquidated or punitive dam- ages, and the lack of any administrative mechanism to oversee the implementa- tion of the bill. First, exemptions from the provisions of this bill or of any bill designed to pro- tect individual rights of privacy can be justified only In the face of overwhelm- ing societal Interests. There are, at most, only three areas where societal interests can be paramount to the individual rights provided in this bill: First, where granting an individual access to his or her records would seriously damage na- tional defense or foreign policy; Second, where such access would interfere with an active criminal prosecution; and Third, where records are required by law to be maintained for statistical research or reporting purposes and are not, in fact, used to make determinations about iden- tifiable individuals. It follows that exemptions should re- late to the type of data sought to be protected from' disclosure, not to the agency maintaining such records. For this reason, I will offer amendments to eliminate the general agency exemptions Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 November 20,Appnved For M76Aff8 7 000700150082-8 provided in the bill for the CIA and the Secret Service. I will also support an amendment to provide for the assessment of punitive damages in cases of willful, arbitrary, or capricious violation of the bill and for actual damages in cases of negligent violations. These provisions were stricken in the full committee, and, as a result, an individual who may have suffered by violation of the act must now prove not only actual damages but that such dam- ages were caused by willful, arbitrary, or capricious agency action. I believe that these two stricken-out provisions must be restored to the bill to provide, as the bill in the other body does, for actual damages to compensate for any violation of the act and for punitive damages to compensate for any willful, arbitrary, or capricious violation. If this is not done, there really is no adequate remedy at law. I will also support an amendment which I brought in the committee to establish a Federal Privacy Commission. Without such a commission, we have no assurance that agencies will not be mo- tivated by mere whim or convenience in divulging or withholding information. We would be more than naive if we failed to recognize that individual Fed- eral agencies cannot be expected to take an aggressive role in enforcing privacy legislation. Enforcement of the provi- sions of this bill will be secondary to each agency's legislative mandate and will, of necessity, cause additional expense and administrative inconvenience. Only by providing a separate administrative agency with authority for implementing this legislation and for coordinating the privacy programs of the various Federal agencies can we be assured of uniform, effective enforcement of the rights guar- anteed by this bill. I would hope that we will support this bill with the amendments proposed. I think that will be the beginning of an important first step in the protection of the right of privacy. (Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend her re- marks.) Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. ERLENBORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Privacy Act of 1974, H.R. 16373. I thinI it is rather fitting that this bill comes to the floor today on the same day that we con- sidered a motion to override and have overridden the President's veto on the Freedom of Information Act. The Subcommittee of Government Op- erations, known as Foreign Operations and Government Information, Is the par- ent subcommittee of both bills, the Free- dom of Information Act and now this new Privacy Act. It has been quite an effort to walk a tightrope in the one bill to provide the maximum access to informa- tion on the part of the public, and in the other bill to limit access to protect an individual's privacy. There has been a tendency, I think, to view these often as conflicting, but I think that we have successfully walked that tightrope and have, in both of these pieces of legislation, very important land- mark legislation for open government, and yet the protection of Individual rights. The Privacy Act of 1974 does several things that I am sure will be delineated and explained by the 'several Members who will be engaged in debate. Generally it requires that when the Federal Gov- ernment does maintain a system of rec- ords pertaining to individuals, it must identify publicly those systems of rec- ords. There will no longer be the ability within Government to maintain secret systems. Not only in the past has this been done for any nefarious purpose, but the system of records may be instituted and maintained and the public just not know about it. So that is the first thing that will be done: Identify the systems of records and make public the fact that such rec- ords are being maintained. Second, again a public record would be made of the purpose for which the system is being maintained. Then we would limit in the bill access to these records for those purposes so that In- formation contained in those systems would be used only for those routine purposes, and unless the individual about whom the information related agreed to its use for other than routine purposes, it could not be so used. . It could be used then only for the routine purposes. This limits the purpose and the use of these information systems to the public purpose which has been made known, the purposes identified in the Federal Register. Third, we provide for access by indi- viduals to information in these record systems pertaining to himself or herself, so that a person about whom informa- tion has been collected will have an op- portunity to get a copy of'that informa- tion and to see if it is accurate and will have the procedure where he can request the amendment of the information to make it accurate and will have an op- portunity if the information is misused under the terms of the act for recourse in a civil action through the courts. In addition criminal penalties are provided for people within Government who violate the terms of the Act in mak- ing information available that they should not, thereby invading the privacy of the individuals about whom the infor- mation is maintained and also criminal penalties for those who would seek and obtain illegally this information. ;< think this is truly landmark legisla- tion. It has been very difficult to draft because of the varying systems and the varying purposes for the systems within the Federal Government. We were of course at times importuned to expand this to all record systems, not just of the Federal Government but of States and local governments and also in the pri- vate sector. I think if we had done so we would have bitten off more than we could chew. I think we have here maybe a modest beginning in the field of privacy but we have an important piece of legislation H 10887 affecting only Federal Government sys- tems. We generally exempt from the provi- sions of this bill the law enforcement proceedings, systems for the criminal justice system, and other committees of Congress will be turning and already have turned their attention to this crimi- nal justice field. There is one amendment that I hope will be adopted. Several will be offered and I will offer one amendment and I hope it will be adopted and I think it is crucial in making this a workable bill. The bill as it has been reported by the committee and is before us today will open up all preemployment and security clearance files retroactively as well as prospectively. Just think of this. In the past years there have been implied and expressed promises of confidentiality given to people who have been asked to make statements' concerning the security clearance investigation or preemploy- ment investigation for those who would be employed by the Federal Government, appointed to Federal office, or Federal contractors engaged in defense work, let us say. These promises of confidentiality would be violated by this bill because the bill would mandate opening up these files so that the person about whom the in- vestigation was conducted would have access to the files and find out who said what about them. In the name of privacy we would be violating the privacy of those who have given such statements in the past. I think we have to strike a balance and see that we cannot violate the privacy of individuals by the very bill that is sup- posed to be the bill of rights for indi- vidual privacy. The amendment I will offer was dis- cussed in an editorial In the Washington Post this morning inaccurately. They say my amendment would close these pre- employment and security files. It would not. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I will offer will make all of the information in these files available to the individual about whom the investigation has been conducted, except that information which would reveal the identity of a per- son who has under a promise of confiden- tiality given information contained in the file. Even the Washington Post editorial suggested that other legislation in the field of credit, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, had struck a good balance here by saying it is to protect only that informa- tion which would reveal a- confidential source. They seem to think that was a good way of protecting both individuals' privacy. That is exactly what the amend- ment that I will offer will do. It will pro- tect only those sources that. have given information under a promise of confiden- tiality. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget has assured me that regula- tions will be adopted in the future so that only in the most compelling cir- cumstances will a promise of confiden- tiality be given. It will not be the cus- tomary thing to make these promises of confidentiality, so that most all of the information will be made available. Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 H 10888 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700J50082-8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE ovember 20, 1974 Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman from Ohio. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. For the purpose of making legislative history, I should like to ask about the impact of this legis- lation as it affects one aspect of the cur- rent law. I currently represent an area which at one time was represented by one of our predecessors in the Congress, the Illus- trious Jackson Betts, who was very con- cerned about the confidentiality of the Bureau of Census information. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman has expired. - Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield myself 2 ad- ditional minutes. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of the Census has a singu- lar and highly commendable record of scrupulous protection of the confiden- tiality and privacy of census data about individuals and about businesses. This is a matter of concern to every American, and the integrity of such in- formation is essential. to the public trust which is in turn essential to the accu- racy ofcensus findings. These census findings provide the fac- tual bases for: First, countless govern- mental and private decisions which pro- foundly affect the economy, second, equity and fairness in revenue sharing measures, and third, the determination of representation in the Congress. The continuing confidentiality of such census information is mandated by statute-section 9 of title 13 of the United States Code-as affirmed by repeated Presidential proclamations. Ii; is true that neither the purpose nor effect of subsection (b) or (1) or of any other provisions of section 562a as set forth in this bill are to modify or relax in any way the safeguards of title 13? Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the gentleman's question is that this bill in no way would diminish the protection provided by law for cen- sus data. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I wonder if the gentleman would yield further so that I might receive the concurrence of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOOR- HEAD). Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I agree with the remarks of the gentle- man from Ohio and with the gentleman from Illinois. - Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman from Indiana. Mr. DENNIS. I would like to make reference to the question of criminal rec- ords, publication of criminal records, which are generally exempted from the bill, as I understand it. The gentleman said a moment ago that those records are the subject of pending special legislation, and obviously those are very sensitive records and present a peculiar problem, and the subcommittee of the Committee - on the Judiciary, chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. EDWARDS) and of which the gentle- man from California (Mr. WIGGINS) is the ranking minority member, has special legislation on that subject now before it. That subcommittee is tied up in a meeting today on a very important mat- ter that the members of the subcom- mittee could not avoid, and hence they are not on the floor; andthey have asked me to bring the matter up and express the strong hope that the House adopt no amendment that would impinge on that situation and would include criminal rec- ords in this bill. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I ;yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Committee on Government Operations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. HORTON). (Mr. HORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- :narks.) Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise :in support of H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974. Having served as a member of the Special Subcommittee on Invasion of :Privacy of the Committee on Govern- ment Operations some 10 years ago, I nave a particular interest in the subject Df personal privacy. During my 5 years 'cf service on the Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee, I participated in several investigative hearings into this important area. To- day, as ranking minority member of the Government Operations Committee, I am very happy to lend my strong support to a bill which insures that Federal Gov- ernment agencies protect individuals' rights to privacy when dealing with in- formation about people. The bill does this in two ways: First, it mandates that agencies dis- close an Individual's records to other per- sons or other agencies only with the written consent of that individual, un- less the disclosure would be for a pur- pose which had been endorsed by the Congress or published in the Federal Register. Whenever the Government. asks someone for information about him- self, according to the bill, it would have to inform him of the disclosures which had been published as permissible. Second, the bill provides that individ- uals shall have access to all Government records maintained about them, and shall have the right to petition agencies to correct any misstatements in those records. Agencies would have to make the changes requested or note on the records that the changes had been sought, but that the Government dis- agreed with them. All Federal records pertaining to in- dividuals would be covered by these pro- visions, except for national security in- formation, investigatory material com- piled for law enforcement purposes, other criminal justice records, Secret Service and CIA files, and statistical data. To make sure-that Government agen- cies fulfill their responsibilities, under this legislation, the bill permits individ- uals who are injured by Government agency's failure to comply with the law to bring suit against the agency In Fed- eral court. A successful complainant could be awarded actual damages and attorney's fees by the judge. Mr. Chairman, this is landmark legis- lation In an area of concern to all Ameri- cans. I urge its enactment. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. GUDE). Mr. GUDE asked and was given per- - mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, as a co- sponsor of this legislation, I am indeed gratified that it is finally receiving the floor consideration which it should. I want to commend the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) ; the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) ; and, in par- ticular, the gentleman from California (Mr. GOLDWATER), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. ABZUG), and the gentle- man from New York (Mr. KocH) who are also cosponsors of this legislation. They have been a driving force toward its consideration and in bringing it to the point where we find it at this moment. The chairman of the, subcommittee has very well outlined exactly what this legislation does. It is long overdue. This is the kind of attention that Govern- ment records have needed for some period of time. I think matters which we consider routine and perfunctory are very often hidden under agency direc- tives, rules, and regulations, and we as- sume what is normal to us on the Hill to be what is normal throughout the Fed- eral Government. Increasingly, as the society and the Government have grown more complex, the maze of Federal activity and regu- lation have intensified, and the individ- ual citizen has had to -make increasing concessions' to the imperatives of the Federal bureaucracy. The quantity of Federal paperwork alone, for example, has reached such proportions, that the House felt the need last month to au- thorize the establishment of a Commis- sion onPaperwork to study theproblem and find ways of reducing the burden which bureaucracy imposes on the citizen. The level of regulatory activity which. touches on the lives of individual citizens has also increased. Seat belt standards, now repealed,'safety and health stand- ards, labeling and advertising standards, while important Government tools to correct serious problems we have, all in- trude on the freedom of the individual in some small way. Certainly the demands of a complex technological society call for some con- cessions, but we have before us today an opportunity to help balance the recent trend of legislative activity by enacting legislation to help restore individual rights and individual privacy. This bill imposes limits on what the Government can do with individual data, and it im- poses obligations on the Government to the subjects ofthe data, and in doing so it helps to maintain the balance of indi- vidual freedom and privacy which we all. cherish. Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 November 20, _ipp4oved For Jg& RQ8(A1AJ8kfft1BP76fi8 R000700150082-8 H 10889 Symbolic of this balance is the con- troversy over the use of social security numbers for identification purposes. While such a proposal may make sound technological sense, to many citizens it implies removal of an important element of their privacy and individuality. This question is not dealt with in this bill, but some of the same principles are-the right of the individual to maintain his privacy and personal identity. Beyond these questions of principle, the bill also has substantive significance for many citizens who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have not received a "fair deal" from their Government. Mr. Chairman, -I would like to quote the experience which one veteran had in regard to the Veterans' Administration. He was unable to obtain compensation and relief for injuries he had received while serving his country abroad, and yet he was unable to look at his records in the Veterans' Administration files. He finally, had to obtain legal counsel in order to get access to his files, and he found the reason the Veterans' Admin- istration had denied his obvious need was because certain records that were in his file actually belonged to another veteran who had a similar name. This may seem to be a very small thing, but this is the type of action which can occur in situations when we in Congress have not enacted regulations to provide for the overseeing of Federal records, which can sometimes be buried under a lot of bureaucratic redtape which denies the citizen the access to which he is entitled. Mr. Chairman, I am going to offer two amendments to this bill at the appropri- ate time. They are amendments which I was unable to offer in the committee, be- cause of the pressure of business when we were reporting the legislation to the floor. The first has to do with medical records. This first amendment would clarify one item that I believe to be ambiguous in intent, in restricting the circumstances under which individuals would be grant- ed disclosure by Federal agencies. It was the intention of the committee to ex- clude information which would be vital to the health or safety of an individual. I believe that the current language in the bill is vague in this regard, in that it would permit such disclosures without prior permission, unless it is an emer- gency case. It does not make clear to whom the information would be dis- closed. The second amendment I would offer is one that would establish a Privacy Commission, which I believe is a vital necessity if the privacy legislation we are enacting is to become a meaningful statute. Clearly, the enactment and maintenance of successful privacy stand- ards would hinge on the degree of co- operation provided by Federal agencies which have to implement the program. The Privacy Commission which I will propose will coordinate and assist in these efforts, and it would be an impor- tant goal for gaining the necessary agency cooperation in order to make this legislation meaningful in the service of American citizens. Mr. Chairman, I will offer these two amendments at the appropriate time. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GUDE. I will be glad to yield to the chairman of the full committee. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Does the gentleman's amendment of the privacy bill follow the words of the Senate provision? Mr. GUDE. I have not compared them word for word, Mr. Chairman, but I be- lieve it does. I urge the passage of this legislation. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gen- tleman from Arkansas (Mr. ALEXANDER), a member of the subcommittee. (Mr. ALEXANDER asked and was giv- en permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, on June 19, following hearings on the Fed- eral Government's use of telephone monitoring and lie detection devices con- ducted by the Subcommittee on Govern- ment Information, I stated that it ap- pears our Government has been over- come by a snooping mania and that we must find the medicine to cure this dis- ease. H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974, is a good dose of such medicine. I was alarmed to discover in those hearings that it is literally possible to have every home in America bugged. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that Americans do not want to be a part of one big party line. If present Govern- ment preoccupation with spying on its citizens continues, George Orwell's fic- tional fishbowl 'existence and "Big Brother" era in his book "1984" may very well occur. H.R. 16373 provides basic safeguards for the individual to help remedy the misuse of personal information by the Federal Government, and reasserts the fundamental rights of personal privacy that are derived from the Constitution. At the same time, it recognizes the legi- timate need of the Government to col- lect, store, use, and share among various agencies certain types of personal data, but under a framework of law to pro- tect the citizen. Like the Freedom of Information Act Amendments, H.R. 16373 also recognizes that certain areas of Federal records are of such a highly sensitive nature that they must be exempted from some of its provisions. The Privacy Act provides for the ex- ercise of civil remedies by individuals against the Federal Government through the courts to enforce their rights. Pro- vision is made for the actual collection of damages by the individual against the Government if the infraction was will- ful, arbitrary, or capricious. Penalties are also provided for the unauthorized knowing and willful disclosure of identi- fiable material b ya Government officer or employee by a fine of not more than $5,000. Criminal penalties and fines would also be imposed on persons re- questing or obtaining any such indi- vidually identifiable record under false pretenses. The bill attempts to strike that deli- cate balance between two conflicting and fundamental needs-on the one hand, the need for a maximum degree of pri- vacy and control over personal informa- tion the individual American furnishes his Government, and, on the other hand, the need for information about the in- dividual which the Government finds necessary to carry out its legitimate functions. Over 40 years ago, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, in his famous dissent in the case of Olmsted against United States, said: Every unjustifiable intrusion by the gov- ernment upon the privacy of the individual whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the fourth amend- ment. He further stated in terms relevant to current wholesale abuses of power that: Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the govern- ment's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel inva- sions to their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidi- ous encroachment by men of zeal, well- meaning, but without understanding . . . Let us talk a moment on the concept of privacy. Privacy is the ability to be con- fident of security in our homes, persons, and papers. It is not only the bedrock of freedom. Privacy is the .very essence of democracy. If we cannot speak or trans- act business without being snooped on by hordes of bureaucrats-we soon will not be able to speak or transact business without government permission. In my opinion, events in recent years have brought about a chilling effect on the exercise of first amendment rights. It is now time for a defrosting. Every Amer- ican must insist that government is the servant of the people-not our master. In his first speech as Chief Executive, President Ford pledged his personal and official dedication to the, individual right of privacy, in declaring that "there will be hot pursuit of tough laws to prevent illegal invasion of privacy in both gov- ernment and private activities." H.R. 16373 is a first step in that pur- suit. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hun- NUT). Mr. HUDNUT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. (Mr. HUDNUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. HUDNUT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974. While there will be amend- ments offered to strengthen this bill, I feel the Committee on Government Op- erations has done a good job in bringing this legislation before us. There is a great need for statutory guidelines to protect the privacy of individuals by regulating the Federal Government's collection, maintenance, use, or dissemination of personal, identifiable information. In this computer age, it is easy to obtain informaton about an individual and along with many others I am con- cerned over the extent to which citizens' privacy is being invaded. We see this in the accumulation of personal data in computer banks and other such means Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Approved For Release 200, 'M 1JJ: 76 0007001 082- C41'~GRESS ovem er 20, 19'7 4 which constitute a threat to the Pri- vacy of every American citizen. There are some who look upon individual tax returns as the greatest source of such information. Earlier this year I cosponsored a bill (H.R. 10977) to provide further restric- tions on accessibility to individual tax returns. The assurance provided the American people that information vol- untarily given on tax returns will be carefully protected from disclosure and improper use is one of the basic concepts underlying this country's system of col- lecting taxes and I want to assure that protection. I am hopeful that the Ways and Means Committee will take specific action on that measure. In the meantime, H.R. 16373 provides a series of basic safeguards for the in- dividual to help remedy the misuse of personal information by the Federal Government and reassert the funda- mental rights of personal privacy of all Americans that are derived from the Constitution of the United States. At the same time, it attempts to strike that delicate balance between the right of individuals for a maximum degree of privacy over the personal information he furnishes his Government and the need of the Government for informa- tion to carry out legislative functions. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. GOLDWATER). (Mr. GOLDWATER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished minority mem- ber on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) for allow- ing me the privilege of speaking in favor of this particular legislation before us today, which has been long in coming and long overdue. This particular piece of legislation is the result of a strong bipartisan effort in the House of Representatives. The ef- for=,s of my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. KocH) in behalf of an individual's right to privacy, are well known and were extremely important in the preparation of this legislation. Equal- ly significant were the efforts of the members and the staff of the Subcom- mittee on ? Foreign Operation and Gov- ernment Information of the Committee on Government Operations and, particu- larly, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) who was most diligent in pursuing this very difficult task, and who was assisted quite ably by the ranking Republican member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN). They are both to be commended for this excellent piece of legislation. This legislation, as I said, has been long in coming, and is only here today because of the persistent efforts of not only members of the Committee on Gov- ernment Operations, but also many Members of the House of Representa- tives, as well as Members of the other body, not to mention the private sector, educators, members of private organiza- tions, and just plain people, and it cer- tainly would be most fitting to mention the fine efforts by our President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford, and his Committee on the Right of Privacy. Mr. Chairman, my concern for privacy is a long-standing one. The right to pri- vacy is a derivative right. It is not. spe- cifically mentioned in the Constitution, as are the general rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nor is this subject mentioned in the Bill of Rights. But none 'of these would have had the content that we know them to have with- out theelement of privacy being present. it is an essential, inherent element of our inalienable rights. The concern for protecting personal privacy as it relates to personal infor- mation is fairly recent in its origin. The rapid growth of our population and the rise of massive urban centers, the advent of modern communication and elec- tronic technology, and the rise of the computer, have brought a basic change in our society. Massive amounts of per- sonal information can be conveniently and economically collected, stored, and used. The individual is no longer directly involved in the modern personal infor- mation transaction process. Many infor- mation practices have been developed and adopted because they were con- venient, technologically feasible, and cost-effective. The individual actually be- came an impediment in these new proc- esses. As he began to protest his ex- clusion and try to protect himself from the injury and damage that occasionally resulted, he found he had no legal rights to fallback on. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Govern- ment has a relentless appetite for infor- mation. There seems to be a direct cor- relation between the continued growth of Government and the continued growth of privacy invasion. The- Federal Government, as we enact more and more programs, has a need to collect more and more information in order to administer these programs. So it is with this piece of legislation that we are trying to strike a balance between the need to know in order to successfully and correctly administer Government programs, and the rights of an individual to be left alone, to control his own per- sonal life. This particular bill under- takes to redress this disastrous imbalance. The Federal Government is required to permit an individual to know what records it has pertaining to him. It intro- duces the element of active consent as a requirement before information that. Is collected for one purpose can be put to a new use. It permits an individual to have copies of files about him and to correct or amend erroneous portions of them. Finally, it requires the Government to keep records accurately and securely in accordance with specific, published regulations. The CHAIRMAN. The-time of the gen- tleman has expired. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentle- man from California. Mr. GOLDWATER. It is noteworthy, Mr. Chairman, that this Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits the Federal Government from maintaining secret personal infor- mation systems. This bill is an important major first step in therestoration of the individual's right to privacy, and I would caution and suggest to my colleagues that as we pursue further legislation in other areas, we constantly be vigilant that we do not undermine this effort today, that we take into consideration in new legis- lation, enabling legislation, the rights of the individual to his privacy. It is time that we insert human rights into the programs and the programers. It is time that we insert privacy rights into the policy of our agencies. It is time that we instill a spirit of concern for our liber- ties. We must reestablish-and I think we do so with this legislation-the right to be left alone for the people of this country. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield to the gen- tleman from Idaho. Mr. SYMMS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. (Mr. SYMMS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself - with the remarks of the gentleman from California - (Mr. GOLDWATER). I should like to commend the gentle- man from California for his efforts that he has made on behalf of this Privacy Act which we have here before the House today. I would say to the gentleman in the well I thank him for his support, effort, and leadership on it and hope that it is successful today, as this Privacy Act offers some protection for people from big brother government snooper- vision. Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the gen- tleman and commend him also for his support and active participation on the Republican Task Force on Privacy, which issued what I considered a very compre- hensive report and bibliography this past year. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman has expired. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from California (Mr. RoussE- LOT). (Mr. ROUSSELOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague, the gen- tleman from California (Mr. GoLD- WATER) for the effort he has put forward on this issue, and our subcommittee chairman for his work on this issue. Mr. Chairman, as one of the original cosponsors in this Congress of right to privacy legislation, I rise in support of H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974. This is a comprehensive bill which is intended to protect the privacy rights of individuals by regulating the Federal Government's collection, maintenance, use, or dissemination of personal, iden- tifiable information. Through my committee assignments on Banking and Currency, and Post Of- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 November 20, I l ved For F ~JYg?&A : J& 761 000700150082-8 1110891 flee and Civil Service, I have become particularly aware of the need for the protection of an individual's privacy rights with regards to bank records and census data. Very strict care must be taken to protect the confidentiality of these records and insure that the infor- mation is used only for proper purposes. Since the census questions have become more detailed and extensive, the dis- semination by the Census Bureau of statistical data must be more closely reg- ulated in order to protect the individual from being identified by that data. H.R. 16373 does provide proper safeguards in this area. Mr. Chairman, I. have sponsored leg- islation, H.R. 10021, the Right to Finan- cial Privacy Act. My bill would protect the constitutional rights of citizens by prescribing procedures and standards governing the disclosure of financial in- formation by financial institutions to Federal officials or agencies. The bill we are discussing here on the floor today does not regulate the collection of infor- mation by the Federal Government other than to prohibit any agency from main- taining any record concerning the politi- cal or religious belief or activity of any individual unless expressly authorized by statute or the individual himself. I real- ize that by the very nature of the sub- committee's-the Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcom- mittee of the House Government Opera- tions Committee-jurisdiction it could not get into this area of regulating the activities of the- Federal Government specifically with regards to obtaining in- dividual bank records, so I hope that our concern about privacy rights will not stop with the passage of this one bill, H.R. 16373. I urge support of H.R. 16373 with the hope that in the next Congress, we will give further attention to areas that need to be specifically considered in order to afford our citizens full protection from the violation of their privacy rights by the Federal Government. Of these areas, one of the most important is, I believe, the legislation which I have sponsored to preserve the confidential relationship between financial institutions and their customers and the constitutional rights of these customers. Mr. ERLENBORN, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he mad require to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. FRENZEL). (Mr. FRENZEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in enthusiastic support of H.R. 16373. The Privacy Act of 1974. In this bill we are regulating the collection, maintenance, and use of by Federal agencies of information concerning American citizens. I hope this bill will be the first of a wave of privacy oriented legislation of federally collected information, and strict regulations upon the types and use of surveillance tactics employed by Fed- eral agencies. Beyond our limited Federal perspective, we must also seriously ex- amine the activities of private informa- tion and collection services. Since I entered this body in the 92d Congress I have proposed over a dozen bills relating to questions of individual and financial privacy and domestic in- telligence. Along with most Members, - I am committed to guaranteeing. the rights implicit in the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments. This bill, H.R. 16373, is a good start. I urge that we pass this bill, with the inclusion of a Federal Privacy Commis- - sion and some changes in the civil pro- cedure and criminal penalties sections. It is only a start, but it will be a good base for future laws to protect the personal privacy of all Americans. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. ICHORD). - (Mr. ICHORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, as its title-the Privacy Act of 1974-and the prefatory findings indicate, it is the commendable purpose of the measure to protect the individual against the mis- use of official information. To that end the act would add a new section to what is now commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The new section, to be designated section 552a, would impose conditions upon the disclosure of official information, and would give individuals affected access to such information so as to permit them to review and, if necessary, to correct the record. - The committee which reported the measure and the gentleman from Penn- sylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) who chaired the subcommittee which had the meas- ure under consideration, are to be com- mended for the professional manner in which they have sought to deal with this extremely complex and difficult subject. The "right" of privacy has been said to be the right of the individual "to be left alone." It is without doubt a right inherent in our libertarian system. While it is said that this right is not explicitly asserted in our Constitution, it does how- ever find expression in certain related provisions and in the basic philosophy which prompted the adoption of the Constitution itself. By that instrument those freedoms and liberties were re- served to the individual which were not deemed essential to the coexistence of man in society. Hence, like other rights, the right of privacy is not deemed an absolute right. Logically, the absolute right of privacy privacy is to be recognized as a legitimate claim in an ordered society, it must be subject to limitations and must be con- ditioned upon the rights of others and exercised consistently also with the rights of the public. What we are dealing with in statutes of this type is thus necessarily a balanc- ing process by which we seek to resolve the right of the individual to be left alone with the public and other individual rights "to know." For it is a fact that such latter rights are equally recognized by the Constitution, although in a sense they may- collide with the individual's "right of privacy." The first amendment rights of freedom of -speech and of the press, for example, intrude upon an indi- vidual's right of privacy, but they are rights which are essential to the admin- istration of Government and to the free functioning of our libertarian and demo- cratic institutions. Moreover, the indi- vidual's right to privacy must be condi- tioned by that which is consistent with the continued existence and protection of that Nation and its constitutional. sys- tem upon which the vitality of the right itself must ultimately depend. I appears to me that the bill before us has generally resolved the conflict be- tween the rights of the individual and the public and other private rights with considerable success. I propose today to offer only two amendments to the bill which are directed toward clarifying cer- tain aspects of- the measure's impact upon our intelligence services, particu- larly in relation to the acquisition and use of information which is essential to the maintenance of the national and in- ternal security. On their adoption I shall support this measure. First, however, I should like to express my concern over an ambiguity inherent in the provisions of the proposed subsec- tion (b), at page 22, line 10, relating to conditions of disclosure. This subsection would, subject to the exceptions therein set forth, generally prohibit an agency from disclosing to any person informa- tion about an individual without the in- dividual's prior written consent. The sub- section would generally authorize only interagency and intra-agency disclosures for authorized law enforcement activi- ties, but do not appear to contain any explicit provisions authorizing certain essential disclosures outside official agen- cies which would be clearly required if certain vital security programs main- tained by the Government are to be effectively carried out. These include, for example, the effective maintenance of the industrial security, industrial de- fense, atomic energy, and port and vessel security programs. Defense contractors and others involved in the receipt of classified information and related infor- mation about individuals are mainly pri- vate employers. I am informed, however, that the pro- vision of subsection (b) (2). which would which the Congress will consider in the tended to its outer and extreme limits, except from the prohibition the com- next few years: Therefore, we must be the exercise of any such absolute right munication of information therein de- very careful in laying a foundation for must necessarily collide with the rights scribed as "for a routine use," is in- future reforms. Other areas which of other individuals. The resulting con- tended by the sponsors of the legislation clearly need attention are the protection filet would consequently result in the de- to permit such essential disclosures be- of constitutional freedoms for Federal struction of the rights asserted by each. - yond the bounds of the particular agen- employees, limitations upon distribution It necessarily follows that if the right of ties involved. If this is effectively ac- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Approved For Ie se 2002/01 28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700 0082-8 5ONGRESSION L RECORD -HOUSE ovember 20, 1974 complished by the language of this ex- ception, it may well be that a specific clarifying amendment is unnecessary on this aspect of the bill. It is my hope that any such ambiguity as may exist on the reach and meaning of this provision, can be obviated in colloquy with the sponsors of the measure at the appropriate time. On the other hand, I deem it neces- sary to offer a specific clarifying amend- ment to the provisions of subsection (e), paragraph 4. This section commences at page 26, line 18, of the bill. The par- ticular paragraph of this subsection to which the amendment will be offered is at page 28, line 13. This subsection and paragraph prohibits an agency from maintaining any record, and I quote, "concerning the political or religious be- lief or activity of my individual, unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained." We may well recognize that the purpose of -this provision is commendable and legitimate in pro- hibiting the disclosure of records with respect to conventional political and re- ligious beliefs and activities. However, in its present form it is clear that the provisions can be construed to cover ac- tivities which are properly within the scope of legitimate law enforcement, I am assured that the authors of this measure have not intended the provi- sions to foreclose this proper purpose. The terms of the broad prohibitions on maintenance of records relating to "political" and religious" activities would, for example, embrace the activi- ties of the Communist Party and similar groups, which, although generally rec- ogn'lzed as conspiratorial or clandestine, are nevertheless commonly described as "political." Similarly, certain sects with- in the Black Muslim movement, which have been described by the Director of the FBI as endangering the internal security, may claim protection under this clause as a "religious" activity. Although those records of political or religious activity which are "expressly authorized by statute," are excepted from the prohibitions of this paragraph, this is not adequate to exempt the activities of such subversive groups as I have indi- cated. I know of no existing or enforce- able statute which expressly and gener- ally authorizes any particular agency to maintain the records of political or reli- gious activities of subversive groups. I would therefore amend this paragraph by striking out the period after the word "maintained" and add the following: provided, however, that the provisions of this paragraph shall not be deemed to pro- hibit the maintenance of any record of ac- tivity which is pertinent to and within the scope of a duly authorized law enforcement activity." I believe this clarifying amendment would obviate any ambiguities as to the reach of the prohibition, and would serve to eliminate any adverse litigation on the subject. The second and final amendment, which I propose to offer to the measure, would affect the provisions of paragraph (2) of subsection (k), at page 34, line 7. This section deals with certain specific exemptions that may be made to the dis- closure requirements of the act, parti- (ularly with respect to those investiga- tory files or material which the Act would otherwise require the agencies to disclose to an individual by the provi- ::ions of subsection W. While the pro- visions of paragraph (2) of subsection ' k) would permit the agency to exempt from the mandatory disclosure require- ments of subsection (d) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement Purposes to the extent it is not now open to public inspection under the provisions of existing law, that is, section 552(b) (7 of title 5, United States Code, it would appear to me that under this paragraph there is a question whether the agency could exempt from public disclosure the identity of individuals and information Pertaining to those, for example, whoare members of such organizations as th3 Communist Party and other revolution- ary groups having similar objectives. In view of the fact that there are liter- ally tens of thousands of individuals who are involved in such revolutionary or- gnizations, to require such agencies of the Government as the FBI and the de- fense intelligence agencies to disclose in- vestigatory material pertaining to such individuals on request, would not only have the effect of literally immobilizing the agencies in the effective execution of their essential and vital work, but would greatly impair, if not destroy, their func- lioning. The research which would be in- volved, the extensive correspondence re- quired, and the litigation which would likely ensue as a result of the thousands of requests that would conceivably and very likely pour into the agencies would wreck havoc upon the agencies. More- over, to permit the indiscriminate raid- ing of investigatory files, the mainte- nance of which in confidence is so essen- 1;ial to the protection of the national and internal security, would also destroy their usefulness by revealing the extent of coverage and the method and ade- quacy of operation of our intelligence forces. Any such result is wholly unneces- i:ary to the attainment of the objectives and purposes of the bill. I would thus amend paragraph (2) of subsection (f) by striking the paragraph in its present form and amend it to read as follows: On page 34, strike lines 7 through 11 and insert the following in lieu thereof : "(2) investigatory material compiled fox aw enforcement purposes, other than ma- t:erlal within the scope of subsection (j) (2) of this section; provided, however, that If any individual is denied any right., privilege, or benefit that he would otherwise be en.- ;itled by Federal law, or for whichhe would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, such material shall be provided to such individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of sue-lx material would reveal the identity of a source 'who furnished information to the Govern- ment under an express promise that the dentity of the source would be held in con.- 3dence, or, prior to the effective date of this section, under an implied promise that the A entity of the source would be held in osonfldence; Thus by its terms the amendment would fully protect the individual by re- quiring the disclosure to him of relevant nvestigatory material in the system of records-other than that within the scope of subsection (j) (2)-when, as a result of the maintenance of such ma- terial, he is denied any right, privilege, or benefit to which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which be would otherwise be eligible. In such event disclosure is limited to the extent necessary to protect the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under a promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence. This amendment very properly serves the purpose of protecting the investiga- tory - material from being raided by - the thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of persons who may seek to do so for no legitimate or excusable purpose. Hence the right of privacy of the indi- vidual is Protected, without diminution, to the extent of his legitimate require- ments. It shall be recognized that the amendment does not affect the. require- ments of subsection (b) of the bill, which prohibits disclosure of information be- yond the legitimate uses of the Federal agencies maintaining them. Thus the privacy of the individual remains pro- tected by the amendment consistently with the attainment of the purposes of the bill and the national security inter- est. There is one final point to which I should direct attention, regarding both the wording of this and my prior amend- ment, in the use of the term "law en- forcement" as applied in the context of these amendments and the bill as a whole. In referring to a "law enforce- ment activity" and "law enforcement purposes," I am, of course, using the ex- pression "law enforcement" in its gen- eral meaning and in the broadest reach of the term. I include within that term those purposes and activities which are authorized by the Constitution, or by statute, or by the rules and regulations and the executive orders issued pursu- ant thereto. Thus the investigatory ma- terial maintained shall include, but not be limited to, that which is compiled or acquired by any Federal agency in con- nection with and for the'purpose of de- termining initial or continuing eligibility or qualification for Federal employment, military service, Federal contracts, or ac- cess to classified information. I want to emphasize-so that there is no misunderstanding-these changes are designed to protect only legitimate na- tional or internal security intelligence and investigations, and no records or files shall be kept on personswhich are not within constitutional limitations. Let the legislative history be explicit. None of these changes are intended to abridge the exercise of first amendment rights. The - rights of Americans to dissent in a lawful manner and for lawful purposes must be preserved. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we did discuss these two ques- tions, I will say to the gentleman from Missouri, and we did say it was our un- derstanding that under the gentleman's amendments no file would be kept of persons who are merely exercising their constitutional rights, as the gentleman stated. Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 November 20, pffled For RVb8J(g?S/10d1gJ- %ll76M1n8?JQ00700150082-8 Mr. ICHORD. The gentleman is ex- actly correct. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gen- tleman from New York (Mr. KocH), who has been so very active in the privacy of information field. (Mr. KOCH asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, my good friend (Mr. MOORHEAD), who is responsible for so much of the language incorporated into this bill and for the efforts necessary to bring it to the floor. I just want to take special note of what he has done on behalf of privacy as well as take note of the enormous efforts on the Democratic side by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. ABZUG) and on the Republican side by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) and the gentle- man from New York (Mr. HORTON). Rather than restate the provisions of the bill which have been so amply set forth by a number of the speakers, I would rather simply comment on the fact that this kind of legislation which relates to the privacy of the individual, protect- ing that individual from Government, has the support of those who are con- servatives and those who are liberals. They have indicated that support by rising in the well this very afternoon, on both sides of the political spectrum and both sides of the aisle. That is not to say that this bill is a perfect bill. I do not know of any perfect legislation. It may be-there have been occasions when there has been legisla- tion never requiring an amendment of any kind brought to this floor and passed, but I am not aware of it. This bill, however, is a very good bill. There are amendments that will be of- fered, some that I support, some that I oppose; but the thrust of most of those amendments and the nature of those amendments is Intended by those offer- ing them to improve the bill. We may disagree on whether they do or do not; but the persons involved in most of the amendments want to protect privacy and that is key and very important to- understand when we discuss those par- ticular amendments. There is an area that ought to be cov- ered which is not by this bill. If I had my way, I certainly would have it in the bill; that area relates to law enforcement agencies which are, frankly, not covered adequately under this bill. The reason for that is that the Committee on the Judiciary has before it legislation which relates to the criminal data banks of law enforcement agencies. I know that that great committee with its distinguished chairman (Mr. RoDINO) and the subcom- mittee chairman in charge of that sub- ject, the gentleman from California (Mr. EDWARDS) are very concerned about the rights of privacy. So I have no doubt that the legislation which I am informed they intend to bring to the floor, hopefully early In the next session, will cover that data not covered under this legislation, pertaining to law enforcement agencies. What this legislation does do is open the Federal files in so many areas. Mil- lions of files that are now not available to the public would become available to the public. I am not saying available to the public in terms of seeing somebody else's file, but seeing one's own file, see- ing whether the material in there is rele- vant, seeing whether it is accurate, see- ing whether it is current, and if it is not, providing the mechanism whereby that can be corrected. This is landmark legislation. This is legislation in which I take great pride having espoused it in February of 1969, and later with my good friend,-the gen- tleman from California, Mr. BARRY GOLDWATER. In my own district we refer to the legislation as the Koch-Goldwater bill, and in his district as the Goldwater- Koch bill; but the fact is that while the initial legislation was ours,,it has been subjected to extensive review and amendment by the committee and Im- proved upon in a number of ways. This legislation is now the joint work product of many people. I am proud to be one of those who brought this legislation to this point, where its passage seems assured. Again, I want to express my deep ap- preciation to the chairman, Mr. MooR- HEAD, the members of the committee, its brilliant staff without whose hard work, we would not be here tonight, and to my partner on this legislation, BARRY GOLD- WATER, JR. Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I feel that passage of this bill today will rep- resent a significant victory in the battle against unlawful and dangerous Inter- vention by the Federal Government in the private lives of the average American citizen. While the fourth amendment to our Constitution clearly spells out the right of the individuals to privacy in recent years, the Federal Government has in- tensified their efforts to superimpose themselves into the lives of the individ- ual. Many people pointed to these dan- gerous actions by the Government as the fulfillment of the Orwellian theory of "Big Brother" as contained in his masterpiece, 1984. What we are considering today is com- prehensive legislation which will take a number of steps to protect the in- dividual from the power of the Federal Government. Perhaps the strongest area of controversy concerns the maintaining of nonessential records by Government agencies against individuals. This legis- lation addresses itself decisively to this problem in the following ways : It permits an individual to be aware of and have access to all personal in- formation records compiled by Govern- ment agencies, except in cases where these record are needed for law enforce- ment and national security. It allows the individual to control the transfer of personal information records from one Government agency to another. It further specifies the extent of records which can be maintained by the Federal Government, and specifically prohibits keeping of records which con- tain a person's political. and religious beliefs unless clearly provided for by law. Finally, this legislation sets a new H 10893 and important precedent by allowing for a civil remedy to be acquired by individ- uals in instances when they have been denied access to their records or whose records have been kept or used in viola- tion of the provisions of this law. The individual will have the right to bring suit as well as the ability to collect dam- ages if it can be established that such actions were taken capriciously by the Government. I feel a sense of personal relief in the realization that the Congress has seized the initiative in this area. Many of us sitting here today have been the target of unlawful Government intervention in our personal activities. I feel that the recent abuses of power disclosed in the Watergate hearings may have provided a special impetus for the development of this legislation. One only has to read these hearing to discover the extent to which-- certain Government agencies either were manipulated or on their own took steps to discredit those individuals they view with suspicion or fear. On the same token I am pleased to see that certain conditions were con- tained in this bill. As a former law en- forcement officer, I know the value of maintaining information about potential or actually dangerous groups. There are dangerous and anarchistic elements in this society which merit the close atten- tion of law enforcement personnel and I applaud the fact that we are not tying the hands of law enforcement as they work to uphold the law of the land. Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are considering today is both necessary and vital to the American people. We are a free nation and the strength of our Na- tion derives from the rights of the in- dividual to freedom and privacy. Many Americans have become justifiably alarmed in recent years by the increased activities of the Federal Government in the area of maintaining personal records and Information. We are today striking a blow against the potential of tyranny in this Nation and I am pleased to rise In support of this bill which can only enhance and strengthen the bonds of freedom which exist In this Nation. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974. In April of this year I joined with my colleagues Messrs. GOLDWATER and KocH in participating in a special order to dis- cuss the need for the establishment of a national privacy policy. A singular point or theme emerged from that discussion; one of the basic tenants of our system of law is the right to confront a witness or an accuser and to cross-examine him in order to elicit the truth.. In recent years computers, photocop- iers, and other technological advances have made the storage and retrieval of information about citizei,c fast and rela- tively inexpensive. Almost without notice and in the name of efficiency our techno- logical progress has moved us toward the "big brother" supervision predicted in George Orwell's book "1984." Today, an individual does not really know who has information about him, or how many agencies or corporations are using it or for what purposes. There Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 H.10894 Approved For Release 2002/01/28: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700 0082- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE ovem er 20,_ 1974 is no mechanism for providing explana- tiors or to add mitigating facts. And, even more important there are no limits on what can be collected either by Gov- ernment or the private sector. - Information is collected on academic achievement, credit ratings, health, judi- cial records, employment history, birth and marriage records, military records,, tax returns and census records, to name a few. The written word, film, or computer punch card bears witness as eloquently as the spoken word. The right of access to and challenge of records by the sub- ject of the information obtained in those records could, if exercised under the same or similar rules, only instill confidence in aid our governmental process. 'T'his bill, H.R. 16373, would provide the Government with the tools it needs to regulate, collect, maintain, use, and dis- seminate personal, identifiable informa- tion. It would provide individuals with the safeguards they need to prevent mis- use of this information. Like the Freedom of Information Act, which I am sure this Congress will pass in one form or another, this bill is a significant step toward open government. I urge my colleagues support for pass- age of this bill. Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the passage of H.R. 16373, the Right to Privacy Act. Earlier this year, I cosponsored H.R. 15524, a forerunner of this legislation. I feel, as do many Members of Con- gress. that there is a growing capacity for major violations of the privacy of Amer- icans, as the Federal Government in- creases its collection and use of data furnished by citizens for specific govern- mental purposes. Safeguards are needed to Insure that the personal information obtained by the Government, for legiti- mate purposes, is not misused. Recently, we have witnessed flagrant violations of the constitutional rights of some of our citizens by the Federal Government. We should enact legislation now to Insure that these individual rights are never again violated. While there can be no. absolute protec- tion of privacy in any society, I believe H.R. 16373 provides the necessary safe- guards for greater protection of private records. Perhaps the greatest protection afforded the individual is his right to have access to his records, and to control the, transfer of any personal data from one Federal agency to another for non- routine purposes. Additionally, the bill will require the disclosure by every Fed- eral agency of certain identifying char- acteristics about virtually all systems of records under their control, to insure that no "secret" Government -system of records is created. H.R. 16373 would also permit individ- uals access to civil court action against the Federal Government should their rights be violated. Provision is made for the awarding of actual damages to an individual, if the Government Is shown to have acted willfully, arbitrarily, or ca- priciously in violating the provisions of this act. Criminal and civil penalties could be levied against individuals who disseminate or seek to obtain personal information contained in Federal files. Mr. Chairman, it is essential that the Federal Government, the largest reposi- tory of personal records in the country, do everything possible to safeguard thee-.e files and to protect the rights of every American citizen. H.R. 16373 contains these safeguards and protections. I will support this measure and I urge my col- leagues to do likewise. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now, read the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The Clerk read as follows: H.R. 16373 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Privacy Act of 1974". SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds that- (1) the privacy of an individual is directly affected by the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by Federal agencies; (2) the increasing use of computers and sophisticated information technology, whi'e essential to the efficient operations of the Government, has greatly magnified the harry to individual privacy that can occur from any collection, maintenance, use, or dissemi- nation of personal information; (3) the opportunities for an individual to secure employment, insurance, and credit, and his right to due process, and other legal protections are endangered by the misuse of certain Information systems; (4) the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by the Consti- tution of the United States; and (5) in order to protect the privacy of in- dividuals identified in information systems maintained by Federal agencies, it is nece =- sary and. proper for the Congress to regulate the collection, maintenance, use, and di>- semination of information by such 'agencies. (b) The purpose of this Act is to provide certain safeguards for an individual against an invasion of personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies, except as otherwise pro- vided by law, to- (1) permit an individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by such agencies; (2) permit an individual to prevent rec- ords pertaining to him obtained by such agencies for a particular purpose from b-:- ing used or made available for another pur- pose without his consent; (3) permit an individual to gain access to information pertaining to him in Federl agency records, to have a copy made of all or any portion thereof, and to correct or amend such records; (4) collect, maintain, use, or disseminate any record of identifiable personal inform:.t- tion in a manner that assures that such ac- tion is for a necessary and lawful purpose, that the information is current and accurate for its intended use, and that adequate safe- guards are provided to prevent misuse of such information; (5) permit exemptions from the requir=- ments with respect to records provided in this Act only in those cases Where there is an Important public policy need for such ex- emption as has been determined by specific statutory authority; and (6) be subject to civil suit for any dann- ages which occur as a result of willful, arbitrary or capricious action which violates any individual's rights under this Act. Sec. S. Title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 552 the following new section: "? 552a. Records maintained on individuals "(a) DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this section-- "(1) the term 'agency' means agency as defined in section 552(e) of this title; "(2) the term 'individual' means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; "(3) the term 'maintain' includes main- tain, collect, use, or disseminate; "(4) the term 'record' means any collec- tion or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency and that contains his name, or the identify- ing number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual; "(5) the term 'system of records' means a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is re- trieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individ- ual; ana "(B) the term 'statistical research or re- porting record' means a record in a system of records maintained for statistical research or reporting purposes only and not used in whole or in part in making any determina- tion about an identifiable individual, except as provided by section 8 of title 13. "(b) CONDITIONS of - DlscLosuRE-No agency shall disclose any record which is con- tained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to an- other agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom therecord per- tains, unless disclosure of the record would be- "(1) to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the perform- ance of their duties; "(2) for a routine use described in any rule promulgated under subsection (e) (2) (D) of this section; "(3) to the Bureau of the Census for pur- poses of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of title 13; ,"(4) to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written as- surance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable; " (5) to the National Archives of the United States as a record which has sufficient his- torical or other value to warrant its con- tinued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation, by the Ad- ministrator of General Services?or his desig- nee to determine whether the record has such value; '(6) to another agency or to an instru- mentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the partic- ular portion desired and the law enforce- ment activity for which the record is sought; "(7) pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual, if upon the disclosure notl- fication is transmitted to the last known address of the individual; or "(8) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, or any joint committee of Congress or subcommit- tee of any such joint committee. "(c) AccouwrINe OF CERTAIN DISCLO- suREs.-Each agency, with respect to each system of records under its control shall- "(1) except for disclosures made under subsection (b) (1) of this section or disclo- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 November,, 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE sures to the public from records which by law or regulation are open to public inspec- tion or copying, keep an accurate accounting of- "(A) the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person or to another agency made under subsection (b) of this section; and "(B) the name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made; "(2) retain the accounting made under paragraph (1) of this subsection for at least five years after the disclosure for which the accounting is made; "(3) except for disclosures made under subsection (b) (6) of this section, make the' accounting made under paragraph (1) of this subsection available to the individual named in the record at his request; and "(4) inform any person or other agency about any correction or notation of, dispute made by the agency in accordance with sub- section (d) of this section of any record that has been disclosed to the person or agency within two years preceding the mak- ing of the correction of the record of the individual, except that this paragraph shall not apply to any record that was disclosed prior to the effective date of this section or for which no accounting of the disclosure is required. "(d) ACCESS TO RECORDS.-Each agency that maintains a system of records shall "(1) upon request by any individual to gain access to his record or to any informa- tion pertaining to him which is contained in the system, permit him to review the rec- ord and have a copy made of all or any por- tion thereof in a form comprehensive to him; 11(2) permit the individual to request amendment of a record pertaining to him and either- "(A) make any correction of any portion thereof which the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete; or "(B) promptly inform the individual of its refusal to amend the record in accordance with his request, the reason for the refusal, the procedures established by the agency for the individual to request a review by the agency of that refusal, and the name and business address of the official within the agency to whom the request for review may be taken; "(3) permit any individual who disagrees with the refusal of the agency to amend his record to request review of the refusal by the official named in accordance with paragraph (2) (B) of this subsection; and if, after the review, that official also refuses to amend the record in accordance with the request, permit the individual to file with the agency a concise statement setting forth the reasons for his disagreement with the refusal of the agency; and "(4) in any disclosure, containing in- formation about which the individual has filed a statement of disagreement, occurring after the filing of the statement under paragraph, (3) of this subsection, clearly note any portion of the record which is disputed and, upon request, provide copies of the statement and, if the agency deems it appropriate, copies of a concise statement of the reasons of the agency for not making the amendments requested, to persons or other agencies to whom the disputed record has been disclosed. "(e) AGENCY REQUIREMENTS.-Each agency that maintains a system of records shall- "(1) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual- _ "(A) which Federal statute or regulation, if any, requires disclosure of the informa- tion; "(B) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used; "(C) other purposes for which the in- formation may be used, as published pur- suant to paragraph (2) (D) of this subsec- tion; and "(D) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information; "(2) publish in the Federal Register at least annually. a notice of the existence and character of the system of records, which notice shall include- "(A) the name and location of the system; "(B) the categories of individuals on whom records are maintained in the system; "(C) the categories of records maintained in the system; "(D) each routine purpose for which the records contained in the system are used or intended to be used, including the categories of users of the records for each such pur- pose; "(E) the policies and practices of the agency regarding storage, retrievability, ac- cess controls, retention, and disposal of the records; "(F) the title and business address of the agency official who is responsible for the system of records; "(G) the agency procedures whereby an Individual can be notified at his request if the system of records contains a record per- taining to him; and "(H) the agency procedures whereby an individual can be notified at his request how he can gain access to any record pertaining to him contained in the system of records, and how he can contest its content; . "(3) maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determination about any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination; and "(4) maintain no record concerning the political or religious belief or activity of any individual, unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained. "(f) AGENCY RULES.-In order to carry out the provisions of this section, each agency that maintains a system of records shall promulgate rules, in accordance with the re- quirements (including general notice) of section 553 of this title, which shall= "(1) establish procedures whereby an in- dividual can be notified in response to his request if any system of records named by, the individual contains a record pertaining to him; "(2) define reasonable times, places, and requirements for identifying an individual who requests his record or information per- taining to him before the agency shall make the record or information available to the individual; "(3) establish procedures for the disclo- sure to an individual upon his request of his record or information pertaining to him, in- cluding special procedure, if deemed neces- sary, for the disclosure to an individual of medical records, including psychological rec- ords, pertaining to him; "(4) establish procedures for reviewing a request from an individual concerning the amendment of any record or information pertaining to the individual, for making a determination on the request, for an appeal within the agency of an initial adverse agency determination, and for whatever ad- ditional means the head of the agency may deem necessary for each individual to be able to exercise fully his rights under this section; and "(5) establish fees to be charged, if any, to any individual for making copies of his record, excluding the cost of any search for and review of the record. The Office of the Federal Register shall an- nually compile and publish the rules promul- gated under this subsection in a form avail- able to the public at low cost. 1110895 "(g) (1) CIvIL REMEDIES.-Whenever any agency (A)- refuses to comply with an in- dividual request under subsection (d) (1) of this section, (B) fails to maintain any record concerning any individual with such accu- racy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness asIs necessary to assure fairness in any de- termination relating to the qualifications, character, rights, or opportunities of, or ben- efits to the individual that may be made on the basis, of records and consequently a determination is made which is adverse to the individual, or (C) fails to comply with any other provision of this section, or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individ- ual, the individual may bring a civil action against the agency, and the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction in the matters under the provisions of this subsection. "(2)(A) In any suit brought under the provisions of subsection (g) (1) (A) of this section, the court may enjoin the agency from withholding the records and order the production to the complainant of any agency records Improperly withheld from him. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo, and may examine the con- tents of any agency records in camera to determine whether the records or any portion thereof may be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in subsection (j) or (k) of this section, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action. "(B) The court may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this paragraph in which the complainant has substantially prevailed. "(3) In any suit brought under the provi- sions of subsection (g) (1) (B) or (C) of this section in which the court determines that the agency acted in a manner which was willful, arbitrary, or capricious, the United States shall be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of- "(A) actual damages sustained by the in- dividual as a result of the refusal or failure; and "(B) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court. "(4) An action to enforce any liability created under this. section may be brought in the district. court of the United States In the district in which the complainant re- sides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, without re- gard to the amount in controversy, within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises, except that where an agency has materially and willfully misrepresented any information required under this section to be disclosed to an individual and the in- formation so misrepresented is material to the establiphment of the liability of the agency to the individual under this section, the action may be brought at any time with- in two years after discovery by the individual of the misrepresentation. "(h) RIGHTS OF LEGAL GUARDIANS.-For the purposes of this section, the parent of any, minor, or the legal guardian of any indivi- dual who has been declared to be incom- petent due to physical or mental incapacity or age by a court of competent jurisdiction, may act on behalf of the individual. "(i).(1) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.-Any officer or employee of the United States, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency rec- ords which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is pro- hibited by this secton or by rules or regula- tons established thereunder, and who know- ing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency. not entitled to receive it, shall be fined not more than $5,000. Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 1 110896 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE November 20, 1974 "(2) Any person who knowingly and will- fully requests or obtains any record concern- ing an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be fined not more than $5,000. -(j) GENERAL EXEMPTIONS.-The head of any agency may promulgate rules, In accord- ance with the requirements (including general notice) of section 553 of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from any part of this section except sia.bsections (b) and (e) (2) (A) through (1') if the system of records Is- "(1) maintained by the Central Intel- ligence Agency; or "(2) maintained by an agency or com- ponent thereof which performs as its prin- cipal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, Including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals, and the activities of prosecutors, courts, correctional, probation, pardon, or parole authorities, and which consists of (A) information compiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, the nature and disposi- tion of criminal charges, sentencing, con- finement, release, and parole and probation status; (B) information compiled for the purpose of a criminal Investigation, includ- Ing reports of informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable indivi- dual: or (C) reports identifiable to an In- dividual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision. "(k) SPECIFIC ExEMPTIoNs.-The head of any agency may promulgate rules, in accord- arice with the requirements (including gen- eral notice) of section 553 of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from subsections (c) (3), (d), (e) (1), (e) (2) (0) and (H), and (f) of this section if the system of records is- "e;l) subject to the provisions of section 552(b) (1) of this title; "(2) investigatory material compiled for lacy enforcement purposes, except to the ex- tent that the material Is within the scope of subsection (j) (2) of this section or is open to public inspection under the provi- sions of section 552(b) (7) of this title; "(3) maintained in connection with pro- viding protective services to thePresident of the United States or other individuals pur- suant tosection 3056 of title 18; or "(4) required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical research or re- porting records. "el) (1) ARCHIVAL RECORDS.-Each agency record which is accepted by the Administra- tor of General Services for storage, proc- essing, and servicing in accordance with sec- tion 3103 of title 44 shall, for the purposes of this section, be considered to be main- tained by the agency which deposited the record and shall be subject to the provisions of this section. The Administrator of General Services shall not disclose the record except to the agency which maintains the record, or under rules established by that agency which are not inconsistent with the provi- sions of this section. "(2) Each agency record pertaining to an identifiable individual which was trans- ferred to the National Archives of the United States as a record which has sufficient his- torical or other value to warrant its con- tinued preservation by the United States Government, prior to the effective date of this section, shall, for the purposes of this section, be considered to be maintained by the National Archives and shall not be sub- ject to the provisions of this section. "(3) Each agency record pertaining to an identifiable individual which is transferred to the National Archives of the United States as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preser- vation by the United States Government, on or after the effective date of this section, shall, for the purposes of this section, be con- sidered to be maintained by the National Archives and shall be subject to all provisions of this section except subsections - (c) (4); (d) (2), (3), and (4); (e) (1), (2) (11) and (3); (f) (4); (g) (1) (B) and (C), and (3), "(m) ANNUAL REPORT.--The President shall submit to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, by June 30 of each calendar year, a consolidated report, separately listing for each Federal agency the number of records contained in any sys- tem of records which were exempted from the application of this section under the pro- visions of subsections (j) and (k) of this sec- tion during the preceding calendar year, and the reasons for the exemptions, and such other information as indicates efforts to ad- minister fully this section.". SEC. 4. The chapter analysis of chapter 5 of tits? 5, United States Code, Is amended by inserting: "552a. Records - about individuals." immediately below: "552. Public information; agency rules, opin- ions, orders, and proceedings.". SEC. 5. The amendments made by this Act shall become effective on the one hundred and eightieth day following the date of en- actment of this Act. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania (during the reading). Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read, printed in the REC- ORD, and open to amendment at any point. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. MOORHEAD OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania, Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that my amend- ments be considered en bloc. . The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. The Clerk read as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania: Page 22, lines 19 and 20, strike out "in any rule promulgated". Page 27, line 8, immediately after "(2)" in- sert "subject to the provisions of paragraph (5) of this subsection,". Page 28, line 12, strike out "and"; on line 18, strike out the period and Insert in lieu thereof "; and "; and Immediately after line 16, insert the following new paragraph: (5) at least 30 days prior to publication of information under paragraph (2) (D) of this subsection publish in the Federal Register notice of the use or intended use of the in- formation in the system, and provide- an op- portunity for interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments to the agency. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendments be dispensed with. They have been distributed to the minority side, and. I do not think further reading of the amendments is necessary. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Per_n- Sylvania? There was no objection. (Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to re- vise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has also been discussed in advance with the minority side. Its purpose is to tighten up the part of the bill under which a Federal agency makes its determination as to the "rou- tine-purpose for which records contained in a system of records are to be used or intended to be used. As I explained in earlier remarks, -"routine" uses of per- sonally identifiable information permit an agency to transfer such records with- out obtaining the individual's consent- within the agency or between agencies- in the "routine" conduct of Government business. It is essential, however, that this "routine" authority is not abused so as to circumvent the basic purposes of this law. Under the present language of the bill, an agency-under subsection (e)- may publish in the Federal Register a list of each "routine purpose" for which records in an information system are - used. The danger is that there is no check on the agency-except congressional oversight-as to what might be called a "routine purpose." A bureaucrat might be tempted to include a "nonroutine" use in the definition of "routine" and subvert the safeguards set up for in- dividual privacy in this bill. Therefore, the purpose of these amend- ments is to subject the agency deter- mination to public scrutiny by providing 30 days for interested parties to submit to the agency after publication in the Federal Register written data, views, or arguments as to its interpretation of "routine purpose." I believe that this amendment strengthens the bill against potential bureaucratic abuses and urge that it be adopted. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has furnished me with a copy of the amendments, and I support the amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the gentle- man from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD). The amendments were agreed to. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MOORHEAD OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer a technical amend- ment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania: On page 33, line 2, after "(F)" insert "and (1) ". On page 30, line 24, strike "(j) or". Mr. MOORHEAAD ' of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in explain- ing this amendment, which has been previously discussed with the minority side. Very simply, it tightens up a part of the bill where a loophole might exist. It provides that if the head of an agency utilizes the authority under subsection (j) of the bill to exempt a system of records from this law, such action shall Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 November 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE not exempt the particular agency from safeguards to the public against abuse of such exemption authority as provided in subsection (1), imposing criminal penal- ties for violations of the act. I trust that the amendment will be adopted. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I do support the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOOR- HEAD). The amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ERLENBORN Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. ERLENBORN: On page 84, in line 14, strike out the word "or"; - In line 16, strike out the period and insert in its place a semi-colon; and After line 16, insert the following: "(5) investigatory material compiled sole- ly for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Fed- eral contracts, or access to classified infor- mation, but only to the extent that the dis- closure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished informa- tion to the Government under an express promise. that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the ef- fective date of this section, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence; "(6) testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications fo appointment or promotion in the Federal service the disclosure of which would com- promise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process; or "(7) evaluation material used to deter- mine potential for promotion in the armed services, but only to the extent that the dis- closure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished informa- tion to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effec- tive date of this section, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence." Mr. ERLENBORN (during the read- ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that the amendment be printed in the RECORD at this point. The CHAIRMAN Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from IIli; nods? There was no objection. (Mr. ERLENBORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, a copy of this amendment has been fur- nished to the majority, and since the amendment has not been read, I would like to briefly describe its three purposes. This adds in the specific exemption, sub- :.ection (k) (3) exemptions not found in the bill. The first is investigatory material com- piled solely for the purpose of deter- mining suitability, eligibility, or quali- fication for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information, but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of the source that was a confidential source, promised confidentiality. As I said during the general debate, the Washington Post this morning, in an editorial, incorrectly described this as closing the files entirely. The files will be open. The individual will have access to the files and to the information con- tained therein. But we will protect the confidentiality of statements that have been given in the past on a promise of confidentiality, express or implied, and will protect in the future the confiden- tiality of statements that were given by someone with an express promise of con- fidentiality. The second part of the amendment will exempt testing or examination material used solely to determine individual quali- fications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service, the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process. This amendment has been requested by the Civil Service Commission. Under the bill, without this exemption, each test that is given-and there are hun- dreds of such tests that have been pre- pared by- the Civil Service Commission- would be available to any individual who took the test-tile questions and the an- swers. That test then would be compro- mised and could never be used again. The Civil Service Commission would have to prepare a whole new test the next time a test in that area was given. This would be an unnecessary expense without en- hancing the privacy of any individual. I think this portion of the amendment is certainly warranted. Lastly, my amendment provides a spe- cific exemption for evaluation material used to determine potential for promo- tion in the Armed Services, but again, only to the extent that it is necessary to protect a confidential source. As to the first and third portions of. this amendment, the protection of confi- dential sources, I think it is very inter- esting that the House today overrode a veto of amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, and that Freedom of Information Act gets into the same area of information. Listen to the report of the conference committee relative to the Freedom of Information Act. It says: In every case where the investigatory rec- ords sought were compiled for law enforce- ment purposes, either civil or criminal in nature, the agencies can withhold the names, addresses and other information that would reveal the identity of a confidential source who furnished the information. So there, in that act, we saw the need to protect the confidential source. I think we should do likewise in this act. Mr. Chairman, the President on Oc- tober 9th issued a statement endorsing the legislation before us. He had in that statement, however, one reservation. He said: H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974, has my enthusiastic support except for the pro- visions which will allow unlimited individ- H 10807 ual access to records vital to determining eligibility and promotion in the Federal serv- ice and access to classified information. I strongly urge a floor amendment permitting workable exemptions to ac- commodate these situations. This is the amendment that will meet the Presi- dent's concern, and I think it is a valid concern. There is one last observation that I would like to make. I have here a copy of the decision in the case of Koch against the Department of Justice. It is a decision of the District Court of the District of Columbia, which is considered one of the more liberal courts, and the judge was Judge Gerhard Gesell, who is considered one of the more liberal judges. I would like to read Just one or two excerpts from the decision. The judge says: Background files on Congressman Bing- ham which were compiled during investi- gations into his eligibility for certain high Government posts. Such employment checks are routine, fully authorized, and essen- tial to the maintenance of integrity in gov- ernment service. The court later, in another part says as follows: Plaintiffs' narrower interpretation of that exemption is unjustified, since it would re- quire disclosure of highly confidential in- formation supplied to Bureau Investigators. In order to insure such confidentiality, FBI files may be withheld if law enforcement was a significant aspect of the investigation. The judge goes on further to say: This is true even if the laws being en- forced were regulatory rather than criminal in nature. Then the judge later says: Even inactive investigatory files may have to be kept confidential in order to- convince citizens that they may safely confide in law enforcement officials. Mr. Chairman, unless we adopt this amendment, - confidential statements given to investigators in the past will be made available to the persons about whom the investigations are being made. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. ERLEN- BORN was allowed to proceed for 2 addi- tional minutes.) Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people across this country, many Members of Congress included, who in the past have given confidential state- ments relative to people who are being considered for high Government posts. These confidential statements will be opened up to the individual who is being investigated if the bill passes without amendment-and, I think equally im- portant, in the future we would not be able to conduct meaningful investigations into such matters as the appointment of a Vice President and the appointment of members of the courts, including the Supreme Court, District Courts, and so forth, unless we have limited ability to promise confidentiality where it is neces- sary to get candid information concern- ing individuals. Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 l.3 10$98 Approved For R ` 1d j CIAO- ~Pll76 0 j7 E 0070015lovember 20, 1 74 Mr. Chairman, I hope that my amend- ment will be supported. Mr. SMITH of New York. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN.I yield briefly to the gentleman from New York. Mr. SMITH of New York. Mr. Chair- man, do I understand that the gentle- man's amendment would open the flies, as far as the background statements themselves are concerned, as long as the identity of the person making those statements was preserved? Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his question. The gentleman is exactly right. The information, derogatory or other- wise, will be made available to the in- dividual. The only portion that will be kept confidential is the name of the one who has given the information in confi- dence, or such information as might lead to his identity. Mr. SMITH of New York. I thank the gentleman. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman from California. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like, of course, to say, not being a lawyer, that I find myself at some- what of a disadvantage, with the very complexity of this bill. I recognize the laudable purpose of it. I do intend to vote for the bill. In com- mittee I did vote with the gentleman for this amendment, or one very close to it. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether this is the exact amendment or not. I expect to vote for it- at this time. think that if we do reveal the sources of confidential information, after we have or an agency has obtained the informa- tion under the promise of protecting the source, it would imperil the access to information which we should have. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) has expired. On request of Mr. HOLIFIELD and by unanimous consent, Mr. ERLENBORN was allowed to proceed for 2 additional min- utes.) Ivlr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I also believe that there might be a great dan- ger, both to the Government and to the individual involved who gave that infor- mation, if the source was revealed. Therefore, I find myself in general agreement with this amendment. I voted for the amendment in committee, al- though we lost it in committee, as the gentleman remembers. It does seem to me that it is a protective amendment. We are skating on thin ice, between freedom of information and privacy of information, and I think the extra care that this would give or the extra pro- tection it would give to sources that might be vital to the Government in many fields is worthy of consideration. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the chairman of the subcommittee, unless there is a very strong reason, which he will undoubtedly express if there is such a reason, might be able to accept this amendment. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentelman for his support. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I will say to the chairman of the full committee that I felt that I am bound by the vote of the full com- mittee, which, as I recall, was 22 to 11 not to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. I have tried to negotiate portions of this matter with him, but unsuccessfully, even though we have been very-success- ful in reaching agreements on many other pieces of legislation. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the gentle- man for yielding. I would like to ask him a question. I can appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, and that is to protect the parties' sources of informa- tion, but is there anywhere any protec- tion to eliminate the inclusion of vicious rumors, subjective opinions, false state- ments, or honest mistakes that are in the records that are supplied by these parties? Mr. -ERLENBORN. Yes. I would point out that the information in the file will be made available quite generally, wheth- er it is derogatory, defamatory, or what- ever. We will only protect the confiden- tial source. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. Thirty-six Members are present, evi- dently not a quorum. In view of the inoperability of the :electronic device, the Clerk will call the roll. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names : [Roll No. 6361 Ashley Fraser Parris Baker Fulton Patman Bergiand Gibbons Pike ]Bingham Ginn Poage Blatnik Goodling Podell Boggs Grasso QQuie Brasco Gray Rarick Breaux Green, Oreg. Reid Broomfield Hanrahan Riegle Brotzman Hansen, Wash. Roneallo, N.Y. Burton, John Hebert Rooney, N.Y. Burton, Phillip Heckler, Mass. Rosenthal Camp Jarman Runnels Carey, N.Y. Jones, Ala. Sandman Chappell Jones, N.C. Shoup Clay Kuykendall Stark Cohen Leggett Steele Conable Luken Steiger, Ariz. Conlan McEwen Teague Coughlin McKinney Tiernan Cronin Madigan Ullman Davis, Ga. Martin, Nebr. Veysey Diggs Mathias, Calif. Waldie Dingell Mayne Wilson, Downing Melcher Charles H-, Drinan Mitchell, Md. Calif. Esch Murphy, Ill. Wyatt Eshleman Murphy, N.Y. Wyman Evans, Colo. Nichols Young, Alaska Foley Obey Zion Ford O'Hara Accordingly the Committee rose; and amendment offered by - the gentleman the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. McFALL) from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) would having assumed the chair, Mr. BRADEMAS, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, re- ported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill H.R. 16373, and finding itself withoift; a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 344 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal. The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD). Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I oppose the amendment because I think it makes second-class citizens out of some 41/2 million Government employ- ees, civil and military. And I wish to re- port to the membership that the amend- ment is opposed by the Government Employees Council, AFL-CIO. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. At this time I yield to my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. FASCELL). Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also am strongly opposed to this amendment, because what it does is set up a whole new exemption and write a provision into law which does not now exist. Otherwise there would be no rea- son for the amendment. The amendment specifically exempts from the provisions of this bill identity or source of Information. There is no such exemption now in the law. Other Members, just as I have been, ,have been asked many, many times to give information. Never have I had any Government agency or agent say to me, "Sir, the information you give me is clas- sified" or "The information will be kept confidential." Mr. Chairman, what the pending amendment would do is write this tre- mendous loophole into the statutes of this country and change the complete thrust of this bill. That is what this -amendment does, is to give the applicant the right to look at information; the burden is then on him to prove his inno- cence without ever knowing who the per- son was or what the source was of the adverse or derogatory information. Mr. Chairman, this amendment de- stroys the principal purpose of this bill. Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York. Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I might add that should there be any serious question of the need to protect the con- fidentiality of informants' identity for :law enforcement activities or for na- tional security purposes, that identity would be protected under specific ex- emptions in the bill which we have be- fore us. So that the only purpose that the Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 - g -~F [&.76fi.Q. .2gJR000700150082-8 -d , ...., an . r?~-Tnn~cCTl17~TAT 'tJ serve would be, as has been stated by both of my colleagues on the committee, to exempt millions of civilian employees and military employees from the safe- guard provisions of this bill, which are so desperately needed. The need for pri- vacy protections for these particular groups has been amply documented by a GAO report which is in our committee and which the gentleman is well aware of. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of brevity, I yield back the balance of my time and I hope that a vote can be called for promptly. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise with certain res- ervations with regard to this amend- ment. I likewise am greatly concerned with protecting the rights of applicants for civil service employment and with insuring that the applicant have access to information about him that is_ fur- nished by third parties. I likewise rec- ognize the difficult question regarding policy matters contained in this partic- ular bill, in that, if taken in its true sense, open up disclosure of third-party information. I would like at this point to ask the author of the amendment (Mr. ERLEN- BoRN) a few questions if he would be kind enough to respond. Mr. ERLENBORN, what in this provision provides for the applicant to rebut or to countermand any vicious rumors or subjective opinions or false statements or honest mistakes taken from third par- ties about an individual? Mr. ERLENBORN. If the gentleman will yield, the bill itself provides for the first time the right of access by an in- dividual to records maintained concern- ing himself or herself, and the bill pro- vides that if the individual believes that the information is inaccurate, he has a right to demand that the information be corrected. This is as to all records gener- ally and can be applicable to these free employment and security investigation files as well. Therefore, the application th of the bill-not the amendment-but e h that it ditional minute.) ill i s suc th e b application of provides this right to the individual to Mr. GOLDWATER. One last question, demand that a file be made accurate if Mr. Chairman, and that is: This gives he considers it to be inaccurate. discretion to the agency to arbitrarily Mr. GOLDWATER. How will the ap- decide which information it will supply, plicant know that there is included in and which information it will withhold. his file information from a third party The question that occurs to me is, Where or confidential source? Is the check and balance? It is the inten- Mr. ERLENBORN. Will the gentleman tion of this committee that information yield? should be disclosed to an applicant or to Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes, I yield to the, an individual upon request, but, if there is this discretion within the agency, gentleman. Mr. ERLENBORN. As provided in my then where is the check and the balance? amendment, the information contained Where is the impartial review, the in in the file will be made available to the camera inspection to determine whether in fact all information is included, or mainiidual about whom the file has been whether in fact . third parties should O perhaps be made available? Only to t0 the extent that the confiders- tial source would be compromised would Mr. ERLENBORN. If the gentleman we keep the name of the individual who will again yield, I think the general ac- is the confidential source or such infor- cess to the courts, as we provided in the motion as would identify him from the bill, would. provide that. However, let me applicant. That information would be make this one additional point, and that kept from the individual seeking infor- is that many Members of this House, mation. Otherwise, all the rest of the myself not included, but many Members contents of the file, including any of this of the House have sponsored the news- derogatory information, would be made men's shield bill, realizing the great ad- available to the jobseeker. vantage that there is in confidential Mr. GOLDWATER. Is it your under- sources, and it will protect such sources standing that your amendment notwith- of newsmen and newspapers, and it standing, the applicant would be al- would shield them so that they would lowed to file with this information ob- not have to reveal their sources and, if tamed from a confidential source his own we pass that legislation we would find version or his own rebuttal or perhaps his that possibly just wild rumors could be own denial of that accusation or erron- printed in the paper, and the source of eous information? the information to the news media could Mr. ERLENBORN. Yes. Under the not be revealed. terms of the bill itself, that would be a The CHAIRMAN. The time of the remedy available to the individual about whom the file was kept. Mr. GOLDWATER. One other ques- tion: It is my understanding that prom- ises of confidentiality have in most cases only been made on the strength of bu- reaucratic authority as to most Civil Service records and that there is no stat- utory authority for agencies to grant con- fidentiality or protection; am I correct? Mr. ERLENBORN. If the gentleman will yield, in the past, of course, an indi- vidual never had an opportunity to go into his security clearance file or into his free employment file. Therefore, the question really never arose. In the past there has been lawfully express and implied promises of confi- dentiality given to those who have made statements to investigators. The function of this bill, if it is not amended by the Erlenborn amendment, will be to open up all of those old files so that those statements that were given in confidence will now be made available to the individual. The gentleman from Florida says that he has never had any promises, express or implied. In that case, his name will be made available if he is one who has given such a statement, because the only thing that would be protected are those confidential sources. Mr. GOLDWATER. Obviously, it ap- pears by this language in the amendment that we are in essence legitimatizing this practice. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from California has expired. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto do now close. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN). The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. RECORDED VOTE Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by clerks, there were-ayes 192, noes 177, not ing 65, as follows: [Roll No. 637] AYES-192 and vot- Abdnor Fisher Mahon Anderson, Ill.' Flowers Mallary N. Dak. Forsythe Marazlti Archer Fountain Martin, Nebr. Arends Frelinghuysen Martin, N.C. Armstrong Frenzel Mayne Ashbrook Frey Milford Bauman Fuqua Miller Beard Gettys Minshall, Ohio Bell Ginn Mizell Bevill Goodling Mollohan Biester Gray Moorhead, Blackburn Gross Calif. Bray Grover Myers Breaux Gubser Nedzi Brinkley Gude Nelsen Brotzman Guyer O'Brien Brown, Mich. Hammer- Patten Brown, Ohio schmidt Pettis Broyhill, N.C. Hansen; Idaho Pike Broyhill, Va. Hastings Powell, Ohio Burgener Hays Preyer Burke, Fla. Heckler, Mass. Price, Tex. Burleson, Tex. Heinz Pritchard Butler Henderson rson Quillen Carter Hinshaw Randall Casey, Tex. Hogan field Regula Rhodes Clancy , x t Roberts Don H. Horton Robinson, Va. Clawson, ria Del r Robison, N.Y. Collier Hub r Hunt R Rupusselot pe Collins, Tex. Hutchinson Satterfield Conte Ichord scherle Coughlin Jarman Schneebeli Crane Johnson, Colo. Sebelius Daniel, Dan Johnson, Pa. Shriver Daniel, Robert Jones, Okla. Shuster W., Jr. Jones, Tenn. Sikes Davis. S.C. Jordan Skubitz k Kemp Smith, NY D nholm K etchum Snyder Dennis Lagomersino Spence . Derwinski Landgrebe Stanton, Devine Latta J. William Dickinson Lent Steed Downing Lott Steele Duncan Luian Steiger, Ariz. du Pont McClory Steiger, Wis. Edwards, Ala. McCloskey Stratton Erlenborn McCollister Stubblefield i McDade Symms - Findley McEwea Taicott Fish McKay Taylor, Mo. H 10899 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 H 10900 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - {IOUSE November 20, 19 *4 Taylor, N.C. Wampler Winn Thomson, Wis. Ware Wydler 'Thone Whalen Wylie Treen White Young, Alaska Ullman Whitehurat Young, Fis. Vander Jagt Widnall Young, Ill. Veysey Wiggins Young, B.C. Waggonner Williams Zion Walsh Wilson, Bob Zwach NOES-177 Absug Gibbons Passman Adams Gilman Pepper Addabbo Goldwater Perkins Alexander Gonzalez Peyser Anderson, Green, Pa. Pickle Calif. Gunter Price, Ill. Andrews, N.C. Haley Rangel Annunzio Hamilton Rees As,. ley Hanley Reid Aspin Hanrahan Reuss Bactillo Hansen, Wash. Rinaldo Bafalis Harrington Rodino Barrett Hawkins Roe Bennett Hechler. W. Va. Rogers Biagi Helstoski Roncalio, Wyo. Bingham Hicks Rooney, Pa. Boland Holtzman Rose Bolting Howard Rosenthal Bowen Hudnut Rostenkowski Brademas Roush Breckinridge Johnson, JohnsoCalif. Roy Brooks Karth, Roybal Brown, Calif. Kastenmeier Ryan Buchanan Kazen St Germain Burke, Calif. Kluczynski Sarasin Burke, Mass. Koch Sarbanes Burlison, Mo. Kyros Schroeder Burton, John Leggett Seiberling Burton, Phillip Lehman Shipley Carney, Ohio Litton Sisk Chiahoim Long, La. Slack Clay Long, Md. Smith. Iowa Collins, Ill. Luken Stanton, Conyers McCormack James V. - Gorman McFall Stark Cotter McSpaddeu Steelman Culver Macdonald Stephens Daniels, Madden Stokes Dominick V. Matsunaga Studds Danielson Mazzoli Sullivan de in Garza Meeds Symington Delaney Meicher Thompson, N.J. Dellums Metcalfe Tiernan Dent Mezvlnsky Traxier Diggs Mills Udall Dingell Minish Van Deerlin Donohue Mink Vander Veen Dorn Mitchell, N.Y. Vanik Drinan Moakley Vigorito Eckhardt Montgomery Whitten Edwards, Calif. Moorhead, Pa. Wilson, Eilberg Morgan Charles, Tex. Evans, Colo. Mosher Wolff Evir.:s, Tenn. Moss Wright Fascell Murphy, N.Y. Yates - Flood Murtha Yatron Foley Natcher Young, Ga. Ford Nix Young, Tex. Fraser Obey Zablocki Gaydos O'Hara Giaimo Owens Baker Grasso Podell Berglo nd Green, Oreg. Railsback Blatnik Griffiths Rarick Boggs Hanna Riegle Brasco Harsha Roncallo, N.Y. Broomfield Hebert Rooney, N.Y. Camp Jones, Ala. Runnels Carey, N.Y. Jones, N.C. Ruth Cede:rberg King Sandman Chamberlain Kuykendall Shoup Chappell Landrum Staggers Clark McKinney Stuckey Cochran Madigan Teague Cohen Mathias, Calif. Thornton Comble Mathis, Ga. Towell, Nev. Conlan Michel Waldie Cronin Mitchell, Md, Wilson, Davis, as. Murphy, Ill. Charles H., Davis, Wis. Nichols Calif. Dulski O'Neill Wyatt Eshleman Parris Wyman Froehlich Patman Fulton Poage So the amendment was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania, Mr. Chairman, I rise to see if I can de- termine how many more amendments there are expected to be offered, to see if it would be possible to arrive at an agreement on time for closing debate on this legislation. Mr. ERLENBORN, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Penllsylvaria. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, we just checked at the minority desk as to how many amendments we are aware of. There are about 12 or 13, not all of them are contested; probably 4 or 5 are con- tested. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I will not make my unan- imous-consent request at this point. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FASCELL Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. FASCELL: Page 31, line 5, strike out line b-and all that foI- lows through line 13 and insert in lieu there- of the followin g "(3) In any suit brought under the pravi- along of subsection (g) (1) (B) or (C) of this section in which the court determines- "(A) that the agency has refused or fared to comply with any of the provisions of this aeation, or any rule y promulgate d thereunder, the United States shall be liable to the lndi- vidual in an amount equal to the sum of-- "(1) actual damages sustained by the indi- vidual as a result of the refusal or failure; and "(11) the costs osts of the action reasUonable costs of together with attorney fees as determined by the court; or "(B) that the agency's refusal or failure has been willful, arbitrary, or capricious, the United States shall be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of- "(1) actual damages sustained by the indi- vidual as a result of the refusal or failure; "(11) punitive damages allowed by the court; and "(iii) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court ? (Mr. FASCELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, what my amendment does is to restore to the bill language which was in the bill in subcommittee, stricken out in the full =+5^i4 uL unnisti es anu reineules avaliacfe to the individual. If the members of the committee will follow me, in the present billon page :11 with the section we are talking about, they will find the remedies in the lawsuit there for actual damages sustained by the individual, together with the court costs and reasonable attorney fees. The Members will notice, however, that it is predicated only in those cases where there is willful, arbitrary or ca- :2ricious action by the agency. There, the Members will find a complete de- :2arture from ordinarily understood law, ;ort law. A remedy that would be avail.- able to an individual if he were dalr.- aged in this case, we limit his recovery to actual damages. We require him to prove that he was damaged by a willful, ar- bitrary, or capricious violation, the kind of burden which is a very difficult bur- den, I assure the Members, as a lawyer. The Members who are lawyers know i;hat, where we place that kind of a bur- den only in those cases where we seek punitive damages. So, what my amendment would do would be to restore the right of actual damage in those cases where there is a refusal or a failure to comply with the law, aside from whether it is willful, ca- pricious or arbitrary; just - sheer negli- gence, whether it is inadvertent or not. The fact that there is a refusal or an in- ability or a failure to comply with the lawthen will allow the individual to re- dress for actual damages and the costs of the action. Then, what we do in those cases where we have willful, arbitrary or capricious action by an agency is to allow recovery for actual damage or punitive damage. So, what this amendment does, to recap, is to take the reasonable remedy, restore the rights to the individual who is ac- tually damaged in the cases where, in the present bill now, it is only actual dam- ages in cases of willful, arbitrary or ca- pricious action. My amendment would give the person the right to recover ac- tual damages in cases where there is a failure to comply with the law. It would also give him punitive damages in those cases where there is willful, arbitrary or capricious action by the agency. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. FASCELL. Yes. Mr. BUTLER. My understanding is that, in effect, what you are providing for are punitive damages in case of will- ful, arbitrary, or capricious action of the United States in withholding in- formation? Mr. FASCELL. The gentleman is cor- rect. That is one part of the amend- ment. Mr. BUTLER. Can thegentleman cite me a precedent in the statutes in the United States, or has the United States adopted a low holding itself open for willful punitive damages? Can the gen- tleman cite me a statute where any na- tion of the world has held itself open for punitive damages in the statute? Mr. FASCELL. Frankly, I do not have that citation. But the gentleman - knows where one has a willful, capricious, arbi- trary action by the Government, and one is trying to protect t'ie rights of the individual, mine or the gentleman's, it seems to me that leaving it to the court to decide whether or not there ought to be punitive damages under our system- I am perfectly willing to leave it to the system. We do it in all kinds of cases with respect to the individual redress against the Government of the United States. Mr. BUTLER. May I fairly observe there is no sovereignty in the world that exposes itself to punitive damages by a statute of this nature? :Mr. FASCELL. I thank the gentle- man for his observation. Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FASCELL. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. McCLOSKEY. I thank the gentle- man for yielding. I think we have made an exhaustive study of the statutes of this Nation, and if we are to adopt by this amendment punitive damages, it Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 1 lovember 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE would be the first time in history that the United States has made itself subject to punitive damages for any cause or in any case. We have adopted six or seven provisions by statute to impose attor- ney's fees against the United States, but this would be the first time for punitive damages. I would like to ask the gentleman in the well, is it not true that there would be no way of ascertaining in advance of any one year, when this Congress is ascertaining the budget, what might possibly be the amount of damages that might be awarded? Mr. FASCELL. The gentleman is absolutely correct. And we have the same problem in respect to awards made in condemnation cases. We have the same problem. Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, L move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against this amendment, and I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the very real problem that the amend- ment imposes on a government servant. We have just overriden a presidential veto of the Freedom of Information Act, and we have put in that statute ex- tremely strong and rigorous provisions, penalizing a Government agnecy and an employee who may improperly withhold information from the public or from the Congress or from other Federal em- ployees. We have wanted to penetrate the veil of secrecy which Government agen- cies and Government bureaucrats have been accustomed to throw around the protection of information. If we enact this amendment however, we will, in effect, be placing upon the Government bureaucrat the choice that if he reveals information improperly, he may subject his agency to punitive damages. If he withholds the informa- tion, on the other hand, he is subject only to ordinary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Government employees, faced with that choice, faced with the imposition of punitive damages if they improperly release information, as against only' attorneys' fees and costs if they im- properly withhold will be tempted to withhold. We thus endanger that great principle which we have just established when we overrode the presidential veto of the Freedom of information Act Amendments. Mr. FASCELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCLOSKEY. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. FASCELL. Let us talk about my problem. You are a Government em- ployee and I want some information from you, is there any hardship on you or any burden to make that information available to me? Mr. McCLOSKEY. I may violate the Freedom of Information Act if I do not reveal it. Yet I may be subject to puni- tive damages if I do. Mr. FASCELL. No, the punitive damage language only says, "willful, capricious, or arbitrary." Mr. McCLOSKEY. ? Mr. Chairman, I do not think any of us who have prac- ticed law would care to stake our future and our future careers on what some court might determine to be "willful, capricious, and arbitrary." Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. McCLOSKEY. Certainly. Mr. FASCELL. Then I would suggest to the gentleman that he should make the information completely available to them. Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCLOSKEY. I yield to the gen- tleman from Texas. Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has spoken of the term "will- ful, arbitrary, and capricious." Can the gentleman give me any reason in the world why I, as a person who has been injured, should not recover actual damages from a dumb but ineffective bureaucrat, since I can get them from one who acts willfully? One can be hurt just as badly by a dumb, well intentioned person as one can by an intelligent, conniving one, can he not? Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman in this way: that we are trying to balance two great interests here. We are trying to balance the necessity of balancing the budget, and we are trying to protect the Government from undue liability. I think it is wrong to make the Gov- ernment of the United States and this congressional budget subject to an abso- lutely incalculable amount of liquidated damages. If we had a hundred lawsuits, and if we had a hundred verdicts of $1 million each, there would be no guar- antee in any way that this Congress could protect itself against that liability. It seems to me, when we balance the rights of the individual against the Gov- ernment, that to add punitive damages and to set this kind of a precedent is an unfortunate mistake. It would be the first time in history this has occurred. This would be singling out invasion of privacy as a particular right of an in- dividual against the Government, a right that would weigh heavier than all other rights. We have just seen a Presidential veto sustained in the case of an individual who could not recover damages against the Government in an ordinary lawsuit. Why should we make invasion of privacy a special right with this extraordinary remedy? Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. McCLOSKEY. I yield to the gen- tleman from Texas. Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, aside from the point the gentleman is making with respect to punitive damages, the question I am raising is that this amend- ment is the only vehicle that would cor= rect the situation, because actual dam- ages are not available to an injured party because the person who hurt him did not do so intentionally. Is that not what the gentleman reads in the original language, and is that not corrected by the amendment? Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman', I do not believe that the individual is denied H 10901 actual damages if he can prove them. In cases of this kind, of course, it is quite often difficult to prove actual damages, but that is not necessarily a reason to establish the extraordinary remedy of punitive damages. Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak only briefly. I simply wish to point out, if I understand the amendment correctly, the thrust of the first part of the amend- ment is to avoid what seems to me to be a -terrible error in the bill, and that is this: that a person who is injured by vir- tue of a mistake unintentionally made by a bureaucrat has no redress for that in- jury. Will the author of the amendment in- form me whether I am correct on that? Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ECKHARDT. I yield to the gen- tleman from Florida. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is absolutely cor- rect. That provision is totally lacking in the bill, and that is what this amendment provides. If the gentleman will yield further, I would like to respond to some of the re- marks made by the gentleman from Cali- fornia. The gentleman said that we would not know how much money this would cost and that there is no way to budget it. That is the same problem the Govern- ment is faced with in all claims bills. We do not at any time know how much money it will cost and how much should be budgeted. Of course, I feel after to- day that we may never pass any again, but nevertheless we are stuck with the same problem in that respect. It seems to me that this matter can be spelled out in a different way. We would force these individuals to file pri- vate claims bills. After numerous bills were filed and after they tried to get redress, we would force these people to take action. As the gentleman from Texas has said, this should be a matter of legal right, and they should have the right to collect damages. Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, it also seems to me that the fears concern- ing punitive damages are ill-founded. The court must agree in these situations that they should be granted. I feel that the courts would seldom grant them against the United States if the-United States was acting properly. Mr. FASCELL. The gentleman is ab- solutely correct. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. (Mr. ERLENBORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I know that the erudite gentleman from Texas (Mr. ECKHARDT) is a lawyer. I have heard the gentleman discourse very learnedly on the floor of the House be- fore, I understand the gentleman from Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 H 10902 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 20, 197A, Florida ? (Mr. FASCELL) also has legal traiiring. As I believe most of the lawyers here in the House know, it is a general prin- ciple of law that the Government, in exercising its governmental functions, Is not liable. In exercising the proprietary func- tions, the Government can be liable; but it would be, as has been pointed out by others debating this amendment, un- precedented to make Government liable for punitive damages, because there has been no precedent in the past for making any Government liable for punitive damages. I would also like to point out that the bill, as it was being considered in com- mittee, had a punitive damage section. The committee, In its wisdom, removed that by amendment before reporting the bill. I hope the committeewill be sustained on the floor and the amendment will be defeated. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot, as floor manager, accept this amend- ment, although as an individual Member I support it. Permit me to explain my position. When the bill was reported by the sub- committee, it contained a punitive dam- ages provision. However, this provision, by a close 18 to 14 vote in the full com- mittee, was deleted. Therefore, although I personally sup- port the amendment, I do not feel, as floor manager, that I can argue in favor of the amendment. Let me state to the Chair that after the action on this amendment, it is the intention of myself to move that the committee rise. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the-gentleman from Florida (Mr. FASCELL) The amendment was rejected. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the Chair, Mr. BRADEMAS, Chairman of the Commit- tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that committee, having had under consideration the bill H.R. 16373 to-amend title 5, United States Code, by adding a section 552a to safe- guard individual privacy from the misuse of Federal records and to provide that in- dividuals be granted access to records concerning them which are maintained by Federal agencies, had come to no reso- lution thereon. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE COMMENDED FOR OPPOSING DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATTEMPT TO PREVENT PROSECUTION OF JAKE JACOBSEN FOR MAJOR CRIME (Mr, FISHER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend his re.- marks.) Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, when the Department of Justice recently asked U.S. District Judge Robert M. Hill, in Dallas, to dismiss an indictment there against Jake Jacobsen, involving $825,000 in savings and loan funds, the judge very properly revolted. He insisted no valid grounds were presented and that the de- fendant should be made to answer for a crime of this magnitude. There was no claim the charge against Jacobsen was not fully justified. Then, when the district attorney, act- ing on orders from Washington, refused to prosecute, Judge Hill proceeded to ap- point three members of the bar to do that ,lob. But, believe it or not, so determined ? s Attorney General Saxbe's Depart:- :nent of Justice to protect Jacobsen against being tried for an $825,000 crime, it requested and obtained a stay order in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals-- pending full review of the issue. Mr. Speaker, ostensibly the dismissal request- stemmed from a copout deal with Jacobsen under which the latter agreed to testify against John Connally involv- ing a claim Connally had somehow mis- used $10,000 in milk funds in Washing- ton. Obviously, the Office of Special Prose- cutor, headed at the time by Leon Jawor- ski, and Attorney General William Saxbe were determined to pay any price for testimony which would suit their needs. ,:'acobs,an not only wangled a virtual par- c'on for an $825,000 major crime out of ,lixbe and the Office of Special Prosecu- tor, but in their gleeful spirit of trium- r hant generosity they also, for good measure, agreed to forgo Federal prose- cution of another felony pending against Jacobsen in Washington. This will probably go down as the most lopsided and most incredible windfall ever accorded a man accused of a major crime. It should be emphasized that there was no remote relationship-none whatever-- between the misapplication of saving and loan funds in Texas and the Watergate investigation and related Indictments In Washington. Therefore, the practice of plea bargaining, applicable to multiple offenses or degree of offenses, flowing out of a common transaction, has no appli?- cstion in the situation I have described. Is it any wonder Judge Hill would not be a party to such a scandalous transac- tion? He is to be commended for his law- and-order attitude. In this day and time when so many treat crime so lightly, it it refreshing to have a judge who believes in upholding the dignity of the law. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the big los e:,s in the $825,000 savings and loanfund indictment reside in my district. The savings and loan company is located in my - hometown. Those people are not interested in the high flights and poetry o:[ Washington-based copouts. They want justice administered to the man accused of robbing them of their hard-earned money. . On last August 22 I wrote Attorney General Saxbe a letter in which I asked him the following two questions: 1. Specifically, what if anything was wrong with the Texas case, what are the legal grounds, to justify this extraordinary action of dismissal? 2. Is the proposed dismissal recommended by the U.S. District Attorney whose respon- sibility it would be to prosecute Jacobsen in the Texas case? Mr. Speaker, that letter was written 3 months ago. Up to this time I have not received even the courtesy of an acknowl- edgement from the Attorney General. The fact is there are in fact no legal grounds for dismissal, and the fact is the U.S. district attorney handling the $825,000 indictment did not initiate a request for dismissal. Quite obviously, therefore, it would be embarrassing to the Attorney General to address himself to the two questions, with responsive and responsible answers. NATIONAL USURY - ACT OF 1974 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MAZZOLI). Under a previous order of the House, the gentlemanfrom Missouri (Mr. ICHORD) is recognized for 60 minutes. (Mr. ICHORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks, and include extraneous material.) Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Speaker, I shall of course not take the entire 60 minutes, but I have asked for this time so as to discuss a bill which I have introduced today, joined in by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. DENT) and the gen- tleman from Missouri (Mr. TAYLOR). Mr. Speaker, the cost of borrowed money reached an all time high in 1974 since the time that banking reforms were first enacted In the 1930's. The average prime interest rate charged by banks doubled over a period of a mere 20 months, rising from 6 percent in January 1973 to 12 percent in -August of 1974. Yields on residential mortgages rose from 7.49 percent in January of 1972 to 10.38 percent in September 1974, with a rapid rise beginning around August- September of 1973. And other interest rates have shot up on all types of loans as shown by table I in which Federal Reserve Board figures are given for the "most common" effective annual rate collected on loans over a period of time: TABLE I.-INTEREST RATES CHARGED ON SELECTED TYPES OF BANK LOANS Interest rate (percent per annum) Jan- uary August 1972 1974 Sep- lumber 1974 Small short-term noninstallment loans to businesses, ----------- 7.31 Farm production loans (1 yr or less maturity): Feeder cattle operations_._-__-__-- 7.55 10.88 10.78 Other farm production operating expenses------------------- - 7.63 10.29 10.21 Consumer installment, credit for: New automobiles (36 mo.)-_::_: _ 10.26 11.15 11.31 Mobile homes (84 mo.)_ _-:_____: 10.94 11.71 11.72 Other consumer goods (24mo.)___ 12.57 13.10 13.20 Other personal expenditures (12 moJ_______ _ 12.74 13.45 13.41 Credit card plan s 17.11 17.21 17.17 Business loans-prime rate: To small businesses__--- NA 9.97 10.22 To large businesses--------- __- 5.25 12.00 12.00 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 8 i(o3?-3 FoCB I"is.Ai28R?iwP7?i7R000700150082-8 H 10'907 , November 20, heavy despite active promotion in the market. (3) Holders of gold bullion, particularly in small amounts do not, in any practical sense, have a liquid investment. As a freely traded commodity there is always the risk of ~ a substantial swing in the price. Over the past year the price of gold has made several short-run movements-down as well as up- of 15 percent or more. But even apart from the commodity price risk, there is a sub- stantial gap, between the buy-sell price necessarily quoted by dealers of gold in small quantities. (4) Gold is an investment which gives no current return to the holder. At the present high level of interest rates this sacrifice is a considerable cost factor, particularly over an extended period of time. (5) Investors in gold must take account of the very large stock of gold held in official reserves throughout the world. The United States alone holds about 276 million ounces, an amount several times larger than pres- ent annual world gold production. The pos- sibility of using. a portion of this reserve to satisfy new public demand is a factor that must be taken into account by any prudent investor. (6) And finally, any banker contemplating gold dealing must recognize that he will face formidable competition from other sectors of the market, not to mention his fellow bankers. As a free commodity, gold in the coming year can be bought and sold by any- one. Whatever the extent of market demand the gold business is certain to be among the most highly competitive in the Ameri- can economy. In this situation the profits to the average bank in gold sales are likely 'to be at best minor, even including a modest boost to the safe deposit rental business. But even if the direct sale of gold turns out to be more of a cost burden rather than a source of revenue to banks, I doubt that our enterprising and innovative bankers will give up the game easily. For. modern bank- ers the return of gold to commodity status in a sense turns the clock back to the 17th century when the goldsmiths of Lombard Street conceived the idea of issuing more and more paper receipts against less and less gold deposits and thereby established the basic principle of the modern banking system. But for American bankers of today there is a difference that should not be over- looked. Unlike the ancient Lombards, Ameri- can bankers operate in an environment of long established and, on the whole, atten- tive federal and state regulatory authorities. In assessing the gold market from a bank- er's viewpoint, the key point is that a free gold commodity market-with fluctuating prices determined by essentially unpredicta- ble supply and demand-is a very recent historical phenomenon. As a practical mat- ter the free gold market dates only from March 17, 1968 when the two-tier gold price came into being. For centuries prior to that date-the price of gold for anyone was rigidly fixed by political authorities based essen- tially on its monetary status. However, the one factor that has in the past distinguished gold from other commodities-a fixed trad- ing price-has now gone by the board. The significance of this change, particularly for bankers, is profound. All of the banking tra- ditions, institutional practices, regulations, and habits of thought pertaining to bank gold dealing, which have their roots in the long historical period prior to 1968, are largely irrelevant in ,the new environment. Gold is now a commodity priced in a free market and with a highly volatile recent price record. For banks, gold dealing under these conditions will be a wholly new ac- tivity for which the historical past offers no reliable guide-either for the bankers or the bank regulators. In this context we can assume that the banking authorities' will be keeping a close watch on developments, and it would be reasonable to expect appropriate guidance will be forthcoming if the situa- tion so warrants. We will all note that Mr. Wolfe states that- There is no residue of Government rules, regulations, guidelines or hints beyond those that would normally apply to business trans- actions in general. In short, the United States will have a gold market that is as free and open as in any country in the world. Needless to say, this free-market econ- omy is among the greatest strengths of our American system. I do not sell our American public short and I believe that the protection of this open and free mar- ket is the best protection of our system and ultimately of the individual citizen. I do not believe that the American pub- lic is so foolish as to be "fleeced, cheated, and defrauded" as easily as my col- league suggests. I am confident the American public will not be bamboozled by sleazy operators in the new gold mar- ket. I have great confidence in the Amer- ican public to deal in this commodity as they have been dealing in other com- modities, from precious gems to pork bellies, for many years. I must say to my friend that I have a high regard for the innate shopping abil- ity of the American consumer. That we will be offered a wide variety of gold ranging from certificates indicating own- ership, to small bars, to bullion coins, to coins which are legal tender in other lands, will, I believe, again offer the American consumer the variety of choices to which he is entitled in this, as in any other market.. Regarding the allegation that no hear- ings were held on the question of private gold ownership, I would remind my friend that on numerous previous occasions over a period of years I have both for- mally and informally asked the distin- guished chairman. of our committee to hold such hearings. The gentleman repeatedly asks that the Congress reassert its authority in this area: Of course, the Congress did-that is why the bill passed by such wide mar- gins both here and in the other body. But a further point that deserves to be driven home is how can the Congress reassert its authority by giving the President the dication which has, on the one and, eroded the authority of the Con ress over the years, and also denied the American citizens the right to own old. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the p per course in this matter lies not in retu 'ng to the executive branch the vast p wer it has exercised in this area for ore than 40 years, but in returning to on- gress yet another oversight resp si- bility-that of ruling on any effo to sell, alienate, or commit any of our old reserves by the Secretary of the T as- ury. I have already introduced le sla- tion to this effect. My bill would pr ibit the sale, alienation, or commitmen of gold by the Secretary of the Treasury without prior approval by act of Con- gress. This is another area where the peoples' Representatives in Congress should have the right to oversee any ac- tion taken. If my colleague from Texas is, in fact, concerned over the abdication by Congress of its proper responsibilities, then I call upon him to join me as a co- sponsor of this legislation. I have here a copy of my bill together with a "Dear Colleague" letter I circulated in Septem- ber calling for support of the bill and ask that they be incorporated in the RECORD at this point: H.R. 16594 A bill to prohibit the sale, alienation, or com- mitment of gold by the Secretary of the Treasury without prior approval by Act of Congress Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, not- withstanding section 3699 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 733), section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 U.S.C. 822a (a) ), or any other provision of law, or any rule, regulation or authority of any such law, the Secretary of the Treasury may not sell, alienate, or commit gold without prior, specific approval by Act of Congress. Houss OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., September 17, 1974. DEAR COLLEAGUE: Last week I introduced legislation to prohibit the sale, alienation, or commitment of gold by the Secretary of the Treasury without prior approval by Act of Congress. The Secretary of the Treasury has very broad outstanding authority to dispose of our gold. Current law provides that "... he may sell gold in any amount at home or abroad, in such manner and at such rates and upon such terms and conditions as he may deem most advantageous to the public inter- est ." I believe that the oversight au- thority provided by my, bill properly belongs to the Congress. This is yet another area where the executive branch has unlimited power and where the people's Representatives in Congress should have the right to over- see any action taken. There is clearly no valid reason for deny- ing Congress the oversight authority pro- vided by my bill. The Secretary of the Treas- ury was initially granted his broad powers for the purpose of stabilizing the value of our currency at a time when it was redeem- able in gold. The gold-reserve requirements for Federal Reserve notes and deposits have been abolished, however, and the reduction of the monetary role of gold, begun in the days of the New Deal, has now been com- pleted. It is clear that the power to dispose of this national treasure, our gold reserves, must not rest in one individual. I plan to reintro- apprFio sale, alienation, or commit- ment of our gold on Monday, September 23, and I welcome your support. IN DEFENSE OF PRIVACY The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentle- man from Connecticut (Mr. McKINNEY) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974. This bill is virtually identical to legislation I helped to introduced when I first came to Congress 4 years ago. Since that time I, along with every other citizen in this country, have been alarmed over the consistent erosion and Government abuse of our right to pri- vacy. The Watergate revelations, in which we learned of Government surveil- lance of innocent citizens, illegal wire- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 I1 10908 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE November 20, 1974 tapping, misuse of income tax data, col- lection of personal dossiers, have helped to create a growing distrust and even fear of Government in the minds of mil- lions of Americans. to name but a few-to once again inure privacy as an intrinsic individual liberty, inherent to our system of democracy. To meet these myriad abuses I had FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION hoped Congress would promptly enact a The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a much more comprehensive and inclusive previous order of the House, the gentle- he aim or this iegisiation is to sate- recognized for 60 minutes. guard individual privacy from the mis- Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, the confirmation hearings. They will be ex- pected to display knowledge of the law, agrasp for the failings of the old sys- g of the Commission. Upon final appointment, the Commis- sioners will need to find a office/head- quarters. There will be countless budget- ing, equipment, and hardware decisions. tamed by Federal agencies. However, I an important milestone in the reforns of mission is to meet its varied responsibil- recognize there must be a first step in our system of campaign financing. In the hies. Considerable administrative skill protecting the personal freedom of pri- past, probably the most important rea- will be needed at this stage. A few wrong vary and there is no better place to be- son for the failure of campaign finance decisions might seriously impair the fu- g.n than the safeguarding of individual reform legislation has been the lack of ture operation of the Commission. records held by Government agencies. an effective enforcement agency or The Commissioners must develop writ- We have reached the point in our mechanism. The 1974 law attempts to ten rules for the conduct of the Commis- history when we must determine whether remedy this problem by providing a ve- sion's activities. These rules will provide we are to be a people who controls their hicle for fair, vigorous, equitable en- guidelines for the staff and future Com- Government or a Government that con- forcement-a Federal Elections Com- mission decisions. trols its people. By passage of this legis- mission. The Commissioners will be responsible lation we are insuring that it is, indeed, The Commission Is established to ad- for formulating overall, general policy the people who control their Govern- minister, seek to obtain compliance with, for the 1971 act-containing disclosure in ent, for this bill, in a sense, gives a and formulate overall policy for the dis- provisions-the criminal code sections conscience to our Government computers closure requirements enacted by the 1971 relating to campaign financing-contri- and tells our citizens that they are in- law, contribution and expenditure liin- button and expenditures limitation and deed individuals, not mere numbers on stations, public financing provisions, and so forth-and the Presidential Election a card. other provisions of law which relate to Campaign Fund Act public financing For the first time the American public campaign financing. provisions. will be made aware of the existence and With the passage of the 1974 act and Another important initial step will be characteristics of all personal infomma- establishment of the Commission, Con- to determine the ability of the Commis- tion systems kept by every Federal gress has made a most important official sion to utilize the resources of other agency and each citizen will be able to move to recognize, and to begin to re- Government agencies such as the Gen- review and correct his record as com- dress, the dangerous lack of public con- oral Accounting Office and Library of piled by Government agencies, to correct fidence in politicsand government at all Congress. These agencies could be ex- inaccurate or misleading Information in levels. tremely helpful to the Commission in the records that can be so damaging. The Commission is unique among red- administering and enforcement of the For the first time citizens will be able eral institutions. Two of the Commis- law. to control the transfer of personal in- sioners are appointed by the President; The 1974 act is unique in that it gives formation about him from one Federal two are appointed by the Speaker of the the Congress power to veto the rules and agency to another for nonroutine pur- House upon the recommendations of regulations of the Commission before poses and no records concerning po- the majority and minority leaders of the they go into effect-that is within litical and religious beliefs of individuals House; two are appointed by the Presi- 30 legislative days. All rules and regula- can be maintained by Federal agencies dent pro-tempore upon the recommentza- tions proposed by the Commission must unless expressly authorized by law or an tions of the majority and minority be submitted to the appropriate com- Individual himself. Moreover, the avail- leaders of the Senate. All six voting meiii- mittee or committees of Congress with ability of records containing personal bers must be confirmed by both the a detailed explanation and justification. information will be limited to agency House and Senate for 6-year terms. In Since it will be at least 30 legislative days employees who need access to them in recognition of the complexity, scope, and before they are approved-over twice as the performance of their duties. importance of the new Commission's long if they are vetoed-the Commission fit essence, H.R. 16373 provides a series work. the law states that "members shall must submit its proposed regula- of basic safeguards for the individual to be appointed on the basis of maturity, tions long in advance of the first pri- help remedy the misuse of personal in- experience, integrity, impartiality and mattes in 1976-probably, by around formation by the Federal Government good .judgment." September of 1975. In the interim-since and reassert the fundamental right of The effectiveness of the new law mill candidates will undoubtedly begin cam- personal privacy of all Americans. be dependent on the ability of the Coin- paigning for the presidency early in 1975 V r. Speaker, we have a long way to mission to oversee and enforce the act's and some provisions of the act will have go before our citizens are once again intricate provisions and maintain its own immediate ramifications-the Commis- confident that the constitutional guaran- integrity, independence, and impartial- sion will have to give considerable guid- tee of privacy is not a mere abstraction ity in dealing with sensitive issues. ance to candidates and committees. but is a fundamental facet of our sys- Both the Congress and the President The Commissioners will be responsible tern of Government. The Privacy Act of are presently contemplating their for drawing up all budget requests and 1974, as I have said, is a first step to choices of nominees for these crucial submitting them to both the Executive reinstilling confidence that Government Positions. To aid this process, it may be and Congress. does indeed respect the freedoms guaran- helpful to list some of the vast array of The Commission Is required to report teed in the Constitution. responsibilities and powers vested In the to the President by March 31 of each _1 would hope my colleagues in the Federal Elections Commission and to re- year. This statement must contain a de- Congress will not rest complacent upon view some of the regulatory decisions r,,- tailed summary of the Commission's ae- passage of the legislation before us to. qufred immediately. The following is a tivities, together with recommendations day. There is much work to be done In summary of the major duties and powers for legislation and other actions. the area of privacy and we must address of the Commission, categorized by func- Another important general responsi- the many other aspects-protection of tion, while, while not all-inclusive, w M bility is to assure that all interested and income tax records; protection of com- indicate their range and complexity, affected parties are informed about their puter files held by privata industry; GENERAL RESPONSII3ILITIFS duties and responsibilities under the act. privacy of bank records and credit rat- After being nominated, the Commis- The new law is often technical, compli- ings; surveillance of innocent citizens, stoners-designate will be subjected to cated, and often imprecise. Penalties for Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 324 1 g Approved For Release 2002/01/28 CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 November 20 1 97.E CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE a'ri annual rate of. compensation which is that multiple of $161 which is nearest to, but less than, $2,265 less than the annual rate of compensation, which is now or may hereafter be in effect, for Members of Congress, or (B) to which the rate "$43,036" applies, shall not be paid at anytime, by reason of the promul- gation of this -Order, at, an annual rate of compensation in excess of either of the fol- lowing: (I) an annual rate of compensation which is a multiple of $151 which is nearest to,: but less than, the annual rate for such level V, or (ii) an annual rate of compensa- tion which is that multiple of $151 which is nearest to, but less than, $1,661 less than such annual rate for Members of Congress, GENERAL LIMITATION SEC. 7. (a) The figure "$1,140" appearing in section 105(f) of the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1968, as amended (as provided in section 7(a) of the Order of the President pro tempore of October 4, 1973) shall be deemed to refer to the figure "$1,057". (b) (1) The maximum annual rate of com- pensation of "$43,890" appearing in such section (as provided in section 7(b) of such Order of October 4, 1973) is further in- creased by 5.52 percent, and as so increased, $151, and shall be deemed to refer ip~,,,,el5sctions 1-9 of this Order are figure "$46,206". ec ive October 1, 1974. (2) Notwithstanding the provisia of par- JAMES O. EASTLAND, at level V of the Executive Schedul section 5316 of title b, United States rate for such level V,, or (ii) $41,07 (C) If the annual rate. for such le the $151 nual and After such time, any such individual shall be paid in accordance with this Order. (c) (1) An individual occupying a position for which that paragraph 4 prescribes a maximum annual 'rate in excess of the. an- nual rate for positions in such level V in effect immediately prior to October 1, 1974, may be paid at the maximum rate authorized by that paragraph 4 or any annual rate which is a multiple of $161, except that if the max- imum annual rate to be paid is in excess of $36,693, the annual rate paid shall be a multiple of $285. After such time as the annual rate of basic pay for positions in such level V is increased to an annual rate which will result in authorizing an annual rate of compensation to be paid such an in- dividual under this Order which is higher than the annual rate authorized for that individual under that ' paragraph 4, sucp individual shall be paid in accordance with this Order. (2) An individual occupying a position for which that paragraph 4 prescribes a max- imum annual rate of compensation less than the annual rate for positions in such level V in effect immediately prior to October 1, 1974, shall be paid in accordance with sec- tions 1-8 of this Order. SUPPORT FOR SENATOR ERVIN'S PRIVACY BILL, S. 3418 Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, after watching the systematic attempt to destroy the credibility and integrity of Nelson Rockefeller, I can see why more and more people shy away from public service. The loss of privacy and indi- vidual dignity associated with such an undertaking is often too great for aver- age citizens to endure. Constitutional rights of privacy are closer to being lost now than at any time in the last 200 years, and something must be done. Some Members of Congress recognized this threat to our privacy and have spon- sored bills to curb the information- sharing activities of Government agen- cies and further to allow citizens an opportunity to appeal inappropriate of the following: (1) an annual rate which Is a multiple of $151 which is nearest to, but less than, the annual rate for such level V, or (11) an annual rate which is nearest to, but less than, $1,057 less than the annual rate of compensation, which is now or may hereafter be in effect,, for Members of Con- gress. NOTIFYING DISBURSING OFFICER OF INCREASES SEC. 8. In order for an employee to be paid actions of such agencies. in an increase in the annual rate of his com- Speaking as one Senator, I intend to his. position authorized under this Order, the individual designated by section 4, 5, or 6 to authorize an incerased rate of compen- sation for that employee shall notify the disbursing office of the Senate in writing that he authorizes an increase In such rate for that employee and the date on which that increase is to be effective. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATION RATE INCREASES S. 3418. This proposal, which affects Federal data banks, establishes five new standards : First. Collect only relevant personal information and inform the individual which data is required, which data is voluntary, why it is needed and under what authority. ACT, 1975, Second. Maintain and disseminate SEC. 9: (a) Except as provided in this sec- tion, no provision of this Order supersedes paragraph 4 of "Administrative Provisions" under the heading "SENATE" in the Legisla- tive Branch Appropriation Act, 1975. only timely data, keep track of outside access to the, data, establish managerial and physical security. Third. Announce the nature of each data bank maintained. Fourth. Grant the individual access to which that paragraph 4'prescribes a specific inspect his record and tell each person annual rate of compenastion shall 'be paid where the data came from and how it that annual rate until such time as the an- Is used. nual rate of basic pay for positions in level Fifth. Reinvestigate information chal- V of the Executive Schedule under section lenged by an individual, then correct the 5316 of title 5, United States Code, is In- record or amplify it to include the per- creased to. an annual rate which will result in authorizing an annual rate of compen- sation to be paid such an individual under resolve existing disputes on data. this Order which is higher than the annual Of course,. when the bill comes up for rate authorized under that paragraph 4. floor debate, I will reserve my right to S 19703 support or oppose amendments which are offered, but 'I will not withdraw my support for a'strong and comprehensive approach to 'theprotection of Individual privacy. As we , come closer to,our bzcen-. tennis] observance, privacy is one right, not a privilege, which must be kept inviolate. BILINGUAL EDUCATION Mr. MONTOYA,,_.r-, September 27 the Washington Post pub- lished a column by Stephen S. Rosenfeld concerning bilingual education. On Sep- tember 30 the Honorable WILLIAM A. STEiGER asked that Mr. Rosenfeld's col- umn be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, in an effort to encourage fur- ther discussion and debate. The col- umn also produced a very large number of letters to the editor of the Post, some of which were printed on October 10 and inserted into the RECORD by my dis- tinguished colleague Senator FLOYD HASKELL. Because of my own concern, over the issues raised by Mr. Rosenfeld, I wrote a guest column for the Washington Post which was published on October 22. I attempted to clarify some of the points raised by Mr. Rosenfeld and others, and to correct some of the misunderstanding of fact concerning congressional action. Finally, Mr. Rosenfeld published a second column on this subject in which he very graciously expressed his thanks to those critics who had "broadened his understanding" of what bilingual edu- cation is intended to do. Response to my own article was im- mediate and in most cases enthusiastic. It is clear that there is deep interest in this subject and deep concern over .the basic concepts which this discussion has brought to the surface. Because I believe that this kind of three-way debate between a popular and sensitive columnist, legislators in both the House and the Senate, and the pub- lic, is very valuable, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Rosenfeld's second column, my own guest column, and several of the most pertinent letters I have received be printed in the RECORD following my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. President, I think it is especially interesting to note that those who are most enthusiastic about bilingual and bicultural education pro grams are either students who have themselves struggled with this problem or teachers who have worked with minor- ity language children and have discov- ered the depth of the need and the value of the bilingual teaching effort. Finally, Mr. President, I hope that this discussion will result in further and more thoughtful examination of the impor- tance of every one of our various ethnic, racial, and religious groups in the crea- tion. of a multicultural America. I am certain that as we enter the bi- centennial years just ahead of us we are all going to be looking with better understanding at our history and at the many different kinds of people who were Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 19704 CONGRESSIONAL REC*RD-SENATE November 20, a, i3art of that history. As we do that, i hope we will all begin to recognize that our culture and language is already millticulturaI, with ideas and ways of doing things which came to us from many differentcountries and which have been adopted into our own unique American lifestyle. Sauerkraut, pizza, tortillas, and Roquefort are part of our language as well as our diet-and every American can appreciate the spice and variety they have added to our diet as well as our language, for instance. Our majority language is not really English, of course, as any Englishman can tell us. It is American, and it includes many words and phrases which have come to us from countries all over the world. A very large number of our place- names and words are Indian-and that part of our language and life did not come to this continent to join us-we Caine to join them! 1. would agree with Mr. Rosenfeld that our variety of ethnic, racial, and religious groups cause tensions and stresses and problems. They always have. But the astounding achievements we have made as a people may be" due, at least partially, to those very tensions and the effort we have been forced to make in adjusting to more than one kind of people and more than one culture and language group. We live in a multicultural and multi- linlrual world which becomes smaller and closer and more full of tension every day. We must learn to live together on this planet as human beings who respect ourselves and others. We are indeed, as has been suggested, a "great rehearsal" for the kind of international under- standing and cooperation which Is in- creasingly important. I. is perhaps a long step from a good bilingual/bicultural program In a first grade class in a little town in New Mexico to an international agreement about world problems, of course. But I think a very good argument can be made for the idea that our ability to succeed In' that little schoolroom will be helpful and set a good example for our larger efforts in the world. I realize we cannotaccomplish allthe goals of better bilingual/bicultural edu- cation overnight. As has happened so often in our past, these programs are evidence of our recognition of a prob- lem, however-and a first step in pro- viding solutions. I am hopeful that the discussion which has been engendered by this de- bate will result in a broader understand- ing of not only the needs of our minor- ity language children, but also of the great strength of our multicultural heritage. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 30, 1974] EXHIBIT 1 A SECOND Loom AT BILINGUALISM (By Stephen S. Rosenfeld) [ am indebted to my critics for broadening my understanding of bilingualism-teach- ing in English and in the "home language," usually Spanish, in the public schools. The issue was discussed in this space on Sept. 27. Nothing I've ever written has drawn a larger response-about four to one against, by the way. 1974 I think I understand better now that bi- dered how to give each -group its cultural linguallsm is a program devised to meet a due while ensuring that some larger "na- social and educational crisis, it situation in tional" interest be assured. which a great many kids arriving in school Certainly it is fair to ask what role the speaking, say, Spanish fall behind at once, public school system, perhaps the principal drop out and thereafter get a raw deal. IV,exi- -cultural" institution in American life, can-Americans are the key group here but should be expected to play in sorting out this Puerto Ricans and American Indians are also generation's, or this decade's, answer to that importantly affected. fundamental, continuing question. Our "dl- Bilingualism also serves, I understand verse parts" deserve respect but how should better, to redress the sense of those many it be accorded? Yes, "jingoism,""xenopho- Americana who speak English poorly or not bia" and "cultural chauvinism" are aspects- at all, that their culture--a central element baleful aspects-of the American scene. But in personal identity-is not respected by the not everyone who expresses a longing for American majority and that their American- Americans, get along better with one an- ism is somehow suspect. other need be charged with them. .h e th i r aps ere s nothing more to be _?aid about a program which promises so much to so many. But I think there is more. First of all, can bilingualism reasonably be expected to carry the educational and social burdens which its sponsors have loaded upon it? The claim is made that a child educated first in the home language will find it easier to learn English, and to learn other subjects in English. But none of its supporters contend that this has been demonstrated other than in a small number of' model school programs. It does not seem to me unreasonable, furthermore, to be skep- tical about a proposal which puts so much weight on changing the method of instruc- tion, since method Is only one factor affecting a child's education. Some argue in effect that bilingualism is a kind of consolation prize for kids. who start school and life with heavy handicaps: "at feast let them develop proficiency in the home language and pride In the home cul- ture." But In that case it should not be sold as a catch-up. I can think of no crueler trick than a bilingual program which promises catch-up but leaves kids unprepared for so- ciety's rigors in two languages. Supporters of bilingualism should be more interested than any one else in making this point. If it were up to me to resolve this par- ticular issue, I would proceed full steam ahead on bilingualism, but I would tone down the promises made in Its name and I would keep looking hard to see how the pro- grams go and whether other programs need to be carried forward at the same time. For reasons that no doubt reflect on me as well as my critics, I was startled to be called a "cultural fascist" and the like for express- ing the hope that all American kids will learn English and have a fair chance at the good things in American life. Thereby to be ac- cusedof favoring "homogenized Americans" and "bland uniformity" set me to wondering about the ambivalences in American society; we want ethnic pride and conventional suc- cess and are uncertain whether the former is help or hindrance to the latter or whether the two have anyreal connection at all. What Is certain is that Americans of Euro- pean stock have-a very different view of the matter-a much more confident view based on their own experience-than do Mexican- Americans, Puerto Ricans and Indians. These Americans, far from being "Immigrants" who chose to jointhis society, became Amer- icans involuntarily by being militarily taken over by the expanding United States. They have not been "melted" or acculturated in the "melting pot" which absorbed Euro- peans. Rather, they have often gotten the worst of both worlds, their home culture de- graded andtheir assimilation denied. (By Senator JOSEPH M. MONTOTA) A recent column in The Washington Post raised the frightening prospect of a divisitb ethnicity being developed and fostered by Congress through passage of a "new" pre gram for bilingual education. Stephen Rosenfeld expressed his "apprehension" at she possibility that our "melting pot" schools would no longer be able to Americanize im- migrant children in what be called the "tra- ditional" American way. He reported that the taxpayer was being asked to pay $170 million a year for this "extremely disturbing" new kind of education through legislation which he said had been enacted "without any public challenge" and with "no one pay- ing heed." It is hard to imagine a statement founded less on fact and more on fright. However, since it is always difficult to get coverage for the education problems of minority children, I-welcome Mr. Rosenfeld's invitation to de- bate, and hasten to do what I can to correct the record. - First, let us be clear about what Congress did. The legislation passed this year was not new, but was simply an amendment to the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, written and introduced first in 1967 by Senator Ralph Yarborough and me. This year, that legis- lation, Title VII of the Elementary and Sec- ondary Education Act, was amended in bills Introduced by Senator Kennedy, Senator Cranston and me. The changes made will provide clearer definitions, better adminis- tration, an increase in funding to cover teacher-training, and better coordination between State and Federal programs. The $170 million mentioned by W. Rosenfeld is an authorization, not an appropriation, and is for the year 1978, not this year. The au- thorization for this year is $135 million, but only $70 million has been. requested for ap- propriation. That will provide for only 284 programs across the nation-26 less than were funded last year. - Because the Federal Government has never provided for more than two percent of the children who need this special kind of edu- cation, however, the Federal program is real- ly irrelevant to the debate which Mr. Rosen- feld's column raises. The controversy, It seems to me, centers on two concepts:. First, an understanding of what bilingual and bi- cultural education is, and, second, an under- standing of what we want America to be. In order to understand bilingual/bicul- tural education, it is necessary to work with reality, not myth. The reality is between five and seven million children who are poor and come to school speaking a language other But. I still ask, where does this leave than English. They have historically been America? It is all very well for Americans to considered - "marginal" children-barely "recognize our multicultural heritage" but worth educating, just as marginal products it does not signify "fear of diversity" or. I are barely worth producing. They live in would contend, "latent bias" to expresscon barrios and ghettos, or on reservations, and cern about how the different ethnic, racial they have drop-out rates as high as fifty or and religious groups which compose this sixty percent. When the National Education country relate to each other. -Observers of Association held its first national conference the American scene at least since de Toque- to discuss this problem in 1966, educators vile have noted these stresses and have pon- urged a real commitment toward building Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 SENATE JOINT At the request o Senator from New Nic1) was added as Administrator of make a grant for facilities for the Hall of Fame. 11 4 ved For CONGRESSIONALBR CORDP76SENATE 000700150082-8 S19675 as "March of Dimes tion Month." LuTION 254 cosponsor of Senate 4, authorizing the Administration to he construction of SENATE RESOL ON 435-ORIGI- NAL RESOL ON REPORTED FROM THE COM ITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINIS ATION AUTHOR- IZING ADDITIONAL EXPENDI- (Placed on the Mr. CANNON, fr ration, reported the following resolutio Resolved, That th during the Ninety-th addition to the amo in Senate Resolution gress, agreed to May s. 435 Committee on Rules authorized to expend fund of the Senate, d Congress, $30,000 in nt, and for the same section 134(a) of the tion Act of 1946, and AMENDMEN the table.) Mr. BURDICK s the bill (S. 2928) sies involving cons purposes. SOCIAL SEC (Ordered to be p to the Committee on NO. 1991 nted and referred Mr. INOUYE sub ment intended to be the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico), and each officer and employee of the United States within the executive and legis- lative branches of Government receiving compensation at an annual rate in excess of $30,000. (c) Reports required by this Act shall be in such form and shall contain such infor- mation in order to meet the provisions of this Act as the Comptroller General may pre- scribe. All reports filed under this Act shall be maintained by the Comptroller General as public records, open to inspection by mem- bers of the public, and copies of such records shall be furnished upon request at a reason- able fee. SEC._ 403. Each -person to whom this Act applies on January 1 of any year shall file the report required by this on or before February 15 of that year. Each person to whom this Act first applies during a year after January 1 of that year shall file the report required by this Act on or before the forty-fifth day after this Act first applies to him during that year. SEc. 404. Any person who knowingly and willfully fails to file a report required to be filed under this Act, or who knowingly and willfully files a false report required to be filed under this Act, shall be fined not more than $2,000, or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both. SEC. 405. This title shall become effective on January 1, 1975. AMENDME At the request of FEDERAL PRIVACY BOARD ACT- S. 3418 AMENDMENT NO. 1992 (Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.) NET WORTH DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, when the Senate tomorrow brings up for con- AMENDMEN! At the request of Senator from Wisc( was added as a cosp No. 1932, intended b bill (H. R. 8214) to r ment of members o of the United Stati ployees who are pris< ing in action, and f abuses of the social r. STEVENSON, the be proposed to the s and civilian em- ners of war or miss- NOTICE OF HEAR] WAR CLAIMS AC Mr. BURDICK. M to announce that a ] on December 3, 11 Dirksen Senate Ofl mencing at 10 a.m., f of S. 1728-the War ments, by an ad hoc sisting of Senators myself, as chairmar Those who wish tc statement for inclu should communicate with William P. Wes, of the Subcommitte in Judicial Machi Senate Office Buil D.C., 224-3618. testify or submit a ion in the record as soon as possible ;phal, Chief Counsel on Improvements .ery, 6306 Dirksen ding, Washington, ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF AMENDMENTS t' AMENDMENTS r. President, I wish rearing will be held 74, in room 6202, ice Building, com- )r the consideration Claims Act amend- subcommittee con- BAYH, FONG, and of the Social Security Act to liberalize the conditions under which post-hospital home health services may be provided F~rereof, and home health services may be provided under part B thereof. Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 sideration the Federal Privacy Board Act, S. 3418, I Intend to offer an amend- ment to provide for full disclosure of net worth by high-ranking public officials in the executive and congressional branches of the U.S. Government. The amend- ment is the same as the Net Worth Dis- closure Act, S. 4059, which I introduced on September 30 of this year. I strongly believe that the public has a right to know the financial interests of those who guide their Government. The disclosure of financial worth and interests by policymakers is one step toward strengthening the public's trust. I feel the Senate, for example, has an unprece- dented opportunity to dispel public cyni- cisrn by adhering to the same standards of public disclosure that it has asked of Vice President nominee Nelson Rocke- feller. The net worth disclosure amendment would require that the President, Vice President, Members of the Congress, and all employees of the executive and legis- lative branches earning in excess of $30,- 000 a year, file each February 15 a net worth statement of assets and liabilities over $1,500 held alone or jointly within the family during the previous calendar year. Asset valuation would be based on fair market value as of December 30 of the disclosure year. This amendment is similar to net worth disclosure provisions in title IV of the 'Federal Election Campaign Act Amend- ments of 1974, S. 3044, as passed by the Senate earlier this year. Unfortunately, these important provisions were dropped in conference. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment incor- porating the Net Worth Disclosure Act, be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the amend- ment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 1992 On page 54, line 8, strike out "This Act" and Insert in lieu thereof 'Titles II and III of this Act". On page 54, line 14, strike out "this Act" and insert in lieu thereof "titles I. II, and III of this Act". On page 54, Immediately below line 14, in- sert the following new title: TITLE IV-FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE SEC. 401. This title may be cited as the "Net Work Disclosure Act". SEC. 402. (a) Each individual referred to in subsection (b) shall file annually with the Comptroller General of the United States a full and complete statement of net worth to consist of: (1) A list of the identity and value of each asset held by him, or jointly by him and his spouse or by him and his child or children, and which has a fair market value in excess of $1,500 as of the end of the calendar year prior to that in which he is required to file a report under this Act. (2) A list of the identity and amount of each liability owed by him; or jointly by him and his spouse or by him and his child or children, and which is in excess of $1,500 as of the end of the calendar year prior to that In which he is required to file a report under this Act. (b) The provisions of this Act apply to the President, the Vice President, each Mem- ber of the Senate, each Member of the House of Representatives (including Delegates and November 20, Resolution 224, a r S-19676 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE November 20, 1974 CLEANUP OF A LAKE Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, a major problem in this Nation is the pollution of our lakes and streams. Not only does pol- lution of our water supplies create un- necessary healthy hazards for our citizens, but it also denies to us a food source at a time when world food problems are mounting. In Wyoming, a group of concerned and dedicated people have taken matters into their own hands: They have brought a polluted lake back to a healthful and productive state. Known as Lake Viva Naughton, the body of water is located 15 miles north of Kemmerer in south- west Wyoming. Lake Viva Naughton was nearly dead in 1960. However, the once popular fish- ing site was restored through the co- operative efforts of the Lincoln County Conservatio nDistrict, the resource con- servation and development program of the Soil Conservation Service, Utah Power & Light Co., and residents of the Kemmerer area, all working to keep the lake in service. Mr. President, the story of this cleanup of Lake Viva Naughton is told by Richard L. Thompson, R.C. & D. coordinator for the Soil Conservation Service in Kem- merer. This story is a salute and tribute to the Federal Government and local residents working hand-in-hand to solve a problem. l ask unanimous consent that the ar- ticle entitled, "Clean-up of a Lake," ap- pearing in the June 1974 issue of Soil Conservation, be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: CLEAN-UP OF A LAKE (By Richard L. Thompson) Lake Viva Naughton, about 15 miles north of Kemmerer in southwest Wyoming, has been both a boon to fishermen and a head- ache to nearby ranchers. Now, thanks to community cooperation, camping and ranch- ing can be good neighbors. One reason for this turnabout was the help provided by members of the Western Wyo- ming Resource Conservation and Develop- ment Project (RC&D) in the area. Lake Naughton is on the Hams Fork River which runs through the small city of Kem- merer. In 1941, Kemmerer built a dam across Hams Fork River, creating a 100-acre lake for municipal water storage. It was open to every- one for fishing and remained open until 1960 when it was closed due to water pollution and a general degradation of the nearby area. In 1962, the Utah Power & Light Company constructed a much larger dam across the Hams Fork River a mile above the city dam. This created the new 1,458-acre Lake Viva Naughton. It was used for water storage and fishing also. Lake Viva Naughton's reputation for yield- ing "big ones" spread, and fishermen flocked into the area. But, once again, pollution be- came a serious problem. Local ranchers lost patience-along with thousands of dollars-when fishermen drove cars, trucks, and campers through their grain and hay fields. Because there were few camp- ing facilities, visitors stopped for the night under the willows, along the lakeshore, or at any wide spot in the access road. And when they left for home, garbarge and other refuse was strewn around the once-beautiful river and lakeshore. The ranchers had only one choice left tc protect their land; they fenced off a major part of the Hams Fork River shoreline. At t: a same time. Utah Power and Light threat- ened to close the large lake to visitors be- cause of pollution problems. The city of Kemmerer, Utah Power & Light, and some of the ranchers considered twc possible ways to rejuvenate the lake. One was to develop a public recreation area ad- ministered by the community; the other waf- t), look for a reliable concessionaire. The first idea was tried, but problems arose over which community group shouly administer the lake area, Next, two Wyoming residents proposed that trey operate the Viva Naughton Marina con- csssion. The two men promised to save the lakeshore and develop the lake to full recrea- ton use--if the community helped them overcome pollution problems. The RC&D and the Lincoln County Con- s?)rvation District provided conserva- tion and land use planning assistance. Soil Conservation Service specialists and flelc. office personnel surveyed area soils, reviser'. a number of separate conservation plans of landowners, incorporated the ideas of loca` people into plans for the marina, and drew tip an area-wide conservation plan. RC&D people also provided help on stand- ard designs for buildings, boat ramps, anC rstroom facilities. And the Wyoming Game and Fish Department stocked the lake wit)- 110,000 rainbow trout fingerlings. In the spring of 1973, construction began on the marina. A well was dug, a complete sewage and garbage system was set up, anC the entire area was fenced to keep out litter- tugs. A cafe, showers, and other amenities were also completed. In the first year, some 12,000 visitors have 'used the marina and camping facilities. As riany as 500 campers remain at the lake, overnight. Future plans call for A-frame summer houses to be built and rented, anC. an expansion of the lake itself. The operation has boosted Kemmerer':: economy, through increased sales of fishing; gear, groceries, and other supplies. And. while a fee is charged to use marina facilities. campers seem to feel it's more than worth it Their problem lake is now a popular recrea- tion spot. THE CONFIRMATION OF NELSON A_ ROCKEFELLER AS VICE PRESI-. DENT OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, the con- frmation of Vice President-designate Nelson A. Rockefeller is the most impor- tant business pending before Congress. Within the bounds of the responsibility of the committees charged with reviewing the nomination, and the responsibility of each Member of Congress to review the testimony gathered by these committees, the nomination should be considered with c',ispatch. Based on the facts before us today, any: t ased also on personal knowledge of hi.; 1:fe andwork for a period of a quarter century, I intend to vote for the con-- firmation of Governor Rockefeller to serve as the 41st Vice President of the United States. In my judgment, he pos- sesses the qualities of leadership and expertise which we urgently need in America today. In considering a nominee f or Vice President, one question stand;: cut as most relevant: Does the nomineu have the ability and experience to serve is President if for any reason he should have to assume that office? I answered this in the affirmative when I strongly supported him for the Presidency in 1968. In the case of -Governor Rockefeller the question can be answered even more in the affirmative today. In my judgment be now is clearly one or the best qualified people in America to hold high national office. We are all familiar with Governor Rockefeller's long and distinguished rec- ord of public service. Over the past 30 years, his-service in various public ca- pacities has given him outstanding ex- perience in domestic and international affairs. He has served five of our last six Presidents. He has served in the Depart- ments of State, and Health, Education, and Welfare. And, most importantly, he served the people of New York as Gov= ernor for 15 years. Throughout his career, he demonstrated a rare talent for leader- ship. That, I believe, is Rockefeller's most outstanding quality. There exists an urgent need for proven leadership in America today. Governor Rockefeller can significantly help meet this need. I believe also that government at all levels is only as good as the people who serve it. Nelson Rockefeller has shown that he not only possesses the qualities of experience and expertise that bring distinction to public service, but that he is able to attract people to Govrenment who possess the same qualities. As Vice President, his, performance would be augmented by the people he would draw to Government service. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee recently completed extensive hearings on the Rockefeller nomination. In those hearings, legitimate questions were raised about Governor Rockefeller's judgment on two points-first, the nu- merous financial gifts which he gave to his associates, and second, the financial backing by his brother, Laurance, of a campaign biography critical of Arthur Goldberg. On both counts, I believe Gov- ernor Rockefeller has satisfactorily an- swered those questions raised by the committee. I for one am convinced the gifts were given out of friendship with no intention of affecting public policy. He candidly stated that his family's participation in the publication of the Goldberg book was a mistake, and he has apologized to Mr. Goldberg. The members and staff of the Rules Committee should be commended for their fairness and attention to detail in considering the Rockefeller nomination. At the same time, Governor Rockefeller deserves praise for his candor in address- ing the committee's questions. Certainly the hearings before the House Judiciary Committee, which begin tomorrow, should be conducted in the same spirit. Mr. President, Governor Rockefeller was nominated by President Ford as Vice-President-designate 3 months ago today. We need a Vice President. Presi- dent Ford has urged Congress to con- firm Governor Rockefeller as soon as possible. The American people now de- serve a swift resolution of this matter. A month ago my distinguished Repub- lican colleague from Virginia reached the conclusion that he would vote against the pending nomination. I am now con- vinced that the Republican Senator from Illinois can vote in good conscience and with great enthusiasm for the nomi- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 Approved For Release 2002/01/28: CIA-RDP76M00527 0020150082-8 THE WASHINGTON POST DATE V ii~F PAGE .And the Right to Privacy MORE THAN ONE basic question of federal informa- j~~ tion policy will be before Congress this week as the Senate and ,House take up S. 3418 and H.R. 16373. These are the so-called "privacy bills" which would set rules to govern the multitude of federal files on indi- viduals and give citizens far more control over what information about them is collected by the government and how that personal data is used. While S. 3418 is by far the broader bill, both measures would inject a new sensitivity to individual rights into all of the record-keeping practices of the entire federal establishment. As with any, legislation of such enormous scope, .there are substantial disagreements on some sig- nificant points. Those disputes should not, however, be allowed to obscure the important and encouraging fact that, after years of work, an impressive array of legis- lators, administrators and citizen experts have reached general accord on several basic principles to govern federal data banks. These fair information practices, incorporated in both bills,' assert that there should be no record-keeping sys- tems whose'existence is a secret; that personal informa- tion in all files should be accurate, complete, relevant And up-to-date (though there is some argument about definitions of those terms); that individuals should be able to review and correct' almost all federal files about themselves; that information gathered for one purpoae should not be used for another. without the individual's consent; and that the security and confidentiality of personal files should be assured. These may seem to be elementary rules, but their adoption as federal policy would be an historic advance. There are two major areas of controversy. The first concerns what exceptions to the general rules ought to be made. Obviously there are some records about indi- viduals (such as the files of current criminal investiga- tions) that the subject should not be allowed to inspect. 13ut such exceptions should be narrowly drawn because those files are precisely the type which can be most easily misused in ways that damage citizens. The Senate bill ,provides relatively narrow exemptions to meet the needs of national defense, foreign policy and law enforce- ment. The House bill sets forth broader exceptions, including a near-total exemption for the CIA and Secret Service. This approach seems unwise because exempting agencies rather than types of records is likely to en- courage mQre requests for special treatment. One particular area of dispute, especially in the House, is whether individuals should be allowed to review infor- mation given in confidence in connection with federal employment, promotion and security investigations. The challenge here is to strike a balance between two com- peting interests: the individual's right to assurance of fair treatment, and the government's need to obtain can- did assessments of a person's qualifications for a position of trust. Full individual access to confidential reports could create many difficulties. On the other hand, an amendment to be proposed by Rep. John Erlenborn (R- Ill.) would go too far by exempting from disclosure all information gained in confidence. Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which allows citizens to learn the gist of the information but not the source, suggests that a middle ground can be found. The second and larger point of controversy is how the new information policies should be put into effect. The House bill relies on citizen initiatives and action by each separate federal agency. The Senate measure, which places far more emphasis on data management, would create a Privacy Protection Commission to investigate problems, monitor federal data policies, and develop government-wide guidelines for carrying out the law. This approach is vehemently opposed by the Ford admin- istration, which claims that enforcement by individual agencies and oversight by the Domestic Council privacy committee will suffice. That might be true if every fed- eral agency had abuilt-in commitment and sensitivity to privacy concerns. However, experience with other re- forms such as civil rights laws and the Environmental Policy Act has shown all too clearly that many agencies, left to themselves, are very slow to change their policies and attitudes. Nor is the existing White House commit- tee a reliable substitute for a permanent oversight agency with a clear, statutory mandate. If Congress really wants federal data bank policies to be reformed, a small but forceful agency, with that as its single mission, is re- quired. Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 November 19, 18- (roved Fct?MR(A' //2it6ZBQe7fiM 7R000700150082-8 H 10845 When the shipments started arriving in The new government, he said, was deter- Unfortunately, the Chadian truckers didn't large quantity in May, five months of the mined to make a success of the relief effort, have enough trucks to handle the immense dry season-the best season to send trucks opening every possible avenue of transport piles of food that had grown in Maiduguri of food to remote villages-had been lost. to get food Into the country and into the and had begun to rot under tarpaulin shel- Food began to pile up in ports, in capital villages. ters. cities; and in major distribution centers, "We're pretty proud of ourselves," Baron When the government finally relented in but the trucks taking it to the villages that. said. "If we hadn't been able to double the July and decided to allow Nigerian truckers needed it most were immobilized by the evacuation of the ports, there would have to carry the food, it was too late. The rainy rainy season mud. been starvation in Niger this year." season had destroyed the road leading from At the end of June in Dakar, Senegal's Once the U.S. and other donor nations Maiduguri to Chad. capital and major port city, 67,000 metric - got food into the country, he said, the Niger Ethiopia's Wollo province is a place of tons of grain intended for Mali was still on government shipped it to provincial distrihu- spectacular emerald mountains and valleys the docks. tion centers. Where people in isolated farming villages It would take four months to move that "Some places are in a 'truck to mouth' died by the thousands last year. much grain into Mali because it had to be situation," Baron said, "where they are down There was no way for an airlift to succeed transported on a single-track railroad that to one day's supply of food. But, I don't. in the region this year when the villages ran can carry only 18,000 tons of freight a think there will be any death by starvation out of food again. There was no way after month. In Niger this year." the rainy season began for the food trucks to David McAdams, mission director in Sene- Whether people were dying for lack of any penetrate the steep, tortuous roads. gal for the United States Agency for Inter- or too little food seemed an odd distinction The government instead set up relief camps .national Development [USAID]. defended the to make in Kao, a village of 2,500 where two at the most accessible points they could port backlog as inevitable. to three people a day were ,dying by early find, hoping that people in trouble could Even if more shipments had arrived earlier August. somehow reach them, pick up supplies, and in the year, he said, the railroad could not The people of Kao were at the mercy of return to their farms. - have transported the grain to Mali because violent rainstorms that produced overnight "There are at least three million Ethiopians it was tied up with Bringing Senegal's pea- raging rivers that tore thru the arid, rolling living in acute distress right now," said nut harvest to port. landscape, slicing apart the roads they Shimelus Adugna, the nation's director of "You can't expect these governments just watched for food shipments, relief operations. to ship emergency grain on the railroad," There was no food stockpiled in Kao, and ."We think we have done a good job getting he said. "They depend on the railroad to little chance of regular relief supplies arriv- food to most of them, but we know there haul all of their commodities." ing until the end of the rainy season. are places we have not found, that we have McAdams acknowledged that hungry The food was supposed to arrive regularly not managed to reach. There is little we can people were beginning to fill the cities and from Tahoua, a major stockpile center 40 do for the people there, unless they somehow towns by the end of June, even tho all the miles south. When a truck of food occa- manage to find their own way to one of our relief food wasn't delivered. sionally managed to break thru the rain- shelters." "We probably could have gotten it [re- soaked dirt road leading from Tahoua, peo- Often when people finally manage to reach lief grain] there sooner by more expensive ple consumed the food as soon as it was off a government camp, such as the one in Bati means, such as an airlift, but sometimes you the truck. in Wollo province, they are already beyond can't justify an extreme expense until you've Parents allowed their children to eat raw help. Weakened by hunger, they are bundled exhausted all other possibilities," he said. milk powder as soon as it was handed to into blankets to ward off the cold mountain He was right about the expense of airlift- them, unaware that it was a sure way to air, and officials try to wean them back to ing. When the Niger River ran dry in June induce fatal diarrhea. health so they can return to their farms. and the government of Mali could no longer Maj. John Cellis, commander of a Belgain But every day in the camp a few bony ship relief grain by barge, it had to resort Army trucking unit responsible for feeding forms under the blankets stop moving. to airlifts to the northern desert cities. a region as large as France from the Tahoua and they are wrapped for the last time to Three U.S. Air Force C-130 Hercules trans- stockpile, said Kao was by no means the be carried out of the grey barracks buildings. port planes flew grain from Bamako, Mali's only village in distress. How many people have died like this in capital, to isolated regions at a cost of $900 a His unit was ordered back to Belgium Africa this year is impossible to calculate. ton. That compares to, an estimated $80 a Aug. 13, but before they left, the major re- Whether they are dying from starvation or ton it would have cost had the food arrived flected bitterly on what he had been able malnutrition seems an academic question. earlier and had been shinned by barge. to accomplish: The fact is that they are dying because Expensive, airlifting, relief agencies and the "Our mission was to constitute stocks in 900,000 tons of food, much of it grown, government of Upper Volta claimed this the villages, but it was impossible to reach shipped, and paid for by American taxpayers, summer, would not be necessary this year as the people often enough to build one. They did not arrive in time to save them. they were last year because of rapid, efficient ate what we brought immediately. Despite promising African harvests this stockpiling in remote villages. "We came once more too late. We should year, officials already know it won't be The idea of no airlift came as a surprise to have been here in December and January enough to sustain 50 million people in Responsible for the well-being of 3,500 has got a stockpile. farmers and nomadic refugees in the gritty The major was extremely pessimistic ab emptiness of the growing Sahara, Father villages once his unit had lei t. ACT OF 1974 - Bidot had become alarmed by July. Maj. Cellis' fears apparently were 11- Torrential rains had cut Gorom-Gorom founded. By' September the Niger go rn- The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a off from relief stocks sitting just 25 miles ment announced it was replacing trucks ith previous order of the House., the gentle- away for several weeks. He had only enough camel caravans to supply the Tahou dis- man from New York (Mr. KocH) is food for four days when he heard there was trict towns. recognized for 5 minutes. to be no airlift. A trucking problem of a differen sort KOCH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I Mr. "We have been waiting for an airlift to arose in Chad, the most remote and nac- Called attention t0 ari important deft- - started," Father Bidet said. "Otherwise, cessible of the Sahelian nations-and t one tilted it - u 1 agaa ,,.l,it, J. ant defia flc"It's up to the government now to decide The U.S. committed 20,000 metric ns of laced to absence of clear language re- if it will be needed." grain to Chad this year, but by the d of quiring the publication of a Directory of The government of Upper Volta never made the summer only 7,000 tons had gott into Federal Data Banks. I believe there are the decision, but Albert Baron, chief of the country. three additional aspects of the legisla- USAID for Upper Volta and Niger, ordered Shipped overland from Nigerian its to tion which similarly require strengthen- people from his staff to go to Gorom-Gorom the city of Maiduguri In Northeast n Ni- ing provisions. when we told him Father Bidot's dilemma. geria, it was supposed to be carried ' ss the staff reported back to Baron. The problem was that trucking is``one of Broad support exists for what Presi- Baron said places like Gorom-Gomm are Chad's major industries, and owners of the dent Ford has endorsed as "privacy im- the exception-- to the rule this year because truck companies hold powerful political pact statements" on proposed new per- most areas are getting food regularly, sway in government. sonal data systems, such as the recently While the Niger government in 1973 had Tho Nigerian trucking firms were willing disclosed Fednet plan. There should be a shameful record of corruption and bungling to carry the relief food into Chad at one-half In its part of the relief effort, Baron said, the tonnage rates charged by Chadian firms, considerably more attention to system the new military government formed In an the Chad government wouldn't allow the design and standards than is required April coup was a model of reform. - Nigerians into the country. in the bill as well as direct notification to Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 H 10$46 Approved For RelpM&ffiffiffl I 76M00527R000700150082-8 A RD-HOUSE November 19, 1974 a clearinghouse organization and Co:1- [Mr. DULSKI addressed the House. 1974. These funds would be allocated by gress. I Propose the National Bureau of His remarks will appear hereafter in the formula weighted evenly between popu- Standards be given a formal role in the Extensions of Remarks.] lation, revenues passengers and vehicle early planning stages of new or major miles. As with the capital program, the modifications of personal information operating aid would be available on an systems. Once such a technical review BACKGROUND ON MINISH- 80-percent Federal share basis; has been completed and final plans pri_ WILLIAMS TRANSIT BILL Increase in contract authority for the pared, full particulars should be trans- The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a capital grant program of $3 billion; mitted to the General Services Adminis- previous order of the House, the gentle- ` Increase in Federal share of capital tration and Congress. Because of the pro- man from New York (Mr. MtrnsH). grant program from 662/3 percent to 80 curement and management policy mis- Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, one of the percent; and Sion of GSA, this will be a useful second- last remaining items on the congres.- Increase in Federal share for planning line review within the executive branch. sional agenda before adjournment is the funds from 662/3 percent to 80 percent. Congress can act through its oversight question of Federal assistance to the Na- This bill was designed to continue,the machinery, authorization or approprif;- tion's mass transit systems. successful capital grant program of the tions processes where clarifications or If we are to make a real impact on 1970 act, with an update in funding and objections to new or changes in systems the problems of our Nation's urbanized an increase in the Federal share. One are proposed. areas and, indeed, the problems of the reason for the capital grant program's HANDLING PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND COMPLAINTS entire Nation, it is essential that the 93d success was that it allowed State and Contained in all measures I have Jr- Congress Pass, and the president sign, local public bodies to apply directly for troduced to protect individual records legislation to provide long range, com- their funds. In the early development of and require open-access practices, is the prehensive, meaningful mass transit as- the program, it was impossible to pre- establishment of a board to regulate, sistance. Fortunately, we have, in S. 386, cisely determine capital needs. Thus, a monitor, and hear public grievances. H.R. a vehicle which will enable us to meet program of application for projects was 16373 contains no privacy agency and this crucial goal. developed. leaves individuals largely adrift if they The conference report on S. 386, now The operating assistance program, need assistance or wish to protest in- Pending before the House Rules Com- however, was a different matter. If ap- ability to exercise access or other rights mittee, is the product of serious legisla- plication for funds was allowed, the Fed- to their personal records. The Senate tive compromise between the House, eral Government in reviewing the appli- bill does have a board exercising this Senate, and the administration. Al- cations would find Itself involved in de- function which I favor, though the process by which the confer- cisions affecting fares and service levels I have looked into the Office of Con - ence report was reached is extre,urdi- as well as wage scales. In order to avoid Sumer Affairs possible role as an "om- nary, the product is of exceptional qual- this, the committee felt it essential to budsman" for privacy complaints as Mrs. ity in that it reflects the interests of have a separate program for operating :Knauer's office serves in the consume:.., numerous concerned groups. This is the assistance and that this separate pro- protection area. Aside from good work ill real test of the legislative process. gram be funded by an allocation for- developing and circulating a code of fair For over three years both the House mula. Testimony from the States, cities, ;nformation practices for retail stores and the Senate have been considering counties, and public transit operators and other businesses, the Office of Con.. legislation that would authorize Federal was. universally supportive on this point. sumer Affairs is not well equipped with funds to finance the costs of operating Earlier, on March 15, 1973, while con- statutory authority, technical compe?? transit systems. For 10 years' the Fed- sidering the 1973 Federal Aid Highway tence, or access to operating agencies. eral Government has participated in Act, the Senate added, on the floor, a This vacuum must be filled and I art funding costs through a program which new title III. This title III contained hopeful that a Privacy Commission hav-, has met with great success. In 1966, $75 many of the provisions of H.R. 6452, ex- ing these ? duties will prevail. The legis., million was obligated, and this has cept that it contained no formula for dis- lative history must indicate a public re- grown to $1.3 billion in 1975. tributing the funds, which were to be pository for assistance and complaint, But, in 1966 State and local govern- allocated according to secretarial discre- on compliance with data protection ments were subsidizing 22 system:; at tion. standards. $200 million and in 1975 this grew to 180 This unusual action of placing this RESEARCH systems at $650 million. There has been transit legislation into the 1973 Federal Congress has been la ued by lack of great interest, therefore, in legislation Aid Highway Act was a carryover of de- information on problems involving tech- that would authorize the Federal Gov- velopments in 1972 session of Congress. nology and practices of State and private ernment to participate with State and The 1972. Housing and Urban Develop- records systems. No research di- local governments in the support of o1Jer- ment Act contained the transit legis- niension is called for in the House bill. ating costs. lation, but in the final days of the ses- In p the Senate Senate measure a well-formulated The administration, under President lion, this bill was denied a rule. The research program is provided. We are Nixon initially was opposed to such a Senate placed then the provision of op- . that the Domestic Council Commit- Program. However, when, legislation erating assistance In the 1972 Federal tee on Right to Privacy is now doing cleared both Houses of Congress late last Aid Highway Act. The conference report much of this- That Is fine. But ping year, they reversed their position and on this bill was not completed until the gress and the American people cannot indicated support for a program of oiler- final day of the 92d Congress, and the re- be expected to rely on a temporary com- sting assistance under certain speci led port was not acted upon in the House mittee operating under the nonstatutory conditio . I am sure you recognize that because of a lack of a quorum. A similar Domestic Council, at the behest of the legislatlirls in the atmosphere of Chang- strategy was decided on for the 1973 sitting President, in the purview of reg- Ing attit des on the part of the adminis- Federal Aid Highway Act. ularly exercised executive privilege, tration difficult. However, we have been On April 19, 1973, the House passed While I have a high regard for the com- pleased the positive change and have the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973. mittee, the fact is they cannot give Con- respond by modifying the legislation to This bill contained a title III that pro- gress assurance that the reports and reflect a administation's concerns. vided for $3 billion in new contract au- background documents related to their Only in is way can a passable and ef- Thorfty and Increased the Federal share fective ogram result. several studies will be made public will be . to 80 Mr. Speaker, I bringup these deflcien- /en itial action that led to the de- percent for capital and plan- , along with the need for clear lan- t of S. 386 was taken by he ring grants. However, no operating as- ccieuage sies authorizing a directory, as con- nking and Currency Committee sistance was included. structive suggestions for consideration. 16, 1973, when it reported H R. Between April 19 when the House e full House. passed the highway bill and July 27 when. the use-Senate coerence on This bill contained four major pro- the Federal Aid Highway Act completed The SPEAKER pro tempore. Und a visions: previous order of the House, the tIe- Authorization work, H.R. 6452 was held by the Rules these mat' from New York (Mr. D al) is Operating $ assistance for transit f $400 (ovisa n - were he grounds that highway recognized for 5 minutes. provisions wercontained in the highway million a Year for fire-A.7 year ,ono --A -- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 53q 1`- November 18, roved FqL=(F4&qWg9(M1J2RW,RfR000700150082-8 S,19467 munity to conserve otherwise wasted re- sources. The result was more than expected. During fiscal year 1973-74, a savings of $317,784 was realized by closing doors, using less water and switching off lights when not in use. As a result the uni- versity burned 17 percent less coal, out electricity 6.7 percent, water use 15.7 percent and heating steam 10.6 percent. The _ entire Purdue community of of- ficials, students, and employees should be congratulated by all energy conscious individuals. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point, an editorial entitled "Bully for Old Purdue" which appeared in the Indianapolis Star during November 1974. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REC- ORD, as follows: [From the Indianapolis Star, November 19741 BULLY FOR OLD PURDUE Purdue University students and employes have proved that energy conservation is a worthwhile project, no matter whether the energy crisis is real or contrived. During fiscal 1973-74 these groups saved the university $317,784 because they made a real effort to conserve energy. They closed doors, used less water and switched off lights when not in use. As a result the university burned 17 percent less coal, cut electricity 6.7 percent, water use 15.7 percent and heat- ing steam 10.6 percent. Such savings have had an immediate prac- tical effect. Without them many employes who have received pay raises would have re- ceived less or none at all. It is a money- saving program that is welcome to the tax- payers. Whether or not the energy crisis is serious, there Is no reason to use energy that is not needed. We doubt if anyone went dirty or was too eolld because of the conservation measures. And even though there may be ample energy sources available, they should not be wasted, The earth's supply is not Infinite. Purdue's vice=president Frederick R. Ford was so pleased with the energy conservation- lets that he congratulated them and urged their continued awareness of wasteful prac- RIGHT TO PRIVACY Mr. HART. Mr. President, at the re- cent Western Regional Meeting of the Commercial Law League of America, Mr. Stuart E. Hertzberg, the president of the league and a widely respected Detroit attorney, delivered a forceful and timely address on the need for Congress to pro- tect fully every American citizen's right to privacy. As Mr. Hertzberg points out, The best defense of the right to privacy is public awareness. And he properly concludes : I would certainly not dispute that modern government needs some information about Its citizens to administer certain social pro- grams fairly and effectively. But there must always be restraints against the misuse of information about the private lives of private citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that Mr. Hertzberg's address be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE INVIsIsLS THREADS, A DEFENSE or PRIVACY (By Stuart E. Hertzberg) Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, officers of the Western Region, board members and guests. This is the. fourth regional meeting I have attended as president of the Commercial Law League and the fourth at which an at- tendance record has been set. For this West- ern District success we are especially in- debted to Chairman Richard Horton and his wife Sheila and to Arrangements Co-Chair- men Lawrence Fleming and William Moro- ney. I'm going to talk this morning about what Alexander Solzhenitsyn has described as the "invisible threads" and what Louis D. Bran- deis defines as the "most comprehensive of_ rights, the right most prized by civilized man-the right to be let alone." In a word, I'm going to talk about privacy. A quarter century ago, Eric Blair, an Eng- lishman, wrote one of the great modern csassics of negative Utopia. It was "1984" and Blair's pen name, of course, was George Or- well. You may remember the opening scene. Winston Smith, the non-hero is in his one- room flat. Orwell described the telescreen on the right-hand wall: "Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what sys- tem, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. "But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live-did live, from habit that became in- stinct-in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." That is "privacy" in Oceania, Winston Smith's native land, in "1984". How is it in America in 1974? In his 1974 State of the Union Message, the President promised a "major initiative" on the matter of privacy and in late Febru- ary, he announced that he was establishing a top priority committee to provide, in his words, "a personal shield for every Ameri- can" against invasions of privacy from any source-including the Federal government. I am disturbed though, by the limited scope of the President's committee on safe- guards to privacy. The President's study group is to concentrate on only three prob- lem areas-the collection, storage and use of personal data. A position on wiretapping is to be deferred until the new Commission for Review of Federal and State Wiretapping Laws re- ports. That may not be for many months. The work has just started. But the real starting point was defined nearly 200 years ago in the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, there are those who appar- ently c nsider the Constitution as no longer operational. Under the Bill of Rights, the Federal gov- ernment is prohibited from spying on polit- ical opponents. But it did. Under the Bills of Rights, the people are secure from unauthorized searches of their persons, their houses and their papers. But we had a Watergate and a break-in at a doc- tor's office. With each violation of the Bill of Rights, your rights are imperiled. When Army per- sonnel are used to spy on peaceful political meetings, your privacy is threatened. When government officials use Internal Revenue Service files to compile an enemies list, again your privacy is diminished. Beyond these flagrant and publicized violations of the right to privacy, there Is a constant and insidious erosion of privacy of progress, as an unavoidable if somewhat un- pleasant side effect of our computer culture. If I were to ask you this morning: "What do you spend on presents for your grand- children?" or "How many newspapers and magazines do you buy a month?" or, even more personal, "Do you wear artificial den- tures?" and "How often do you go to the barbershop or beauty salon?", I would hope you'd tell me to mind my own business. But every one of those questions was asked recently of retired Americans in a questionnaire sent out by the Census Bureau at the request of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. And I'm sure many of you remember the questions asked in the last regular census; questions which American citizens were re- quired to answer under threat of punishment under Federal criminal laws. "Do you have a flush toilet? Have you been married more than once? What is your rent? How many bedrooms do you have? What is your monthly electric bill? Did your first marriage end because of death of wife or husband?" I would certainly not dispute that modern government needs some information about its citizens to administer certain social pro- grams fairly and effectively. But there must always be. restraints against the misuse of information about the private lives of pri- vate citizens. Senator Sam Ervin in a discussion on "Computers and Privacy" told a university panel last year that, as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, he set out to learn how many data banks were being operated by the Federal government. The Senator said: "I wrote to fifty Federal agencies asking them just how many data banks they have. So far, we have received information on more than 760 with varying contents, opera- tional guidelines "and the like." "One of the most disturbing aspects of governmental data collection," Sam Ervin warns, "is the use of surreptitious surveil- lance and intelligence operations to collect information on Innocent citizens whose po- litical views and activities are contrary to those of the Administration." In July of last year, a month after Senator Ervin appeared on that panel at Miami Uni- versity in Ohio, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare published a report on a study authorized in .1972 by the then HEW Secretary, Elliot Richardson. It is called "Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens." The report, some 350 pages, is available from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, for $2.00. I would hope that one of the first things the President's committee, headed by Vice President Ford, will do is spend $2. And then spend some time reading the recommenda- tion of the HEW report. The report recommends enactment of a Federal "Code of Fair Information Practice" for all automated personal data systems. Noting that "under current law, a person's privacy is poorly protected against arbitrary or abusive recordkeeping practices," the Code "rests on five basic principles." 1. There must be no personal data record- keeping systems whose very existence is secret. 2. Theme must be a way for an individual to find out wh$t information about him is on record and how it is used. 3. There must be a way for an individual to prevent information about him that was Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 S 19468 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE November 18, 1974 obtained for one purpose from being used or made available for other purposes with.. out his consent. 4. There must be a way for an individual to correct or amend a record of identifiable information about him. a, Any organization creating, maintaining, using or disseminating records of identifiable personal data must assure the reliability o:' the data for their intended us~'and mus> take precautions to prevent misuse of the data. it should be noted that the HEW stud:, group was headed by Willis H. Ware, chair- man of the Corporate Research staff of the Rand Corporation, and members included management in both government and in?- clustry, the social service professions, legis- lators, lawyers, a labor union official and private citizens. They have done their job well. But It 53 only abeginning. Recommendations are no,:. law. I do think that the NEW study offers; the basis for a legislative program. However, protection of the right to privacy goes far beyond the problems of computer technology. As a simple Indicator of the scope of the subject, let me read a few list.. ings under "Privacy" in a recent Reader's. Guide to Periodical Literature. I do this at the risk of revealing my private sources of research for public speeches. Under "Privacy," we find: "Assault or. Privacy; Drifting Toward 1984; Growing Alarm Over Official Snooping; How the U.S Army Spies on Citizens; Electronic Surveil. lance of Private Citizens; School Records Can Be an Invasion of Privacy." There's lots more. And that's good -:tr. angely, perhaps, the best defense of the right to privacy is public awareness. Back in 1970, Sam Ervin, who has always been aware of any threat to our basic rights as Americans, said: We should "bestir all Americans to claim their Constitutional legacy of personal pri- vacy and individual rights and to demand an end to abuses ... before the light of liberty is extinguished in our land." It was the President who said: "A system that fails to respect its citizens' right to privacy fails to respect the citizens themselves." But the President sees the primary threat as one of technology while neglecting im- mediate steps his office could take to strengthen citizen rights. :senator Phil Hart, of Michigan, suggests a program of action, one that can be in- itiated from the White House. 'rho Senator believes "the most pressing need is to put an end to domestic political surveillance and intelligence gathering by government agencies. The President could begin that effort by supporting a Senate- passed bill to prohibit military personnel f:^om spying on American citizens. '-The President can order everyone in his Administration to refrain from political spying of any kind. There is absolutely no justification, legal or otherwise, for govern- ment to collect intelligence on its political opponents for the purpose of or with the effect of stifling their opposition." Let me suggest, as Senator Hart has, that t:ao President should immediately order that no wiretapping, bugging or breaking and entering, be carried out without authority of an independent court order. As the senator has said: "Be should state without equivocation that the label of 'national security' will not be used again to hide or excuse illegal acts. And then he should join Congress in prepar- ing legislation to make those executive orders into law. "The President must respond to continu- ing reports that telephone records, bank records and other private business records are being obtained by the government secret- ly with no legal safeguards-without the protection of a court warrant, or the oppor- tunity for the person involved to raise legal objections to protect his rights. The Presi- dent, by executive order could and should end that practice and require any federal agency to obtain a subpena for such in- formation. "For several years, the Administration. has opposed a Senate-passed bill to prohibit government employees from being asked about their religious beliefs, their politics and their social lives. The President should support this measure. Such a law would set an example for other employers to follow and free our civil servants from implied threats when that kind of information is sought. "And finally, the Administration should support stiffer controls on use of criminal justice records. "These records include arrests as well as convictions. They are sold or given to credit bureaus, banks, Insurance companies, em- ployers, and schools. Too many people have been denied advanced schooling, a loan or a job because of inaccurate records or because an arrest record fails to include the fact that charges were later dropped 'hr the per- son was acquitted. "And too many people never find out that such records exist and cause their difficulties. "The answer is a law to prevent private access to all arrest records and require of- ficials to open these records to inspection and correction by those involved. And any criminal justice agency participating in the nationwide criminal information network should be required to update their records." To single out computer banks-private or governmental, as the root evil could easily divert public attention from the totality of privacy's defense. There is no safe way to strengthen the Bill of Rights except by giving it once again supremacy over Ill-defined Presidential and government powers and over what have been neatly defined as "vague and ubiquitous claims of national security." The shadow is lengthening. In another land, where the light of liberty, as we understand it, has been extinguished, these words were written: "As every man goes through life he fills in a number of forms for the record, each containing a number of questions ... There are thus hundreds of little threads radiating from every man, millions of threads in all. "They are not visible, they are not ma- terial, but every man is constantly aware of their existence . Each man, permanently aware of his own invisible threads, natural- ly develops a respect for the people who manipulate the threads." Yes, those are the words of Alexai.der Solzhenitsyn, from "Cancer Ward." I see the fabric of ourprivate lives woven from those threads- and I fear that we may be careless and unwittingly bow to those rho manipulate the threads. It must not happen here. Thank you. CITIZENS western New Mexico, hope for retarded Navajo citizens has been born out of the efforts of determined parents, teachers, and community people. The Aichini Be Lchohoo Association for Retarded Cit- izens, literally translated, the Hope for Children ARC, is the culmination of years of hard work, patience, and perse- verance. In northwestern New Mexico, access to health care facilities is difficult at best. Until recently, access to special educa- tion programs and training centers for the mentally retarded and development- ally disabled was impossible. In the es- tablishment of the Hope for Children facility at Coyote Canyon, N. Mex., a corps of dedicated social workers and educators had long perceived the trauma. and results of the stress placed on family relationships because of the presence of children or adults with mental or physi- cal handicaps. It was they who provided the technical expertise and assisted in the negotiations with State and tribal governments. Significantly, however, it was a small group of Navajo parents who, intimately familiar with the guilt. then strain, and the physical and eco- nomic hardships of educating and train- ing mentally retarded children, provided the impetus. The development of the Hope for Chil- dren ARC exemplifies the innate re- sourcefulness of community people who are willing to act as they believe. When they could not identify sources of Federal funding, they tapped State resources. Working through the local school sys- tem, they gained access to materials, to educational personnel, and to a ready source of technical expertise in the school ssytem's special education de- partment. Recognizing that there were parents who could share with them a multitude of experiences and information, they es- tablished working relationships with thg county association for retarded citizens and cosponsored a statewide convention for the New Mexico ARC. The Hope for Children ARC has been one of those rare endeavors when, through the energies of concerned and active citizens, all immediately available resources are finally brought to bear on a specific problem of mutual concern to Indian and non-Indian communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the article; "An Indian School. An Indian ARC" be printed in the REC- ORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: AN INDIAN SCHOOL . . . AN INDIAN ARC . . . OVERCOME CENTURIES or TRADITION If love conquers all, then the Alchini Ba Lc ohoo (Hope for Children) ARC on the BT ajo reservation In New Mexico is sure to su ed, no matter what. stj gents ranging in age from twelve to t my-one years and has one of the finest Grandparents Program. Things were not always this prosperous nor was the future always bright for mem- bers of the Navajo reservation who had men- tally retarded children. Arthur Hood, director of the school, explained that in 1971 it was on the verge of folding. There were little or :no founds available, the lights were being turned off, heat wasn't always turned on and the people who were running the facil- ity, as a private corporation, finally just pulled out and left it to the students and their families to figure out how to survive. In October the parents started to hold meet- ings to ascertain what could be done to save the program. PARENTS BAND TOGETHER Eventually things got so bad it was obvi- ous that the whole facility would have to be Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150082-8