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 21, 1974
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9.pdf4.43 MB
Ap oved For Release 2002/01/28: CIA-RDP76M00527Ri1Q D150090 ~ 1 ~`j CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -DAILY DIGEST ?ate Federal Government, and examination 'id local governmental regulatory agencies -,f nteract with the Federal system (S. 704, 770, ,4, and 4155), receiving testimony from Roy L. Ash, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President; Lewis A. Engman, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission; and Miles Kirkpatrick, Washington, D.C. Hearings continue tomorrow. PROJECT INDEPENDENCE Committee on Interior and Insular Agairs:~ Committee received a briefing on "Project Independence"- from Dr. john C. Saw' hill, federal Energy Administrator. D 1283 Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: Subcommittee on Employment, Poverty, and Migratory Labor held a hearing on labor market policy, receiving testimony on such policy in Sweden from Ingemund Bengtsson, Secretary of Labor, Stockholm. Hearings were recessed, subject to call. Committee on .Public Works: Subcommittee on En- vironmental Pollution resumed consideration of pro- posed legislation on solid waste management, but did not conclude action thereon and recessed, subject to call. House of Representatives Chamber Action Bills Introduced: 13 public bills, H.R. 17488-17500; 2 private bills, H.R. 175oi and 17502; and 7 resolutions, H.J. Res. t 169, H. Con. Res. 686, and H. Res. 1471-1475 .were introduced. Pages H 10928, H 11003-H 11004 Bill Reported: One report was filed as follows: Conference report on H.R.15580, Labor-HEW appro- ' priations for fiscal year 1975 (H. Rept. 93-1489). Page H 11003 Late Report: Conferees received permission to file. a conference report by midnight tonight on H.R. 15580, Labor-HEW appropriations for fiscal year 1975. Pages H 10923--H 10926 Supplemental Appropriations: House disagreed to the Senate amendments to H.R. 16900, making supple- mental appropriations for fiscal year 1975; and agreed to a conference asked by the Senate. Appointed as con- ferees: Representatives Mahon, Whitten, Evins of Ten- nessee, Boland, Flood, Steed, Slack, Hansen of Wash- ington, McFall, Casey of Texas, Cederberg, Michel, Robison of New York, Shriver, McDade, and Talcott. Page H 10928 Committee Elections: Read and accepted a letter from .epresentative Latta wherein he resigns as a member )f the Committee on the judiciary. Subsequently, agreed :o H. Res. 1471, electing Representative McCloskey to he Committee on the judiciary. Page H 10928 ommittee To Sit: Committee on Merchant Marine nd Fisheries received permission to sit during the 5- ninute rule of today's session of the House. Urban Mass Transportation: By. a yea-and-nay vote of 288 yeas to tog nays, the House agreed to the con- ference report on S. 386, to authorize certain grants to assure adequate commuter service in urban areas; clear- ing the measure for the President. H. Res. 1470, the rule waiving points of order against the conference report, was agreed to earlier by a recorded vote of 241 ayes to 154 noes. Pages k 10929-H 10950 Late Report: Committee on Ways and Means received permission to file a report by midnight Tuesday, No- vember 26 on H.R. 17488, to provide a windfall profits tax on oil, to phaseout percentage depletion on oil and natural gas, to increase the low income, to make changes in the treatment of foreign income, and to make certain other adjustments in the tax laws. Page H 10950 Page H 10929 =arm Labor Contractor Registration: The Presi- ent's veto of H.R. 13342, Farm Labor Contractor Regis- ?ation, was referred to the Committee on Education 17;.d Labor. Page H 10929 Privacy: By a yea-and-nay vote of 353 yeas to i nay, the House passed H.R. 16373, to safeguard individual privacy from the misuse of Federal records and to-pro- vide that individuals be granted access to records con- cerning them which are maintained by Federal agencies. Agreed to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. Took the following action on the committee amend- ment in the nature of a substitute: Agreed to: An amendment that exempts records of law enforce ment agencies from the prohibition on maintaining records of an individual's religious beliefs or political activities; An amendment that restricts disclosure of medical records by an agency to those instances in which the life of the individual would be endangered if the requested information was withheld; An amendment that assures that individuals who re- fuse to disclose their social security account numbers will not lose any Federal benefits or services. to which they are entitled; Approved For Release 2002/01/281: CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 I)1284 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-DAILY DIGEST N An amendment that includes valid court subpenas among those items for which disclosure of records Would be allowed; An amendment to the section on access to records d,at prohibits individuals from gaining access to infor- mation compiled in a civil action or proceeding; An amendment that exempts information compiled by investigating agencies such as the FBI from the pro- vi:;ions of the bill except for cases iii which the with- hclding of information would cause: an individual to lo:.e his rights and benefits under Federal law; and An amendment that requires annual publication in the Federal Register of all rules and notices promul- ga.ed by Government agencies. tejected: !fin amendment that sought to insure redress for dam- ages in all cases in which an agency violates the civil remedies provisions of the bill rather than only in cases in, which the agency is shown to have acted in a willful or capricious manner; An amendment that sought to strike language ex- empting records maintained for an agency by the CIA from the disclosures provisions of the rill.; An amendment that sought to establish a Federal Privacy Commission (rejected by a division vote of 9 ayes to 29 noes); and An amendment that sought to strike language ex- empting records maintained in connection with pro- tection services provided to the Pre;ident from the provisions of the bill. Pages H 10950-H 10972 Late Reports: Committee on Ways and Means received permission to file a report by midnight Friday, Novem- ber 22, on H.R. 17045, to amend the Social Security Act to establish a consolidated program of Federal financial assistance to encourage provision of services by the States; and Objection was heard to a request that conferees have until midnight tonight to file a conference report on S. 425, to provide for the cooperation between the Sec- retary of the Interior and the States with respect to the regulation of surface mining operations, and the acqui- sition and reclamation of abandoned mines. Page H 10972 Legislative Program: Majority Whip announced the program for the week. beginning Monday, November 25. A;);reed to adjourn from Thursday to Monday. Page H 10972 Referrals: Three Senate-passed measures were referred to thc appropriate House committees. Page H 11002 Quorum Calls-Votes: One quorum call, two yea- and-nay votes, and one recorded vote dereloped during the proceedings of the House today and appear on pages Hro929, Hro938, HIo949-Hro95o, and H1o971. Program -for Monday: Met, at noon a 5:20 p.m. until noon on Monday, Novem day, when the House will consider H.R. 171 Counsel for D.C. Public Service Commission; Sider the following: H. Res. 1387, Place for Amendments in Congressi ecord; H.R. 16609, AEC Supplemental Authorization (open ule,1 hour of debate) ; H.J. Res. 1161, Entry into Foreign Ports of U.S. Nu- clear Warships (open rule, i. hour of debate) ; and H.R. 16074. Nuclear Information for Congress (open rule, i hour of debate). Committee Meetings AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS ommittee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Agri- ulture held a hearing on budget rescissions and eferrals. EFENSE COMMUNICATIONS ommittee on Armed Services: Special Subcommittee n Defense Communications continued executive hear- gs with testimony from Rear Adm. J. L. Boyes, Direc- or, Naval .Communications Division; and Col. Philip . Walker, Director, Telecommunications Division, .S. Marine Corps. ENFORCER-T'PE AIRCRAFT Committee on Armed Services: Subcommittee No. r met for briefing by Department of Defense on their findings concerning the requirement for an Enforcer- type aircraft. SELECTED PROGRAMS Committee on Armed Services: Subcommittee No. I met in executive session for discussion on selected Air Force, Navy, and ' Army programs. FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION ACT-TRUMAN MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM Committee on Education and Labor: Met and ordered reported favorably to the House the following bills: H.R. 17474, Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1974; and H.R. 17481 amended, Harry S. Truman Memorial Scholarship program. SOVIET ACTIVITIES IN CUBA Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Inter- American Affairs held an. executive hearing on Soviet activities in Cuba. Witnesses heard were Maj.. Gen. Lincoln I). Faurer, U.S. Air Force, Deputy Director Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 H 10'9'50 'Approved-For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE November 21, 1974 Fountain Long, Md. Rousselot Goodling Lott Ruppe Gross McCollister Ruth Hammer- McEwen Satterfield schmidt McKay Scherle Henderson McSpadden Shuster Hicks Mahon Spence Holt Mallary Steed Hosmer Mann Steiger, Ariz. Huber Martin, Nebr. Stubblefield Hutchinson Mathis, Ga. Symms Ichord Mayne Taylor, Mo. Jarman Miller Taylor, N.C. Johnson, Calif. Mizell Thomson, Wis, Johnson, Colo. Montgomery Treen Johnson, Pa. Nichols Waggonner Jones, Ala. Passman W ampler Jones, Okla. Price, Tex, Whitten Jones, Tenn. Quillen Young, S.C. Ketchum Randall Young, Tex. Landgrebe Roberts Zion Latta Robinson, Va. Armstrong Harsha Rarick Bergland Hebert Riegle Boggs Heckler, Mass. Roncalio, Wyo. Brasco Jones, N.C. Roncallo, N.Y. Camp Kuykendall Rooney, N.Y. Conable Landrum Runnels Crane Lui an Sarbanes Dulski Luken Sebelius Eshleman Minshall, Ohio Sikes Giaimo Patman Staggers Grasso Poage Wyman Griffiths Pddell Hanna Powell, Ohio So the to. pairs: Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Dulski. Mr. Hebert with Mrs. Grasso. Mr. Sikes with Ms. Luken, Mr. Riegle with Mrs. Griffiths,. Mr. Rooney of New York wi Mr. Giahno with Mr. Rarick. Mr. Staggers with Mr. Kuyken Mr. Sarbanes with Mr. Crane. Mr. Roncalio of Wyoming with able. Mrs. Heckler of Massachusetts Lujan. Mr. Runnels with Mr. Minshall of Mr. Sebelius with Mr. Patman. of Ohio. The result of the vote was ann as above recorded. _ A motion to reconsider was laid table. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, I ask uilani- mous consent that all Members may ave 5 legislative days In which to revis -and extend their remarks, and to inclu ex- traneous material, on the conference re- port to accompany S. 386, the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974, just agreed to. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS TO HAVE UNTIL MIDNIGHT, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1974, TO FILE A REPORT, ALONG WITH MINORITY AND/OR SEPA- RATE VIEWS, ON H.R. 17488 Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I- ask unani- mous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means may have until mid- night, Tuesday, November 26, 1974, to file a report on the bill, H.R. 17488, the Energy Tax and Individual Relief Act of 1974, along with any minority and/or separate views. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ark- ansas? There was no objection. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr. RONCALIO of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that I would like the record to show that on the vote on the conference report on S. 386, the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974, just completed, I was unable to return to the floor in order to record my vote. I was in conference on the strip mine bill. Had I been present and voted, I would have voted against the conference report. SENATE OVERRIDES PRESIDENTIAL VETO ON FREEDOM OF INFORMA- TION ACT (Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to ad- dress the House for 1 minute and to re- vise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MOOR IEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. body has followed the leadership of the House and has voted to override the veto on the Freedom of Information Act. PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 16373) to amend title 5, United States Code, by adding S section 552a to safe- guard individual privacy from the mis- use of Federal records and to provide that individuals be granted access to records concerning them which are maintained by Federal agencies. 'The SPEAKER. The question Is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD). The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Chair requests the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. FULTON) to assume the Chair temporarily. IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H.R. 16373, with Mr. FULTON (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee rose on yesterday, the amendment In the nature of a substitute to the bill was subject to amendment at any point. Are there further amendments? AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MOORHEAD OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania, Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. MOORHEAD- of Pennsylvania: On page 31, strike lines 5 through 9 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "(3) In a suit brought under the provi- sions of subsection (g) (1) (B) or (C) of this section in which the court determines that the agency failed or refused to comply with any provision of subsection (g) (1) (B) or (C) of this section, the United States shall be liable to the individual In an amount equal to the sum of-" (Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amend- ment is to insure that persons who are actually damaged by the failure of the Government agency to comply with the provisions of subsection (g) (1) (B) or (C) are compensated for their losses. The amendment does not contain a provision for punitive damages, which was objected to yesterday. There is noth- ing in this amendment, therefore, which subjects the Government to an undue burden. The burden is on the citizen. The citizen must prove that there was a vio- lation of the provision of this act, He must, then prove that the adverse deter- mination which damaged him was caused by the above violation. He must finally prove the damages caused by the viola- tion. With this substantial burden already placed on the litigant, I see no reason to require that proof also be offered of willful, arbitrary, or capricious action by the defendant agency. This amendment was suggested as a reasonable compromise by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ECKHARDT), and I now yield to him. Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman. It will be recalled by those who heard the debate yesterday that the primary objection to the Fascell amendment was that the Government should not be subjected to punitive damages. I think that that was the major ground upon which that amendment was defeated. Frankly, had I thought that the Gov- ernment would practically be so jeopar- dized, I would have voted against it too. I did not think that it was a practical" danger, but this amendment completely removes that proposition. However, the amendment does afford a correction of what seemed to me to be a, very bad defect in the existing lan- guage, and that is that even though a person may not be able to get a job be- cause his record falsely indicated ' his having been discharged when he had, in fact resigned, if an agent of Government made an innocent mistake in failing to go through with the procedure provided in this bill and the person whose record was falsely stated lost a job and there- fore lost the money that he would have made on that job, he could still not sue because he could not show that the ac- tion was willful, arbitrary, or capricious. It seems to me to be a matter of basic justice to permit a person who is actually injured by some act of an agent of the Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R00?70015,0090-9 November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE Ii 10949 jurisdiction in this respect was compel- the time-honored method for he two lingly stated in the select committee re- bodies to produce the type of legislation port: our Nation requires and deserves. It also With its experiencein highways and roads provides a legislative history which pro- transportation re- merts. thieve the select i submit that the old adage that haste integrated ap- makes waste is applicable to that which pu a policy. we are being asked to do today. We have Han package the opportunity to utilize proper pro- H s ils wit Com- cedures and to provide a proper legisla- and He But tive history. That is why we asked you w s ration was to turn aside this restrictive rule and in respect the support the opportunity of having our bill considered in the other body. How many Members of this distin- )n Public Wor g- fished body have been offended in the sst when the Senate has returned leg- Igtion with nongermane amendments -the preach to this important In summary, Mr. Speaker, the Com- mittee on Public Works has in gradual and orderly fashion expanded its con- structive role on the urban public trans- A great matter of principle is involved in what happens today. We are witness- ing a procedural end-run around our committee that will come back to haunt ing our Public Works Committee to help straighten out this expedient "mess" ment can do no wrong though it may do several things that look pretty odd. I from Albemarle who left his most im- portant procedures on the. House of Rep- late to the judicial and executive branches. I submit to you that we will continue to lose our influence unless we thoroughly our action. This includes thorough hearings, extensive debate in the committee, preparation of thorough committee reports, debate of the merits ences of the two bodies In conference, and review of the conference report. This is 0 ation at we are - ur. isal in the ot Lprehensive an se by an overwhe submit if we allow w his type to be drafte conference we shall on sure if we allow the am wi rrevall we shall be faced situation in the future. tively simple parliamentary pro bring about a conference on the h the rela- to which was approved in the other body this week. I strongly urge my colleagues to sup- port the Public Works Committee efforts to retain, for the House, the time-hon- dred procedures for providing The mass transit legislation our Nation deserves. Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report. The question was taken: and the Speaker announced that the ayes ap- peared to have it. Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were order..?ed. The vote was taken by electronic de- vice, and there were-yeas 288, nays 109, 'zot voting 37, as follows: I Roll No. 6401 YEAS-288 Abzug Bell Brown, Calif. 4dams Biaggi Brown, Mich. Addabbo Biester Brown, Ohio Alexander Bingham Broyhill; Va. Anderson,. Boland Buchanan Calif. Bolling Burgener Anderson. nl. Brademas Burke, Calif. Annunzio Breaux Burke, Fla. Ashley Breckinridge Burke, Mass. Aspin Brooks Burton, John Badillo Broomfield Burton, Phillip Carney, Ohio Horton Carter Howard Roe Cederberg Hudnut Rogers Chamberlain Hungate Rooney, Pa. Chisholm Hunt Rose Clancy Jordan Rosenthal Clark Karth Rostenkowski Clay Kastenmeier Roush Cohen Kazen Roy Collins, nl. Kemp Roybal Conte King Ryan Conyers Kluczynski St Germain Corman Koch Sandman Flood Minish Talcott Flowers Mink Teague Hawkins Hays uie ailsback Wylie Yates Holtzman RobisoY N.Y. Andrews, N.C. Brinkley Daniel, Dan Andrews, Broyhill, N.C. Daniel, Robert N. Dak. Burleson, Tex, W., Jr. Archer Burlison, Mo. Davis, Ga. Arends Butler Davis, S.C. Ashbrook Byron Davis, Wis. Bafalis Casey, Tex. de la Garza Baker Chappell Denholm Bauman Clausen, Dennis Beard Don H. Devine Bennett Clawson, Del Dickinson Bevill Cleveland Evans, Colo. Blackburn Cochran Evins, Tenn. Blatnik Collier Findley Bowen Collins, Tex. Fisher Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 demanded their passage? How many has this House been offended by rtures of the Senate suggesting ' our rules. ach of us has seen the other t to impose its poorly strut this body. Admittedly, the 1% time is slightly different. faced with a gross de- ormal rules as well as, body to consider the tailed mass transit approved in this g vote. jor legislation a committee the day. I o r body to a simila5? ? Approved for Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 November 91, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 111109-31 Government which is in violation of this subsection to recover on ordinary bases, that is, by showing that the .act was vio- lated and that he sustained injury. There is nothing in this that would provide for any damages beyond his ac- tual out-of-pocket expenses because of the flaw. Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. Mr. ICHORD. Mr: Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ECKHARDT) as to what is the stand- ard of conduct that would cause the Government to be liable? Would the Government be liable? I would ask the gentleman from Texas this question: If there was an innocent mistake made in violation of this bill, would the Govern- ment be liable? Mr. ECKHARDT. I do not know what "innocent mistake" means. As the gentle- man knows, the act provides that if I ask for information concerning what is in my record I am entitled to have it. Having received that, and finding something that is erroneous in that information, I may then submit the. correction. The agency must then either correct or must file reasons why it does not correct it. Let us assume, for instance, that the agency, after I request the information, misplaces my letter and does not send me the information and, in. the meantime, I seek a position with another government agency, and I am denied employment on the grounds that I have been discharged, when in fact I was not discharged. I think I am entitled to recover even though the action of the governmental agency may not have been willful; it is just a question of determining what the fact was. Mr. ICHORD. There would be an ele- ment of negligent conduct, or unreason- able conduct, would there not? Mr. ICHORD. I think so; yes. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. (Mr. ERLENBORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. IcxoRD) has asked a very good question as to standards of conduct. There are no standards of conduct required under this amendment. This amendment would make the Government a guarantor of the accuracy of everything that it has in its files. The -amendment says that any suit brought under subsection (g) (1) (B); (C) of this section does not have to re- fer to any standards of conduct. What do (g) (1)' (B) and (C) require? (B) re- quires that the agency maintain any record concerning any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness. Now, if there is any inadvertent in- accuracy in a government file, a suit could be filed under this amendment, and damages asked and recovered. (C) says: . fails to comply with any other pro- reviewable in court. Certainly the Gov- vision of this action, or any rule promul- ernment should do the things that are gated thereunder, in such a way as to have required under the standards here. Cer- an adverse effect on an individual, the indi- tainly the Government should supply the vidual may bring a civil action against the material. Certainly the Government agency.... should give the reasons, if it refuses to Again, this . provision prescribes no correct an asserted error. standard of conduct. If a Government If the Government does all of those agency inadvertently violated any rule- things and acts in compliance with the whether a mistake be inadvertent or language of the bill, the Government is willful-a suit could be brought under not subjected to any liability whatsoever. this -amendment for damages. This ex- There is no requirement of an assurance poses the Government to undue liability. that the Government be absolutely cor- It makes the Government the guarantor rect with respect to every fact which is of every piece of information that it has listed In a person's record. The Govern- In every one of its files. It is not even ment need only be fair, and it need only prospective; this would be retroactive- comply with the standards of the act. Government employees would have to go Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the through and clean up all their files so gentleman yield? that they would not expose themselves Mr. ECKHARDT. I yield to the gentle- to such liability. man from Virginia. I am surprised that the gentleman Mr. BUTLER. I thank the gentleman from ? Pennsylvania would offer this - for yielding. amendment at the last minute, without As I understand, in the proposed any warning. This was not reported out amendment there is an addition to the by the committee. This was not sup- discretionary authority which is in the ported by the committee: Even though court to assess reasonable attorneys' fees the gentleman is the manager of the where the plaintiff substantially prevails; bill, the gentleman does this on his own, is that correct? So this would provide for and I am sure that he would tell the actual damages in those situations as a Members that that is correct. matter of right, knowing that the law has Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. If not been complied with. Is there a prec- the gentleman will yield, I would not edent in other legislation by this auto- like to leave the Inference in the record matic assessment of actual damages by a that this is a committee amendment. It citizen against the U.S. Government? is an amendment that was proposed by Mr. ECKHARDT. Yes, there are sev- the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ECK- eral. I do not have bills in which this HARDT) as a reasonable compromise be- comes to mind immediately, but I know tween the bill language on page 31- that we have had several here recently "willful, arbitrary, or capricious." I feel out of the Committee on Interstate and this compromise is necessary since puni- Foreign Commerce. I believe there was tive damages are not authorized in this a provision of that nature with respect bill because of the defeat of the Fascell to citizens' suits regarding the products amendment yesterday. safety bill. I am not absolutely sure of This Is just to try to make a citizen that. whole when the Government has dam- Mr. BUTLER. Is the Federal Govern- aged him. ment obligated under the products safety Mr. ERLENBORN. I am afraid the bill? gentleman has just gone much too far on ' Mr. ECKHARDT. No, no. this in making the Government liable. Mr. BUTLER. I am talking about the I read yesterday a statement that the Federal Government. Is there a law say- President flrully supports this bill with Ing that a citizen can recover damages only one reservation, and that reserva- when- a minor clerk falls to perform his tion was taken care of by the adoption of duties timely and completely, fairly ac- the amendment I offered yesterday. But curately, and so forth? Is there a prece- I am telling the Members if we adopt dent for that? this amendment, we would be exposing Mr. ECKHARDT. I do not know the Government to blanket liability as a whether there is or not, but I would an- guarantor of every piece of personal in- swer the gentleman in this way. I would - formation in its files, and I, - for one, say that if the Federal Government acts would recommend to the President-as in violation of its own statutory obliga- iryrportant as this bill might be-that he Lions, I can think of no agency that veto it. We just cannot afford to have should be called upon more to pay at- that kind of liability, leaving the Govern- torneys' fees, because the public pays the ment, so exposed. I hope the amendment Federal Government attorneys' fees. will be defeated. .. Mr. BUTLER. We are plowing new Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I ground, then. move to strike the requisite number of Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. If words, and I rise in favor of the amend- the gentleman will yield, when this was meet. taken up yesterday, there was great ar- I do not believe the gentleman's fears gument that punitive damages had no are justified. This amendment does not precedent. I think that was one of the require that the Government be the guar- reasons that that amendment was de- antor of every fact determined. The Gov- - feated. But the inference is clearly left ernmefrt need only comply with the that there are other statutes under which standards set out in (g) (1) and (B) and actual damages can be awarded against- (C). Certainly the Government ought to the Government. assure fairness in any - determination. Mr. ECKHARDT. I might also say that Surely the Government ought to be fair, we do not affect that portion of the bill. and if it is unfair, the matter should be Attorneys' fees are provided in the bill, Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 1110,952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974 whether this amendment is passed or to make clear that such activities as are under the industrial security program. not. If the gentleman wishes to strike pertinent to, and within the scope of, It could then transfer, use or maintain that, he might still do it by amendment, duly authorized law enforcement activi- Information about individuals, or other- even if this amendment is agreed to. ties are not meant to be excluded by the wise operate its industrial security pro- The CHAIRMAN. The question is on broad terms of paragraph (4). It is sim- gram just as it has in the past. I trust the amendment offered by the gentle- ply a clarifying amendment, so that we that this explanation answers the gen- man from Pennsylvania (Mr. Moor- obviate any necessity for litigation on tleman's question. READ). the reach of the paragraph. I trust that this explanation satisfies The question was taken; and the (Mr. ICHORD asked and was given the gentleman from Pennsylvania. cnairman announced that the noes ap- permission to revise and extend his re- Mr. ICHORD. I thank the gentleman geared to have it. marks.) for his clarification. Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I de- Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. I would also like to ask the gentle- mand a recorded vote. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? man from Illinois, is that his under-- A recorded vote was refused. Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman standing or interpretation? The term So the amendment was rejected. from Pennsylvania. "routine use" is rather ambiguous with- AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ICHORD Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania:. Mr. out further legislative clarification. Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer Chairman, I understand that this Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will an amendment. amendment should be construed in the the gentleman yield? The Clerk read as follows, light of the colloquy we had yesterday, Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman amendment offered by Mr. ICHORD: page that there was no intention to Interfere from Illinois. 28, line 16, strike out the period after the with the first amendment rights of citi- Mr. ERLENBORN. I agree with the word "maintained" and add the following: zees* interpretation given the language by the Provided, however, that the provisions of Mr. ICHORD. I state emphatically to gentleman from Pennsylvania. I think this paragraph shall not be deemed to pro- the gentleman from Pennsylvania that it will be the obligation of each agency hi-bit the maintenance of any record of ac- this amendment is not intended to hurt which maintains such a system to list tivity which is pertinent to and within the in any way the exercise of the first what the uses of the records in that sys- scope of aduly authorized law enforcement amendment rights. tem will be. The word "routine," then, activity." Mr;MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. while itself a little ambiguous, Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, as :[ Chairman, I have no objection on this definitely clarified by pubilicationinlthe pointed out in general debate this side of the aisle to the amendment. Federal Register of what actual uses amendment can be described as a clari?? Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, before will be the routine uses to which each fying amendment. The managers of the yielding back the balance cf my time, record is put. bill have stated that they did not intend there is one further clarification that I . Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank to do what I questioned they might be would like to have from the gentleman the gentleman for his explanation. I doing, and this language was worked out from Pennsylvania as a matter of lcgis- move the adoption of the amendment. in cooperation with the managers of the lative history. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on bill. It is really to make certain that I state to the gentleman that I have the amendment offered by the gentleman political and religious activities are not expressed the concern that this measure from Missouri (Mr. IcxoRD). used as a cover for illegal or subversive might adversely affect the operations of The amendment was agreed to. activities. . the industrial security program or might fn its present form paragraph (4) even destroy the operation of the indus- AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GUDE would prohibit any agency from main- trial security program. The gentleman Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an taining any record concerning the "po- from Pennsylvania and the gentleman amendment. litical or religious belief or activity" of from Illinois have assured me privately The Clerk read as follows: any individual, unless "expressly author- that this was not intended, but I do think Amendment offered by Mr. GUDE: On page ize=c by statute" or by the individual: The we should have some legislative history. 23, strike outlines 18 through 21 and insert use of the terms "expressly authorized How will the provisions of this bill af- In their place the following: - by statute" would seem to indicate, that fect the operation of the industrial serur- saving "(7) to a the person in of who such i indiv aviduaidualet upon unless the statute by specific terms- ity program? such disclosure , sf upon vied urather than 'by "implication"-author= s dis notification is tranmi Mr. MOORHEAD of Penns;71vania. Mr. to the last known address of such indi id- ized the agency to maintain such a rec- Chairman, if the gentlemar. will yield, ual; or". ord, maintenance would be prohibited, the gentleman has raised an important Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, the pur- and that this would therefore have the questionand I am pleased to explain its pose of this amendment is to clarify one effect of prohibiting the maintenance of application. This bill would not disturb item I believe to be ambiguous in intent. records concerning Communist and oth- current procedures used in industrial in restricting the circumstances under er subversive organizations on the theory security investigations, in the transfer which information on individuals could that they are engaged in "political" of classified or unclassified information be disclosed by Federal agencies, it was activities. in such matters, in security clearances, the We may well recognize that the pur- or other related industrial security needs, dude ihintention io n which the which wou in lde eo ex- pose of the provision is commendable Our subcommittee recently conducted to the health ealth or sof an iv vital and legitimate in prohibiting the dis- hearings on the industrial security f safety had niaua- closure of such records with respect to gram as related to the security clasifica- dent, For nexample, if there been an needed conventional political and religious be- tion system, so that we are quite familiar the and the medical ending doctor needed lief; and activities, but that it can be with the program. ce ing with treatment rwhich hemight be construed to cover activities which are Subsection (e) (2) (D) on page 27 of necessary to save his life, we woud not prouerly within the scope of legitimate the bill permits any agency, Including an want the Federal Government to be for- law enforcement. For example, the Com- agency involved in Industrial security bidden to transmit that information, nor munist Party and similar groups may activities, to publish in the Federal Reg- would we want to require a time con- claim that they are within the scope of aster a notice for each system of records suming approval process which might the provision of this paragraph as a it maintains. This notice would list the result in the individual's death before "political" activity. Similarly, certain "routine purpose" for which the records the information could be provided. sects within the Black Muslim move- are usedor are Intended to be used. Thus, However, I believe the current lan- ment, which are engaged in activities a Federal agency engaged in industrial guage of the bill is too vaguein this re- described by the Director of the FBI security matters would state that one of gard, in that it would permit such dis- as endangering the internal security, the "routine purposes" for which infor- closures without prior permission in less may claim exemption as a "religious" mation about an individual is collected than emergency cases, and it does not belief. and used for security clearances or other make clear to whom the information It is the purpose of the amendment uses is to carry out its responsibilites could be discussed. My amendment Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090=9 H 10953 November;21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE would simply leave no doubt as to the they sight the threat the unrestricted the right of a citizen to protect his pri- intent of the bill to restrict this kind of universal numeric identifier Poses to vacy and the need of the Federal Gov- disclosure only to truly life-threatening the freedom and privacy of individuals. ernment to be a proper and effective emergencies, and then only to disclose Private citizens resent the use of this servant. the information to those actively en- number as an arbitrary precondition to Mr.MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. gaged in trying to save the life of the the receipt of services, privileges, and. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? individual in question. benefits that are essential to their daily Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield to the gen- Mr. MOORHEAD. of Pennsylvania. lives and activities. The average citizen tleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? finds the use of the number dehumaniz- Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Mr. GLIDE. I yield to the gentleman ing and threatening. Even the Widely. Chairman, I want to commend the gen- from Pennsylvania. - cited report of the Secretary of HEW- tleman for offering this amendment, the Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I entitled "Records, Computers, and Rights principle of which was certainly intended thank the gentleman for yielding. I am of Citizens"-notes that there is no stat- by the committee, but the gentleman's not sure the amendment is necessary. I utory authority, for the ever-growing amendment removes any ambiguity. have no objection to the amendment use of this number as an identifier. They I want to commend the gentleman for and, as far as I know, on this side of the point out that the average citizen has no his diligent work, cooperation, and as- aisle we accept it. legal remedy for such a use of the num- sistance to the subcommittee and the full Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will ber. The report notes that the universal committee. As far as we are concerned the gentleman yield? use of a numeric identifier permits the on this side, we will accept the amend- Mr. GLIDE. I yield to the gentleman linking of files and the tracing of a per- ment. from Illinois. son from cradle to grave. A soon to be Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the gen- Mr. ERLENBORN. We have had a copy published ? report - "Roscoe-Pound- tleman from Pennsylvania. of the amendment and we have no objec- American Trial Lawyers Foundation Re- Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman, tion to it. port"-notes the negative psychological will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN, The question is on impact that has resulted from the un- league fOLDWAforR. I yield to my col- the amendment offered by the gentleman regulated use of this number. from Maryland (Mr. GUsE). In most cases, the use of this number (Mr. LAGOMARSINO asked and was The amendment was agreed to. has been resorted to in the name of ei- given permission to revise and extend his AMENDMENT. OFFERED BY MR. GOLDWATER ficiency. Little concern has been given remarks.) Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I for the human impact such a practice Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman, offer an amendment, has. Everything distinctive, individual, I would like to commend the gentleman The Clerk read as follows: or superior in terms of quality of a man's for his amendment, and assure him of Amendment offered by Mr. GOLDWATER: On mind is not relevant. Everything centers my support. I would also like to com- page 35, after line 20, insert the following on the quantitative, down with qualitive mend him for his work on the general new subsection (m) to read as follows: dimensions or values. The use of this subject. . "(m) (1) Moratorium on the use of the number has removed the individual from Mr. Chairman, last year a Presidential social security account number. -no Federal the modern personal information trans- Executive order was issued allowing the agency, or any state or local government action process. Records are exchanged Department of Agriculture to inspect the acting in compliance with any Federal law without his knowledge and occasionally Individual tax returns of 3 million farm- or federally assisted program, shall deny any to his serious detriment. Errors are per- ers-for the alleged purpose of compiling individual any right, benefit, or privilege petuated and integrated with new rec- mailing lists and statistical information. provided by law by reason of such indivity ords. And all of this is occurring because Although that order was eventually acco refusal nsal to disclose his social security of administrative decisions which never rescinded after widespread public indig-number (2) This s sub. shall not apply- a". analyze the larger implications of the nation, it is a good example of the type (2) T "(A) with respect to any system of records use of the number. Simply put, the use of of abuse we are trying to prevent with in existence and operating prior to Jan- the number has not been subjected to this bill. Not every Member of this House nary 1, 1975; and, the aggressive give and take that occurs has a large agricultural constituency, but "(B) when disclosure of a social security in a legislative form. I ask the Members to consider that if the account number is required by Federal law. Originally, the discussion draft of H.R. Department of Agriculture can obtain "' (3) No Federal agency, or any state or 16373 contained language prohibiting the individual tax returns of 3 million farm- with further use of the social security account ers by the device of an Executive order, alocal ny federal law government Feder ally in compliance assisted any shall use the social l security account ount program, number number as a universal numeric identifier. how many other agencies can get the for any purpose other than for verification Objections were raised to that language. individual tax returns of housewives, or of the identity of an individual unless such The objections centered on the follow- barbers, or truckdrivers, on the same other purpose is specifically authorized by ing concerns: flimsy excuse of a need for mailing lists. Federal law." First, outright prohibition would neces- The law provides that tax returns are And, re-letter the -succeeding subsection sitate a total revamping of all Federal confidential, and the information they accordingly. record systems at tremendous cost. contain is not to be disclosed without Mr. GOLDWATER (during the read- Second, outright prohibition is not con- permission. Given the events of the past ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous sistent with all the best interests of citi- few years, when tax returns become consent that the amendment be con- zens as it would cause chaos in many weapons to be turned against individual sidered as read and printed in the Federal programs. citizens or to punish political foes, I won- RECORD. The amendment I offer today remedies der how on Earth we can expect the or- The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to these problems. My amendment does the dinar citizen to comply with our taxation,me the request of the gentleman from Cali- following things: tax fornia? First, prohibits the denial of rights, which we ask the individual to personally There was no.objection. benefits, or privileges provided by law if report his income and compute his tax Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I a citizen refuses to disclose his social due, relies heavily on the voluntary coop- offer this amendment dealing with the security number, with the following ex- eration and basic honesty of the in- use of the social security number in an ceptions: dividual. In this respect, it is perhaps attempt to bring it into proper perspec- The amendment exempts all systems unique in the world. tive and to, in essence, put limitations in existence and operating prior to Jan- Where else would you find an entire upon its further use. uary 1, 1975, and would not apply when nation of people willing to report the Every major report on the subject of the Congress authorizes the use of the most intimate details of their income and personal privacy and the collection, main- number. expenditures every year? If we had to tenance, use and dissemination of per- The amendment restores to Congress resort to the European system of taxa- sonal information has expressed concern the control over use of the number. tion, where an inspector comes by to for the ever-growing use of the social This amendment will fill important check on your wealth and living situa- security number as a universal numeric voids in the current legislation. It sights tion, or if we had to make a detailed identifier. Almost without exception a reasonable, basic compromise between check of the basic facts of every income Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090,19 1410954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974 tax return filed in this country, we would be spending as much collecting this tax as we gain from it. Yet our entire system of taxation is based on the Government's assurance that individual tax returns wilt! remain confidential-an assurance which we have seen is not always truthful. We all remember the story of the golden goose. Well gentlemen and ladies. if we are not careful, we are going to kill the golden goose. If we do not act now to insure the confidentiality of Government records, including private income tax returns, no one will ever again tell the truth to their Government. We have come dangerously close, I believe, to ex- hausting the reservoir of good will and basic honesty of the people toward their Government. If we are not honest with the public, the public will not be honest with us. One way we can assure the people that we will honor our commit- ments of confidentiality whenever we ask for necessary information, is to pass this bill. Mr. Chairman, over 2,400 years ago, the Greek leader Pericles proclaimed one of the signs of a free society to be "mutual toleration of privacy." The right of priv- acy finds expression in both the English Magna Carter and the U.S. Bill of Rights. I believe it is time for us to lend substance to those guaranteeswith a statute such as the one before us today. This bill will not. hamper the operation of Govern- ment, it will only make it work better, because the individual citizen will be more willing to cooperate if he knows that his privacy will remain protected. For the sake of good government, and for the sake of the people we serve, I urge an "aye" vote on this bill. Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield to the gen- tleman from New York. - Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman, my good friend from California. He has led the fight to prevent the establishment of a universal identifier number. To see that fight suc- cessfully concluded on the floor today must give him a great deal of pride and pleasure. I take pride and pleasure in his success and in having worked with him on this legislation. Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank my friend for his support in this effort, and I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. -ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee, in considering the drafting of this bill, did 'consider taking under advisement whether we should include the prohib- iting of a universal numeric identifier. Of course, the social security number is the most commonly used universal numeric identifier. The problem is that to my knowl- edge-and I think to the knowledge of the subcommittee-there has been no study as to how many local governments or private agencies or, even, for that matter, Federal agencies, which use the universal numerical identifier or the so- cial security number. We are not certain what effect this sort of amendment would have. I know, for instance, it is quite customary to use the social security number as the identifier on State driver's licenses. Just what effect this amend- ment would have, I do not think we really know, and I do not think we should pass it without knowledge I think it would Mr. ERLENBORN. I do not believe that is included within the definition. Mr. COLLIER. I thank the gentleman. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BUTLER be a mistake to do this, before hearings Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. have been held to get the facts on which to base action. The Clerk read as follows: One part of the amendment wouk al- Amendment offered by Mr. BUTLER: Page low an exceptionfor systems of records 23, after linuer25, insert the following: in operation prior to January 1, 1975. competent the order of a court of That means if a new system were to be petenntt juris sdicct tion." adopted by a State or local government, Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, this is it might be wholly incompatible with an an amendment to the section of the bill existing system which is the subject of dealing with conditions of disclosure. It the exemption. I think we would be act- is introduced for the purpose of making ing without sufficient knowledge if we it perfectly clear that a lawful order of were to adopt the amendment now. a court of competent jurisdiction would I think we all want to be knows: by be an appropriate condition of dis- our names rather than by number so- closure. and-so. Certainly the purpose of this Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania:. amendment is worthy, but I am afraid we Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? are acting now out of emotion rather Mr. BUTLER. I yield to the gentleman than knowledge. We have not had any from Pennsylvania. hearings on which to base action on this Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. amendment; therefore, I think the pro- Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has dis- posal should be defeated. We should hold cussed his amendment with us, and we hearings on this subject in the near find no objection to the amendment. future. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered question is on the amendment offered by by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. the gentleman from California (Mr, BUTLER). GOLDWATER). The amendment was agreed to. The amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BUTLER Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I move Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer to strike the requisite number of words. an amendment. I do so only for one question, if I may, The Clerk read as follows: Throughout the bill, the word "agency" Amendment offered by Mr. BUTLER: On is used, and I would like to know whether page 26, line 17, after the word "disclosure", or not the word "agency" is interchange- strike out the period and add the following: able with the word commission' and (5) nothing in this section shall allow throughout the bill. an individual access to any information com- Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will piled in reasonable anticipation of a civil the gentleman field? action or proceeding." Mr. COLLIER. Yes, I yield to the Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman. amendment is directed to the section Mr. ERLENBORN. As I understand he dealing with access to records. It is in- gentleman's question, it is whether reiiu- troduced for the purpose of making it latory commissions would be considered perfectly clear that an investigation of agencies? Mr. COLLIER. As well as any duly ap- an accident or other procedures incident to problems pointed commissions that were author- subject to inquiry nature will not be ized by the Congress, whether through y o or access under this Congress or through Executive a section. ppoYut- The amendment says: meat. Mr. ERLENBORN. The definition of Nothing in this section shall allow an in- dividual access to any information compiled the word "agency" would be contained in in reasonable anticipation of a civil action the basic Freedom of Information Act, or proceeding. and this is the amendment to the Free- dom of Information Act. My recollection Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr, is that'the word 'a'gency" defined In the Chairman, will the gentleman yield? act would include regulatory commis- Mr. BUTLER. I yield to the gentleman sions. from Pennsylvania. Such things as study commissions, in- Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. terim study commissions, or r:hort-term Chairman, again the gentleman has been study commissions, I do not believe they good enough to discuss this- amendment would be. with us, and we find no objection to it. Mr. COLLIER. They would be ex- However, I would ask the gentleman cluded, notwithstanding the fact that. this: What does he contemplate con- they contain, in many instances sub- cerning the third amendment we dis- , stantial confidential records of a per- cussed? sonal nature? Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I do not Mr. ERLENBORN. This is only my intend to introduce the third amendment recollection, without having a copy of the the gentleman refers to. law before me. I think regulatory cons- Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. missions would be included within the Chairman, I thank .the gentleman. definition, something like the President's We have no objection to the amend- Commission on Population Growth in ment. America, on which I served. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will Mr. COLLIER. That is not included? the gentleman yield? Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Aplroved for Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP7?gll~ 27R000700150090-9 H 10955 November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - r~i Ot contain any Alrr T%TTTT.FR. I yield to the gentleman (Ms. ABZUG asked and was given Per-- _ other body's exemption section. It pner ~iir ftl e ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, as I marks.) understand it, the purpose of the amend- Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, we are only two of the. specific ones we have, h by ment is to protect, as an example, the dealing in this bill before us today m tith bet the way, and that is for national he - " ------ - - defense of a suit against the United bill muss; be the exception tea _t sensitive recor That is the subject we there aret overwhelming societal nter amply protected byao her provisions aof States of T TLER this hill . l ming -- Mr. ERLENBORN. I appreciate the What are the overwhe concerna and that protection ought to be whichlwou that s Justify an infringement on uals tithe privacy rights protected byithis bill afforded. individual liberty? The only problem I find with that Under other exemption provisions of Mr. Chairman, I urge that my amend- amendment is this: It would presuppose this bill, we have already protected from ment be adopted. we intended the defining of "record sys- disclosure information related to law en- Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, will the tem" to preclude that type of record. i do forcement investigative matters an and na- ge~sew~ommn yield? I I yield to the gen- not think we did. tional security. If these sorts of records are to be con- I have agreed to support such specific tleman from Maryland. sidered a record system under the act,, exemptions. But the general exemption 'Mr. GUDE. I want to commend the then the agency would have to go as to all records, regardless of what they gentlewoman for this amendment. through all the formal proceedings of de- contain, maintained by the CIA, goes too Certainly, there is no logic in gather and the system, its routine uses, and far. By allowing the CIA to exempt all ing information, and regardless of its publishing in the Federal Register. systems of records, even those which sensitivity, putting it off bounds merely Frankly, I do not think the attorney's contain no sensitive data, we are un- because it happens to be stored within files that are collected in anticipation of necessarily denying individuals the a particular agency. a lawsuit should be subject to the ap- rights guaranteed by this bill and in- The gentlewoman's amendment makes plication of the act in any instance, deed rights guaranteed by the Constitu- a great deal of sense, and I certainly urge tion its adoption. much concern in the the access access provision iIt is that our There is grave danger inherent in . Mr. KOCH.. Mr. Chairman, will the e granting any such broad exemption. No gentlewoman yield? mayy then m then presuppose it is covered in the other provisions, and I do not think it agency should be given a general license Ms. ABZUG. I yield to the gentleman should be. to exempt any and all of its records or from New York. record systems. Mr. KOCH. I also want to commend Mr. BUTLER' s Chairman, I share Rather than base exemptions on the the gentlewoman from New York, who the gentleman's concern. When this functions of an agency which maintains has pointed out this particular defici- was originally drafted, records, we should define exemptions, as ency of this legislation, which I hope tated "access any srt struck te word, record" and" and we we tried to in this bill, in terms of the will be corrected. struhe word, "record," and inserted kind of data sought to be protected from Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I "information." the disclosure. We have done this in sub- rise in opposition to the amendment. made it perfectly clear we were nd (1) (1 and (2) of th Mr. Chairman, there are many rea- So (k) e a sections lnot elevating an investigation with the sons why I would oppose this amend- word, "record," to the status of recorrexemptio the records of the CIA contain sen- inent. We did want to make it clear there ve material, these records will be pro- I think it is quite obvious that the not to be such access, because that ed from disclosure by th e specific ctivities of the Central Intelligence cess would be within the usual rules ns already referred to, informs- gency are not the sort of activities that civil procedure. tion related to either foreign policy or re supposed to be conducted in a fish- Mr. gentleman OR N. yield Mr. f Chairman if national defense or related to investiga- owl. his is tory material which is being compiled for Let me make this one observation. gentleman's will ion, f under further, it gentleman's contention, n e r- law enforcement purposes. nder this bill we are allowing any In- pretat visions of the act, that the other o- - diuidual access to records that are main- visions would not apply to the attorn fished a precedent by allowing an agency tained by the Government relative to as well is M fil; LE R. torre to exempt itself entirely from require- himself. In other words, any person, any Mr. . BUT; The gen t? ntleman is tor- ??a?+- +hn+ X,A?ldi nrntPet and reenforce individual can go to the agency that is - Mr. ERLENBORN. I wonder if the b1? . privacy, copies of anything that you have relat- gentleman would ask the gentleman from By setting up a general exemption ing to me." Pennsylvania tha what his guaranteeing and allowing the CIA to in the committee we discussed opinion is concerning g that, ju ust to clar- exempt even sensitive records from vir- whether, we would extend this right to ify the record. tually every provision of the bill, the bill corporations. We decided we would not; Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I will goes far beyond what is necessary to we would grant it only to individuals. yield to the gentleman from Pennsyl- protect such records from disclosure. We did not limit this access to U.S. soma for that purpose. Why should not the agency be required, Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. for example, to keep records which are Mr. Chairman, I agree with the limits- accurate, timely, and relevant, whit tion which has been placed on the are requirements of this bill? amendment by the gentleman. Why should the agency be exempte The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The from a bar against maintaining politi question is on the amendment offered by cal or religious data if other agencie the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. are not, and why should individuals b BUTLER). - denied rights to civil remedies and tour The amendment was agreed to review? . AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. ABZUG This is the effect of the "genera FT Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an exemption" section of the bill, whit amendment. goes far beyond the "specific exemption The Clerk read as follows: section in allowing agencies to disregar Amendment offered by Ms. ABzuG: Page the safeguard provisions of the bill. 33, line 3, strike out lines 3 and 4. I might tell the Members that thl Agency prepares and maintains files relative to people all over this country who are our potential or actual enemies. We are not limiting access, under this law, to citizens so that Chou En-lai or whoever it might be could come -over here and knock at the door of the CIA and say, "Under the new privacy bill,. I want to see all the files that you have maintained concerning me." I think this situation would be utterly ridiculous. The amendment ought to fall Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 1110956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974 Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, will the Ms. ABZUG. Even if that were not so, sidered. But I think in this legislation we gentleman yield? if an individual seeks access to his or her must take a step at a time in a delicate Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen.. records and the CIA makes a determina- field like that involving the Central in- tlewoman from New York. tion or the agency makes a determina- telligence Agency. Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I just; tion that access to those records would Let me explain to the members that want to refresh the recollection of the endanger our national security, then the the CIA is not entirely exempt under this gentleman from Illinois about who i;, agency would have the right to assert bill. The agencies listed under general covered under this bill. We have a very that reason for not providing access to exemptions are affirmatively subject to specific definition of individuals who are the information. granted rights under this bill and I will All I am suggesting i me major section discof the losure aofand the must quote from subsection (a) (2) -Such an out one agency and exempt all tsrec- m the sthe the conditions of act. disclosure,The CIA or I individual "means a citizen of the United ords, just because It is this agency, ishould t enumerated States or an alien lawfully admitted for say nondisclosure, as quite contrary to what our purposes are, in n subsection (b) of the bill. . Ths This is is a permanent residence." As far as I know and to-what our intentions are in this major provision of the bill with which Chou En-Lai is not a citizen of the United bill. I might also mention that the legis- the Agency must be in compliance-with State or an alien lawfully admitted for lation in the other body has only the what the Agency may or may not do with permanent residence. This is just an- specific exemptions that I mentioned their records. other big, big red herring, before. A blanket exemption for any The CIA is also subject to subsection Mr. ERLENBORN. Then maybe it agency-even or especially this one (e) (2), (A) through (F) to publish in would be the Ambassador of Russia; who ~~+~IX19 3t ?----. -.- the Federal Register at least annually a is to say? The fact is, we ought not limit Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, let notice of the existence and character of the United States to carrying on they me add that this agency is charged Withl f .n..w oreign policy, and LnereIore t ,,.?v.r.vllo, ultcy kept under cellophane. important to the Unite Stat n, _ i must do this. e a f .+ 1n orm tion on peo- 9 First, the Central Intelligence e cy move to strike the last word, and I ris Re who are emissaries from those na- 1 Agency in opposition to the amendment. tions that are here, and are acting in maintains various intelligence systems, Is o t it l s sens , 11 V111 re- ive area ;.n the pro- legislation that established the CIA i tection of our national security. There- leasing any detailed information on its the Defense Department hill f- r ,,,n.+ bersannal this i - M Mr. s Juan a nude v -- - ?.?.s ....r? ulvla. .uC4 methods that they can develop for the me say also that there was an earlier col- collection of information which happens r. loquy between the gentlewoman from MS. Mr. to be favorable to their objectives New York Many like to ma nt and the gentle fh f ~ , . man o rom Illi ordel and I - do times those objectives do not coincide so because I think this matter is of such nosy about who is covered by the act. with the objectives of this country, so importance and such gravity that it On page 21, line 14, in the definitions: than, we, likewise, in order to protect our- should not be disposed of by a handful The term "individual" means a citizen of selves, are collecting information on of Members, and I note that there is not the United "States n re de c lawfully ad- thee people overseas, or the emmisaries a quorum present on the floor. mitred for permanent residence . who come into this country if it deals Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I make the So, Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of with the national security of the United point of order that a quorum 1:3 not pros- the amendment. States. I believe that the better part of Vent. Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, will the valor right now is to leave this alone. The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum gentleman yield? Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, will the is not present. The Chair announces that Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I gentleman yield? he will vacate proceedings under the call yield to the gentlewoman from New Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the gentle- when a quorum of the Committee ap- York. woman from New York. Pears. s. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I am very M3. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman I would Members will record their disappointed that the gentleman from just like to refresh the recollection of electronic device. Pennsylvania has to rise in opposition the gentleman from California, and The call was taken by electronic de- to my amendment. I disagree with him. since he is my honorable chairman 1 vice. I think this exemption is really out of hesitate to do this, but, nevertheless, I QUORUM CALL VACATED line with the original purpose of the bill. have pointed out that the bill provides The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mi. I had no recollection, by the way, Mr. in section (k) (1) (2) for an exemption of MCFALL). One hundred and four Mem- Chairman, that e certain CIArtainly evot t snce anything which would in any way affect hers have appeared. A quorum of the t exemption, the no since the the national rlcfon 1 ule .apps, clause a further security or foreign policy records about proceedings under the call shall be cols- Although the gentleman has indicated which the gentleman from California sidered as vacated. what provisions the CIA, as an agency, has expressed some concern would be The Committee will resume its bus'- might be subjected to, he has neglected amply covered. No information which n ness. to mention the more significant and anyway affects the national security or The Chair recognizes the gentleman meaningful provisions it will not be sub- foreign policy of this Nation could, un- :'rom Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHHEAD). jected exemption. . a result oa having its general der the specific provisions of section (k) (Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania some those I have Provs mentioned of this act, be made available. asked and was given permission to re- some of me basic provisi ons, such maintain My objection to this general blanket vise and extend his remarks.) accurate requirement t, and timely date, and exemption for the CIA is that there is , relevant, and timely date, and much information, and I am sure the * Mr. VIOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. I will not respect them all here. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the There are many others such as this, so gentleman from California would agree Emendment offered by the gentlewomani I do not think it is fair, even though the with this, that the CIA collects about from New York (Ms. ABZUG). I do so with gentleman may oppose my amendment, individuals that is totally unrelated to considerable regret, because of the great for him, to suggest that a general ex- the national security functions of the Contribution that the gentlewoman ha; emption doesn't deprive individuals of CIA. made in the drafting of this legislation. basic rights provided by the act. In fact, Mr. HOLIFIELD. I do not know that. 'I',he gentlewoman was one of the author, one very seriously deprived group of in- I am not in possession of that knowledge. of the original privacy legislation we con- dividuals will be those on whom the CIA Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved-For Release 2002/01/28 CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 November, 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1110957 may be keeping records which have nothing at all to do with the security of this Nation. Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I should like to clar- ify that other provisions of this bill fully take care of questions having to do with security. The bill provides two types of exemptions: First the general exemp- tion of agencies. In fact, only one agency is generally exempted, the Central Intelligence Agency. This is in sub- section (j), "General Exemptions." But in (k), "Specific Exemptions," it is provided on page 34, item (1) that the records within the agency are exempted from this section if the system of rec- oi'ds is, (1) subject to the provisions of section 552(b) (1) of this title." Now, 552(b) (1) of this title is found in the present act, and what that says is: This section does not apply to matters that are, (1) specifically required by Execu- tive order to be kept secret in the interests of the national defense or foreign policy." Executive Order 652, issued on March 8, 1972, and effective on June 1, 1972, exempts 37 agencies with respect, to all matters having to do with national de- fenses or foreign policy. It includes, of course, the CIA. It, includes the Atomic Energy Commission. It includes the State Department; it includes the De- partment of Defense; it includes the Jus- tice Department. I cannot see, for the life of me, why the CIA should be generally exempt from all provisions having to do with access if these other agencies, just as sensitive, are not also generally exempt. They deal with just as sensitive material in the area of national security as the CIA does. The point is, though, if we gener- ally exempt the CIA from access, then the CIA does not have to come out and say that if they revealed the informa- tion, that they refuse access to, it would affect national defense or foreign policy, that it has to do with the security of the United States. I happen to know of a case In which an employee of the CIA has been shab- bily treated. I think the particular case did not have to do with security. It had to do with a girl. Some boss did not much like an inferior officer seeing her. But I shall not assert that as a fact here but as a hypothetical illustrating the evil of giving the CIA complete exemption from access . provisions of this Act. The CIA can come in and say at any time, "This affects foreign affairs." But let us, at least, make them say that, because many people working for the CIA are subject to exactly the same discrimina- tions as those working for other agencies. The CIA is going to be believed when they raise the contention that foreign affairs are affected, but at least let us make them come in and say it. Presum- ably, there would be some reluctance to lie about it. But if all they have to say is, "We are blanketly exempt from any access to the information which you seek," we are absolutely protecting them in matters in which the grossest discrim- ination could occur. Let me just say once again that I am not talking in favor of opening up access to CIA's files with respect to matters of security, because the second exemption, the specific exemption provisions pro- vided for in this act, refers to 552(b) (1). That says that notl_'ng may be obtained which the Executive order requires to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and an Execu- tive Order 652 has been issued and to- tally, blanketly covers all such matters pertaining to national defense and for- eign policy. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McFALL). The question is on the amend- ment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. ABzvG). The amendment was rejected. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ICHORD Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. IcxonD: On page 34, strike lines 7 through 11 and insert the following in lieu thereof: "(2) investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than mate- rial within the scope of subsection (j) (2) of this section: Provided, however, That if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he would otherwise be en- titled by Federal law, or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, such mate- rial shall be provided to such individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of this section, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence." (Mr. ICHORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. _ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, again I wish to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr,- ERLEN BORN) , as well as the members of the committee and the staff, for the very superb job they have done In balancing the rights of the Individual against the rights of society in general and protect- ing the privacy of the individual. All this amendment does is to protect the investigatory material of investi- gating agencies such as the FBI from being raided by thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of persons for no legit- imate purpose. ' I explained the amendment in gen- eral debate, and, Mr. Chairman, the lan- guage of this amendment has been worked out in conjunction with the man- agers of the bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLEN- BORN). The purpose of this amendment is to protect our investigative agencies from activities which I do not believe is an exaggeration to say might seriously im- pair if not destroy their function in carrying out their vital work. The amendment would both protect this work and, at the same time, do so consistently with the attainment of the purposes and objectives of the bill. The provisions of the bill, particularly subsection (b) , pro- vides complete and adequate protection against improper or injurious dissemina- tion of information beyond the legitimate uses of the Federal agencies maintaining them. My amendment in no way affects this laudable purpose, or those provisions against disclosure which fully protect the individual affected by prohibiting any improper use of investigatory material. , All that the amendment does is to pro- tect the investigatory material from be- ing raided by thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of persons for no legitimate purpose. I assure the Members that the investigative materials would be raided by the host of persons, including subver- sives, who would merely seek to ascer- tain the extent of coverage and method and adequacy of operation of our Intelli- gence forces. This improper raiding of the investigatory files will be prohibited by my amendment, but at the same time individuals who have the legitimate need and purpose for the disclosure to them of the information is preserved. The amendment provides that in any case where an individual Is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he would other- vdse be entitled by Federal law, as a re- sult of the maintenance of such material, he will be entitled to the information, to the extent, of course, that the identity of confidential sources will be protected. . Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ICHORD. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this amendment is also subject to the collo- quy we had in general debate concerning protection of dissenters under the first amendment; is that correct? Mr. ICHORD. The gentleman is cor- rect. This is meant in no way to harm the first amendment rights of any Amer- ican. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, I have no objection to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McFALL). The question is on the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Mis- souri (Mr. IcleoRD). The amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GLIDE Mr. GLIDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Gum: Page 36, line 6, after the period, insert the following: "(n) Federal Privacy Commission "(1) Establishment of Commission- "(A) There is established as an independ- ent agency of the executive branch of the government the Federal Privacy Commission. "(B) (i) The Commission shall be composed of five members who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among members of the public at large who, by reason of their knowledge and expertise in any of the fol- lowing areas: civil rights and liberties, law, social sciences, and computer technology, business, and State and local government, are well qualified for service on the Commis- sion and who are not otherwise officers or employees of the United States. Not more than three of the members of the Commis- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150096-9 1110958 0 NGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974 Sion shall be adherents of the same political gress, and the General Service,, Admini:,tra- diately after "Securities and Exchange Com- party tion where the duties of that agency are in- mission,'' the following: "the Federal Privacy "(ti) One of the Commissioners shall be volved, and tothe Comptroller General when Commission." appointed Chairman by the President. it deems appropriate; and "(C) The Commission may delegate any of (iii) A Commissioner appointed as Chair- (C) develop model guidelines for the im- its functions to such officers and employees m :n Shall serve as Chairman until the ex- plenrentation of this section and assist Fed- of the Commission as the Commission may pfration of his term as a Commissioner of erai agencies in preparing regulations and designate and may authorize such successive th:, Commission (except that he may con- meeting technical and admiristrative re- redelegations of such functions as it may lit us to serve as Chairman for so long as he quirements of this section. deem desirable. remains a Commissioner and his successor "(D) In addition to its other i'unctlonn, the "(D) In order to carry out the provisions as Chairman has not taken office). An indi- Commission shall- of this section, the Commission is author- viciual may be appointed as a Commissioner ' (i) to the fullest extent practicable, eon- ized at the same time he is appointed Chairman. suit with the heads of appropriate depart- "(I) to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and "(C) The Chairman shall preside at all ments, agencies, and instrumentalities oi the regulations governing the manner of its op- m(stings of the Commission and aquorum Federal Government in carrying out the pro- erations, organization, and personnel; fog, the transaction of business shallconsist visions of this section; "(ii) to adopt, amend, and repeal inter- of at least three members present (but the "(It) perform or cause to be performed pretative rules for the implementation of Chairman may designate an Acting Chairman such research activities as may be necessary the rights, standards, and safeguards pro- who may preside In the absence of the Chair- to implement the provisions of this section vided under this section; man). Each member of the Commission, in- and to assist Federal agencies :.n complying "(iii) to enter Into contracts or other ar- ciuding the Chairman shall have equal re- with the requirements of this :section; rangements or modifications thereof, with sponsibility and authority in all decisions "(iii) determine what specific categories any government, any agency or department an'l actions of the Commission, shall have of information should be prohitited by stat- of the United States, or with any person, full access to all information relating to the ute from collection by Federal agencies; on firm, association, or corporation, and such pe, formance of his duties or responsibilities, the basis that the collection of such infor- contracts or other arrangements, or modifi- and shall have one vote. Action of the Com- oration would violate an individual's right cations thereof, may be entered into without mission shall be determined by a majority of privacy. legal consideration, without performance or vote of the members present. The Chairman "(1) Confidentiality of Irrformatica- other bonds, and without regard to section (or Acting Chairman) shall be the official "(A) Each department, agency, and instru- 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (51 spokesman of the Commission In its relations mentality of the executive branch of the U.S.C. 5) ; with the Congress. Government agencies, per- Government, including each independent "(iv) to make advance, progress, and other sor s, or the public, and, on behalf of the agency, shall furnish to the Commission, payments which the Commission deems Commission, shall see to the faithful execu- upon request made by the Chairman, such necessary under this section without regard tioi of the policies and decisions of the Coon- data, reports, and other information as the to the- provisions of section 3648 of the Re- and shall report thereon to the Commission deems necessary to carry out. its vised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 528); Commission from time to time or as the functions under this section. "(v) receive complaints of violations of Commission may direct. "(B) In carrying out its functions and this Act and regulations adopted pursuant "(D) Each Commissioner shall be com- exen ising Its powers under this section, the thereto; and pensated at the rate provided for under see- Commission may accept from any Federal "(vi) to take such other action as may be tion 5314 of title 5 of the United States Code, agency or other person any identifiable per- necessary to carry out the provisions of this relating to level IV of the Executive Schedule. sonal data If such data is necessary tocarry section. "C'E) Commissioners shall serve for terms out such powers and functions. In any case "(6) Reports-- of three years. No Commissioner may serve in which the Commission accel:ts any such "The Commission shall, from time to time, more than two terms. Vacancies in the mem- information, it shall provide appropr_ate. and in an annual report, report to' the Presi- bership of the Commission shall be filled In safeguards to insure that the confidentiality dent and the Congress on its activities in the same manner in which the original ap- of such information is maintained and that carrying out the provisions of this section." pointment was made, upon completion of the purpose for which Mr. GUIDE (during the reading). Mr. " F) Vacancies in the membership of the such information is required it is destroyed Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Commission, as longas there are three Com- or returned to the agency or person from missioners in office, shall not impair the 'which it is obtained, as appropriate. the amendment be considered as read power of the Commission to execute the "(5) Powers of the Commission- and printed in the RECORD. functions and powers of the Commission. "(A) The Commission may, in carrying out The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there "t G) The members of theCommission shall its functions under this section, conduct objection to the request of the gentleman not engage in any other employment during such inspections, sit andact at such theses from Maryland? their tenure asmembers of the Commission. and places, hold such hearings take Birch There was no objection. " 2) Personnel of the Commission- testimony, require by subparts, the attend- "4A) Mr. GLIDE. Mr. Chairman, this amend- Executive The Commission shall appoint an ante of such witnesses and the production of sent establishes a Federal ,this Executive Director who shall perform such such books, records, papers, corrrsponde=.ce, Privacy Com- duties as the Commission may determine. and documents, administer such oaths, have mission which is a vital necessity if-pri- Suca appointment may be made without such printing and binding done, and make vacy legislation is to become a meaning- regard to the provisions of title 5, United such expenditures as the Commission deems ful statute. Clearly the key to the main- States Code, advisable. Subpenas shall be Issued under the tenance of successful privacy standards "(B) The Executive Director shall be com- signature of the Chairman or any member will be the degree of cooperation provid- pcnsated at a rate not in excess of the max- of the Commission designated by the Chair- ed by federal agencies which have to im- irnum rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule man and shall be served by any parson desig- element the This Commission. under section 5332 of title 6, United States rated by the Chairman or any such member. program. Code-. Any member of the Commission may ad- which would coordinate and assist in - "(C) The Commission is authorized to ap- minister oaths or affirmations to witne? .es those efforts, will be an important toll point and fix the compensation of such of. appearing before the Commission. for gaining the necessary agency cooper- fleers and employees, and prescribe their "(l) In case of disobedience to a subpena ation. functions and duties, as may be necessary to issued under subparagraph (A) of this atib- The Commission would be composed of carr,F out the provisions of this section. section, the Commission may invoke the aid five full time members appointed by the "(D) The Commission may obtain the serv- of any district court of the United States In President with the advice and consent of ices of experts and consultants In accordance requiring compliance with such subpena. with the provisions of section 3109 of title 5, Any district court of the Un:.ted States the Senate. The functions of the Com- United States Code. within the jurisdiction where such person mission would be to: "(3) Functions of the Commission. The is found or transacts business may, In case First, publish annually a Directory of Commission shall- of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena Information System containing data on (A) publish annually a United States - issued by the Commission, issue an order : e- Federal agency information systems and Directory of Information Systems containing quiring such person to appear and testify, the statutes which require the information specified to provide notice to produce such books, records, papers, cur- the collection under subsection (e) (2) of this Section for respondence, and documents, and any failt,re of information; each information system subject to the pro- to obey the order of the court- shall be Second, investigate and report agency visions of this section and a listing of all punished by the court as a contempt there A. violations of this section of the bill; statutes which require the collection of such "(ii) Appearances by the Commission un- Third, develop model information by a Federal agency; der this section shall be in its own name. guidelines and "(.3) investigate, determine, and report any The Commission shall be represented by s.t- provide assistance to federal agencies for violation of any provision of this section (or torneys designated by it, the implementation of this section; any regulation adopted pursuant thereto) to "(B) Section 6001(1) of title 18, United Fourth, provide consultation and re- the President, the Attorney General, the Con- States Code, is amended by Inserting imme- search services to aid agencies in carry- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 November. 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 10959 ing out the provisions of this section; and Fifth, determine what categories of information Federal agencies should be forbidden to collect. To fulfill these responsibilities the Commission would have rulemaking au- thority, the power to hold hearings, ad- minister oaths and receive evidence, in- cluding complaints of violations of pro- visions of the Act, and subpena power. Additionally the Commission could gain access to any agency information system and any identifiable information, so long as appropriate safeguards are main- tained to insure confidentiality. The Commission's powers are more limited than those provided in other earlier proposals. For example, its activi- ties are limited to concern with the pro- visions of this act and not any other free- dom of information legislation; and it will not be able to issue orders directing an agency to comply with the require- ments of the act. However, the Commis- sion will serve as a focus of attention for information. and privacy issues and will also be a watchdog over agencies which are responsible for implementing the pro- visions of the act. In my view, this Commission would be an essential element in the implementa- tion of privacy legislation. As the bill presently reads, it contains no provision for the establishment of an administra- tive body to oversee implementation of the legislation. I know some say we should take a "wait and see" attitude about a privacy commission. However, such a "wait and see" atti- tude is exactly the opposite of what is needed, because the major problems of implementation and the inevitable ad- justments in the ways agencies work are going to occur at the beginning of the program, not later on. At a minimum, this Commission should be established to oversee, monitor, and evaluate the newly legislated safeguard requirements and to offer information and assistance to Federal agencies In their efforts to comply with the act. As with any new program, there will be problems and these problems will occur in the beginning when the program is being set up. A central source of expertise and guidance and a coordinated approach 'to these problems should serve to reduce rather than increase administrative costs over the long run. Moreover, we would be more than naive if we failed to recognize that Indi- vidual Federal agencies cannot be ex- pected to take an aggressive role in en- forcing privacy legislation. Enforcement of the provisions of this bill will be sec- ondary to each agency's legislative man- date and will, of necessity, cause some inconvenience. I . believe it,is clear that making administration of privacy stand- ards every agency's responsibility really means making it no agency's responsi- bility. Only by providing a separate in- dependent agency to act as a focus for privacy activities and concerns and for Mr. Chairman, this Commission is very much iii the interest of getting legislation which affects the privacy of all Ameri- can citizens and specifically Federal em- ployees. I very much hope and, urge that the committee will adopt this amend- ment. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. (Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment with great regret, because the gentleman from Maryland was one of the most productive members of the subcommittee in helping draft this legis- lation. I do have to oppose the amendment, first, because it was considered in sub- committee and voted down. Second, it was considered in the full committee, and it was voted down. I can understand why the gentleman from Maryland asked unanimous con- sent to dispense with the reading of the amendment, because it is a long, three- page amendment. It is really a bill in and of itself. I do oppose this amendment to create a Federal privacy commission for a num- ber of important reasons. First, as I say, it was voted down at the markup session. It was overwhelm- ingly defeated. Second, it would add to the overall cost of the bill and create another level of bureaucracy between the citizen and the Federal agency and his right to his own personal records. Third, it could impede the operation of the various civil remedies afforded to individual Americans in the courts. Fourth, as President Ford stated in his remarks referred to earlier in the debate: I do not favor establishing a separate commission or board bureaucracy empowered to define privacy in its own terms and to second-guess citizens and agencies. It seems to me that it would be better to have an independent branch of the Government, that is, the judicial branch, oversee the Executive rather than an- other branch of the executive overseeing the Executive. Finally, if, in this instance, the courts do not do the excellent job they have done under the Freedom of Information Act, then we in Congress can always in the future create a privacy board. But if we create this commission it will surely develop its own constituency, and be extremely difficult to reverse if we have made a mistake. Instead, Mr. Chairman, this bill, pat- terned after the Freedom of Information Act, makes each agency directly respon- sible, and publicly and legally account- able for its faithful administration of this law. I am sure that the courts will do their duty. Vigorous congressional over- sight will also help keep the bureaucracy in line. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased with the statement made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. As the gentleman has stated, this creates an- other bureau to watch the watchers, one might say, and it also gives this com- mission some powers to make recom- mendations, rules, and regulations on the basis of their judgment rather than upon the basis of the language of the bill, which I think is adequate enough to give the citizens a right. It also would mean that undoubtedly people who were dissatisfied would go to the commission for relief, rather than to let their wishes be known to the courts, or if they did not want to go to the courts to `go to the committee, which will have continuing oversight over this. This is a committee which has had the interest to hold the hearings, and de- velop this bill after a great many con- sultations with people in the Department of Justice and other departments of the Government, and also with representa- tives of the administration. The Presi- dent even went out of his way in his mes- sage on October 9 to say specifically that we should not create a commission, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has mentioned. So, for that reason, as well as others, I think this ought to be voted down. in making that statement, may I add fur- ther that I certainly do not want to dis- parage the attitude or the industry of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr: GUDE), who has been a fine member of our com- mittee. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. (MI'. ERLENBORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) in opposing the amend- ment. I think the gentleman from Penn- sylvania has very well articulated the reasons the amendment should be op- posed. Therefore, I hope the amendment will be defeated. Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in favor of the amendment. (Ms. ABZUG asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend her re- marks.) Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I really am somewhat surprised to hear the gentle- men oppose this Commission, since this commission was modeled on a bill, H.R. 4960, which was introduced in February 1973, by Mr. HORTON, and cosponsored by Mr. ERLENBORN, and of course Mr. GLIDE, who is the author of the amendment, Mr. HANRAHAN, Mr. MCCLOSKEY, Mr. MOORHEAD, my distinguished chairman, Mr. PRITCHARD, Mr. REGULA, and Mr. THONE. It is basically the same Commis- sion that was proposed in the legislation originated by these gentleman, and I am finding it very difficult to figure out why they have changed their minds. coordinating the privacy programs of the ? I can assure the Members that our various Federal agencies can we be as- committee will fully exercise such au- sured to uniform effective enforcement thority. Therefore, I urge the defeat of of the rights guaranteed by this bill. the amendment. Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 II 10960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974 Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will If we want to make this bill signifl- sert "and agency notices published under the gentlewoman yield? cantly workable and effec-,ive, it deeds subsection (e) (2) of this section". Ms. ABZUG. Well, I guess so. just such a commission. Without it, there Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I discussed Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I will be confusion; there will be chaos. this amendment with both sides of the thank the gentlewoman for her gracious Each agency will act like a lord making aisle and if I understand it correctly it yielding to me. different regulations come about iii dif- is acceptable to them, so I will not be- The bill that the gentlewoman has re- ferent ways. This amendment would fur- labor the point. It merely requires that forred to, of course, was not a privacy nish a mechanism which could really the Office of the Federal Register shall commission because we did not have a help this act to become effective. annually compile and publish rules and privacy bill before us at the time, or a I heartily support this amendment. notices as opposed to rules as now pro- privacy act; that was a Freedom of In- Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, will the vided in the bill itself. formation Commission. gentlewoman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ms. ABZUG. I understand it was a Ms. ABZUG. I yield to the gentleman Chairman, If the gentleman will yield, we freedom of Information commission, and from Maryland. I have no objection to the amendment. the fact is that the same reasons that Mr. GLIDE. I thank the gentlewoman Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, if it was proposed there are the same rea- for yielding. the gentleman will yield, we have no sons it was proposed here. I believe we I want to thank the gentlewoman for objection. . should have a commission which covers her remarks. Certainly there is no Mem- Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, will both the Freedom of Information Act ber of Congress who is not aware of the the gentleman yield? and this Privacy Act. But this Commis- variation of the agencies of the Federal Mr. KOCH. I yield to the gentleman sion is being proposed by the gentleman Government as far as their interest in from California. from Maryland (Mr. GUDE) only for the the sensitivity of citizens' rights. We can (Mr. GOLDWATER asked and was privacy act, and there is good reasoi see some agencies going off in one direc- given permission to revise and extend for this. tion, unconcerned about privacy, and his remarks.) For example, the bill which Is before others complying with this :Dill. We need Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr. Chairman, I the other body, which is the counterpart this commission desperately, rise in support of the amendment pre- of our bill, provides for a privacy con- Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to sented by my colleague from New York mission. We are charting an important strike the requisite number of words, and (Mr. KoeH). A directory describing each course and, quite contrary to what m;7 I rise in support of the amendment of- personal information system is a vital colleagues have suggested, we have not fered by the gentleman from Ma 'land tool for the citizen. Without it, he could proposed any judicial or quasi-judicial ftuictions for this Commission (Mr. GunE). search fruitlessly for particular data We are not proposing a superagency The Federal Privacy Board was iricor- banks among the more than 850 In the with enforcement powers over other porated into the original' legislation Federal Government. We must require agencies. Quite to the contrary, what w.: which I first initiated, and I have always the Government to do more than end are doing is suggesting that there be a supported that Board. I recognize that secrecy about the existence of personal mechanism established which will help reasonable people can disagree on any information they keep. We must pull us in the implementation of this very im ? matter, and I recognize the disagreement away the cloak of mystery about how portant Privacy Act. One of the specific; here. Arguments have been given on both to get access to personal files or obtain needs will be to insure that in develop- sides, and while I support the Federal a copy by mail. ing rules and guidelines relating to per.. Privacy Board, I do not for a moment The legislation before us provides only sonal information systems, agencies will believe that those who are in oppos`aion for printing the existence and character have the benefit of some expertise and do so because they want to weaken the of these personal information systems in wad achieve some degree of uniformity. legislation. It is a philosophical matter the Federal Register? This would mean So it will really make it easier and as to whether or not we want to ir_tro- up to 900 different entries could be spread more economical to implement this legis?? duce what some have called another layer over a 12-month period. Asking individ- more . of Government. uals to wade through copies of the Fed- VVhat I should like to- point out to the eral Register is foolhardy. Simply cata- i find it very interesting that it was Members is that whether we call it a loging agencywide regulations will simi- shggested that we had a full hearing on Federal Privacy Board and give it inde- larly frustrate the citizen searching for this matter before our full committee. I1' pendent status, or pass the. legislation a specific system. I may refresh the recollection of my sub?? without the Federal Privacy Board in Mr. Chairman, the corrective language committee chairman, it is true that wt: accordance with the Gude amendment, proposed by Mr. KocH will give us the raised it inthe subcommittee. It is true we must have some kind of a privacy directory of Federal data banks we need it was defeated in the subcommittee. As board to regulate what will happen, and and I urge its adoption. a matter of fact, when I pointed out that the functions of the Federal Privacy The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on this was patterned after the bill of the. Board will be executed probably by OMB. the amendment offered by the gentleman members of the committee, they thought But they will not be able to execute from New York (Mr. KocH). they would like to reconsider it. But thi., them as well, as efficiently, as ably as a amendment was never considered in full. Federal Privacy Board given. the- powers The amendment was agreed to. committee, because I was interested in. that the Gude amendment would give to AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. ABZUG helping the bill get to the floor, and l it. I think it is a very important amend- Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an said we would bring these amendmentc ment. I am pleased that the Senate has amendment up on the floor instead. that provision in its bill. The Clerk read as follows: I am a little surprised, if I may have I would hope that ultimately what ver Amendment offered by Ms. ABzuG: Page 34, the attention of the Chairman. I was legislation is enacted by both Houses of line 12, strike out line 12 and all that fol-through ,line contradicting him, and I thought he lows a 34, line 1 14. should hear me contradict him. It would the this Congress will incorporate tips in Page 34, line r6, change "(4)" to ?(3) be impolite of me not to .call it to his Federal privacy hill. (Ms. ABZUG asked and was The CHAIRMAN. The question t`, on given per- attention. We certainly did not have ac- the amendment offered by the gentleman mission to revise and extend her re- tion on this in the full committee, but from Maryland (Mr. GUDE). marks.) only in the subcommittee. In the full Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I object committee, if the Chairman will recall, I The question was taken; and on a di- to this exemption for many of the same yielded to the desire of everyone to bring vision (demanded by Mr. Guns) there reasons that I objected to the general a bill to the floor, and we said we would were-ayes 9, noes 29. exemption for the CIA. Exemptions bring up amendments on the floor. So the amendment was rejected. should be defined in specific terms and As a matter of fact, I had the impres- AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. KOss in terms related to the societal interest Sion that this amendment would be fa- 14Tr. KOCH. Mr.' Chairman., I offer an or public policy to be served. vorably supported by the ranking mem- amendment. Yet, here again, we have defined the bers of the committee, as well as the The Clerk read as follows: exemption In terms of the function of . Chairman, when the gentleman from Amendment offered by Mr. Koca: Page 29, the agency rather than in terms of the Maryland (Mr. Guns) propos `o t. line a 1~ r What sensitiv Approvedr Release 1bdTff~/21 d -F 1 U ?27' 67V0 MA- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 1110961 data are we seeking to protect by allow- ing the Secret Service to exempt all its records from the requirements of the bill? The committee report tells us on page 19 that: Access to Secret Service intelligence files on certain individuals would vitiate a critical part of Secret Service work which was specif- ically recommended by the Warren Com- mission.... This is ridiculous. I read the Warren Commission report. What did it recom- mend? What it recommended was.that there be maintenance of more selective files in a more efficient and sophisticated manner, specifically, for example, by con- version to automatic data processing. I am not convinced that the main- tenance of some 84,000 files-which is the number of files maintained by the Secret Service, according to the Ervin Sub- committee on Constitution Rights report just issued-is any indication that the Secret Service is now doing a better job of "attempting to identify those persons who might prove a danger to the Presi- dent." The mere size of this group may indicate quite the contrary; but that also is not the point. Even assuming that these files must be maintained and perhaps there is justi- fication for maintaining some 300 or 400 files I fail to see the Connection between this exemption and the Warren Com- mission recommendations. How would access to one's -files Interfere with the mandate of the Secret Service? As a matter of fact, the Ervin Sub- committee on Constitutional Rights made a comment about this and they said that withholding permission for revision of files by individuals concerned would seem to serve no valid purpose. Surely the Secret Service has nothing to gain by maintaining erroneous information that can be corrected by individuals-and that is one of the prime rights under-this act. If we are trying to prevent acts of violence, how does disclosure of informa- tion defeat that goal? On argument could well be made that such disclosure would, in fact, act as a deterrent. So before voting on this amendment, it should be clear to all of you that the striking of the proposed exemption, will have absolutely no effect on the essential work of the Secret Service, which is the maintenance of accurate and selective files. It will have no effect on its func- tions. All I am saying is, if there are Secret Service files, as indeed there are, they have enough protection under the exemption provisions of this act. But if there are people's names listed galore, as we know there are in their files, because they said they disagreed with what some- body in Government said, they have a right to know what cranks are making statements against them. They have a right to correct their files. They have a right to know whether their privacy is being invaded. I think it is shocking that we should take a particular agency and give it a blanket exemption, when there is ample protection under the act. We are again sacrificing basic individual rights of privacy for some strange reason that is mumbo-jumbo. If one mentions the CIA, he cannot do a thing. If one mentions the Secret Serv- ice, he cannot do a thing. It is time we stopped this mindless mentioning of agencies and accomplish the real pur- poses of this bill. I urge support of my amendment. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would strike the specific exemption provision on page 34, lines 12 through 14, of the protective services of the President of the United States. This does not exempt particularly from the operation of the bill the main- tenance of these records. The sections that could be under regulations ex- empted are (c) (3), (d), (e) (1) (2) (G) and (H). Now, if I am interpreting this cor- rectly, and I think I am, this still would require an identification of the system under section (e) (1), lines 11 through 24. That would require that in the Federal Register the following things be pub- lished: "(A) the name and location of the system; "(B) the. categories of individuals on whom records are maintained in the system; "(C) the categories of records maintained in the system; "(D) each routine purpose for which the records contained in the system are used or intended to be used, including the cate- gories of users of the records for each such purpose; "(E) the policies and practices of the agency regarding storage, retrievability, ac- cess controls, retention, and disposal of the records; "(F) the title and business address of the agency official who is responsible for the sys- tem of records; That means that many of the provi- sions of the act, and I think also includ- ing the prohibition of transfer to other agencies, except for those purposes that have been identified as routine uses, will be applicable to these records. I think the only real harm we could envision would be transfer of this infor- mation to some other agency where the person would be harmed in his applica- tion for employment'or some other right or privilege under the laws of the United. States. Since these other provisions are still applicable to the system, I think that the specific exemption here providing that access not be made available to the per- sons who are named in the system is a valid exemption, one that is necessary. It falls under the same general category of law enforcement where we already have an exemption. Therefore, I think the amendment should be defeated. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. (Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to re- vise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, there is much of the criticism of the Secret Service by the gentlewoman from New York that is correct. The list of the protective service by the Secret Service has gotten too broad. It does con- tain names of people who are not a real threat, but merely dissidents exercis- ing the American right of dissent. But, on the other hand, the list also contains the names of people who are a real threat, and they contain informers and information about the techniques of protection. We have to recognize that in this day and age, unfortunately, assas- sination, holding hostage and killing has become too prevalent so that an amend- ment which completely eliminates the secrecy of the legitimate protective right of the Secret Service just goes too far. As I have discussed with the gentle- man from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) and as we have said to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. ABZUC), we intend to hold a hearing and hold the feet of the Secret Service to the fire to weed out and make this list really something small so that they can be effective. If it is a broad list, it really does not do the job we want to have done to protect not only the President, but other officers of the Government and visiting dignitaries. It seems to me that the amendment goes too far. We cannot be sure they would be exempt under other exemp- tions, and I think the correct way to proceed, as I have promised, is to hold intensive, hard-hitting hearings next year. I would ask the gentleman from Illi- nois if, as he told me in private, he would cooperate fully in this endeavor. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman, and I hope we will hold those hearings early in the next Congress. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I urge the defeat of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. BRADEMAS). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. ABZUC). The amendment was rejected. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, before the Committee rises, I wish to summarize briefly the present situation on the privacy bill. On October 9, President Ford issued a state- ment, which I include at this point in the RECORD, endorsing H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974: STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Legislation to protect personal privacy is making significant progress in the Congress. I am delighted about the prospect of House and Senate action at this session. Renewed national efforts to strengthen protections for personal privacy should begin in Washington. We should start by enacting uniform fair information practices for the agencies of the Federal government. This will give us an invaluable operating experience as we continue to examine, and recommend needed actions at the State and local level and in the private sector. The immediate objective should be to give every citizen the right to inspect, challenge and correct, if necessary, information about him contained in Federal agency records and to assure him a remedy for illegal invasions of privacy by Federal agencies accountable for safeguarding his records. In legislating, Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 1 110962 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - MOUSE November 21, 1974 the right of privacy, of course, must be bal- anced against equally valid public interests in freedom of information, national defense, foreign policy, law enforcement, and in a high quality and trustworthy Federal work force. Immediately after.I assumed the chair- manship, as Vice President, of the Cabinet- level Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy, I asked the Office of Man- agement and Budget to work jointly with the Committee staff, the Executive agencies slid the Congress to work out realistic and effec- tive legislation at the earliest possible time. Substantial progress has been made by both the Senate and the House on bills extending personal privacy protections to tens of mil- lions of records containing personal informa- tioi in hundreds of Federal data banks. H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974, has my enthusiastic support, except for the pro- visions which allow unlimited individual ac- cess to records vital to determining eligibility and promotion in the Federal service and access to classified information. I strongly urge floor amendments permitting workable exemptions to accommodate these situations. The Senate, also, has made substantial progress in writing privacy legislation. S. 3418 paruilels the House bill in many respects, but I believe major technical and substantive amendments are needed to perfect the bill. I do not favor establishing a separate Com- mis~ion or Board bureaucracy empowered to define privacy in its own terms and to sec- ond guess citizens and agencies. I vastly pre- fer an approach which makes Federal agencies fully and publicly accountable for legally mandated privacy protections and which gives the individual adequate legal remedies to enforce what he deems to be his own best privacy interests. The adequate protection of personal pri- vacy requires legislative and executive initia- tivee; in areas not addressed by H.R. 16373 and S. 3418. I have asked Executive branch officials to continue to work with the Con- gress; to assure swift action on measures to strengthen privacy and confidentiality in in- come tax records, criminal justice records and other areas identified as needed privacy ini- tiatives by the Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy. He made two points on which this en- dorsement was conditioned- First, adoption of what has been em- bodied in the Erlenborn amendment; and Second, defeat of any amendment call- ing for creation of a so-called Privacy Commission: Mr. Chairman, both of these condi- tions have been met. While I personally opposed the Erlenborn amendment and voted against it, it was nevertheless adopted yesterday on a 192 to 177 re- corded vote. The amendment to estab- lish a Privacy Commission, offered by the .gentleman from Maryland (Mr. GUDE) earlier today, was defeated. Mx. Chairman, this bill, as now be- fore us, therefore meets the specific cri- teria, set forth for privacy legislation by President Ford last month. I urge Mem- bers on both sides of the aisle to give it the same enthusiastic support as that expressed by President Ford and by many others from all parts of the politi- cal spectrum. We do not claim that will "for a routine use described in any The words "head of the agency" de- rule * * *." serve elaboration. The committee recog- It would be an impossible legislative nizes that the heads of Government de- task to attempt to set forth all of the partments cannot be expected to per- appropriate uses of Federal records about sonally request each of the thousands of an identifiable individual. It is not the records which may properly be dissemi- purpose of the bill to restrict such ordi- nated under this subsection. If that were nary uses of the information. Rather required, such officials could not perform than. attempting to specify each proper their other duties, and in many cases, use of such records, the bill gives each they could not even perform record re- Federal agency the authority to set forth questing duties alone. Such duties may the "routine" purposes for which the be delegated, like other duties, to other records are to be used under the gud- officials, when absolutely necessary but ante contained in the committee's re- never below a section chief, and this is port. what is contemplated by subsection (b) In this sense "routine use" does not (6). The Attorney General, for example, encompass merely the common and will have the power to delegate the au- ordinary uses to which records are put, thority to request the.thousands of rec- but also includes all of the proper and ords which may be required for the op- necessary uses even if any such use oc- eration of the Justice Department under curs infrequently. For example, individ- this section. ual income tax return records are rou- Mr. Chairman, "agency" is given the tinely used for auditing the determina- meaning which it carries elsewhere in tion of the amount of tax due and for the Freedom of Information Act, 5 assistance in collection of such tax by United States Code, section 551Q), as civil proceedings. They are less often amended by H.R. 12471 of this Congress, used, however, for referral to the Justice section 552(c), on which Congress has Department for possible criminal pro,e- acted to override the veto. The present cution in the event of possible fraud or bill is intended to give "agency" its tax evasion, though no one would argue broadest statutory meaning. This will that such referral is improper; thus the permit employees and officers of the "routine" use of such records and sub- agency which maintains the records to section (b) (2) might be appropriately have access to such records if they have construed to permit the Internal Revenue a need for them in the performance of Service to list in its regulations such a their duties. For example, within the Jus- referral as a "routine use." tice Department-which is an agency un- Again, if a Federal agency such as the der the bill-transfer between divisions of Housing and Urban Development De- the Department, the U.S. Attorneys' of- partment or the Small Business Admin- fives, the Parole Board, and the Federal istration were to discover a possible Bureau of Investigation would be on a fraudulent scheme in one of its programs need-for-the-record basis. Transfer out- it could "routinely," as it does today, re- side the Justice Department to other fer the relevant records to the Depart- agencies would be more specifically reg- ment of Justice, or its investigatory arsn, ulated. Thus, transfer of information be- the FBI. tween the FBI and the Criminal Division Mr. Chairman, the bill obviously is not intended to prohibit such necessary ex- changes of information, .providing its rulemaking procedures are followed. It is intended to prohibit gratuitous, ad hoc, disseminations for private or otherwise irregular purposes. To this end it would be sufficient if an agency publishes as a "routine use" of its information gathered in any program that an apparent viola- tion of the law will be referred to the appropriate law enforcement authorities for investigation and possible criminal prosecution, civil court action, or regula- tory order. It should be noted that the "routine use" exception is in addition to the ex- ception provided for dissemination for law enforcement activity under subsec- tion (b) (6) of the bill. Thus a requested record may be disseminated under either the "routine use" exception, the "law enforcement" exception, or both sections, Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, at depending on the circumstances of the this time I would like to pay -tribute to case. the chairman of the subcommittee and Mr. Chairman, section 552a(b) (6) au- the ranking minority member of that thorizes dissemination of records con- subcommittee, and all of the members tamed in a system ofrecords "to anath- of the subcommitt h t ee w o par icipated in solve all of the privacy problems which agency or to an instrumentality of any this very long and laborious and impor- abound in modern society. It is not a governmental jurisdiction within or uli- tant bill. It is a complicated bill and perfect bill: But it is a start and an Im- der the control of the United States for treads new ground, as the subcommittee portant first step in the right direction. I law enforcement activity if the activ- chairman has said. It may not be as com- Mr. Chairman, section 522a(b) (2) of ity is authorized by law, and if the head plete as some would want, and it may the bill allows an agency to disclose of the agency or instrumentality h.,,s have some things in it others do not records contained in a system of records made a written request * * *." want. of the Justice Department for official purposes would not require additional showing or authority, in contrast to transfer of such information from the FBI to the Labor Department. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not designed to interfere with access to information by the courts. Thus a court is not defined as an "agency" nor is it intended to be a "person" for purposes of this legisla- tion. Therefore, the necessary orderly flow of information from Government agencies to the courts will not,be im- peded. The Congress is treated similarly to the courts; it is also excluded from the definition of "agency." Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE H 19 i3 It is something I think that the House need for the protections embodied within Makes unlawful possession of or dis- can get behind, and I do know the deep it and of the growing awareness among closure of individually Identifiable in- interest of the gentleman from Penn- legislators of that need. formation by a government employee sylvania and the gentleman from Illinois THE PRIVACY ACT OP 1974 punishable by a fine not to exceed $5,000. in this subject matter, as well as the The bill before us, the Privacy Act of Provides that any person who requests other Members of the committee, and I 1974, injects a new sensitivity to individ- or obtains such a record by false pre- know that.their oversight on this will be ual rights into all the recordkeeping tenses is subject to a fine of not to exceed an active and living oversight in the days practices of the Federal Government. $5,000. to come. You cannot grow a full-grown These fair information practices assert And, sets forth statutory provisions re- oak by one act, planting. Every piece of that there should be no recordkeeping lating to archival records; requires an- legislation that I have worked on in the system whose existence is a secret; that nual report from President on agency 32 years I have been here has had to be personal information in all files should uses of exemptions; and provides that supervised by the committee or attended be accurate, complete, relevant and up- the law would become effective 180 days to and changed from time to time, with to-date; that individuals should be able following enactment. changing conditions, or with information to review and correct almost all Federal on the whole, these are the recom- that comes in that indicates changes are files about themselves; that information mendations arising from the initial pro- necessary. I want to commend both of gathered for one purpose should not be tection of privacy bill introduced this the gentlemen and members of the com- used for another without the individual's Congress, the Goldwater-Koch-Kemp mittee for work they have done on this. consent; and, that the security and con- bill, particularly as those recommenda- I believe it is a good bill and I intend to fidentiality of personal files should be tions relate to access, inspection, copying, vote for it. assured. supplementation, and correction of rec- Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I The adoption of these rules as Federal ords. thank the gentleman for his kind re- policy is of historic dimensions. The few problems associated with the marks. In amending title 5, Government or- bill reported by the Committee are sus- (Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania ganization and employees, of the United ceptible, I believe, to remedy through the and was given permission to revise and State Code, to reflect these rules, the amendment process this afternoon. extend his remarks.) following specific requirements would PRIVACY OF MEDICAL RECORDS AND MEDICAL Mr. KEMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in be given force of law: INFORMATION support of the bill H.R. 16373, the pro- Permits an individual to have access Subsection (f) (3) of the proposed sec= posed Privacy Act of 1974, and the prin- to records containing personal informa- tion 552a of title 5 would require that ciples embodied within it. The American tion on him kept by Federal agencies, for each agency maintaining a system of people deserve the type of protection of purposes of inspection, copying, supple- records to promulgate rules to establish their privacy provided by this. legislation mentation and correction-with certain procedures for the disclosure to an in- and I ask that it be passed overwhelm- exceptions, including law enforcement dividual upon his request of his record ingly. and national security records. or information pertaining to him, in- This is not a new subject area to me. Allows an individual to control the cluding special procedure, if deemed nee- During this Congress I have sponsored transfer of personal information about essary, for the disclosure to .an individ- or cosponsored 16 separate measures re- him from one Federal agency to another ual of medical records, including psy- lating to the right of privacy. These for nonroutine purposes by requiring his chological records, pertaining to him. measures would tighten policy and pro- prior written consent. The committee's report clarifies this cedures in such practices as the ex- Makes known to the American public section with the following language: change of information about individuals the existence and - characteristics of all If, in the judgment of the agency, the between Government agencies and Gov- personal information systems kept by transmission of medical information directly p individual, ernment and industry; the use of social every Federal agency. to a requesting individual could have an ad-upon security numbers and other coding sys- Prohibits the maintenance by Federal which the agency verse effect mu s the o- promulgates such gatees should pro- tems as universal identifiers; the pro- agencies of any records concerning the vide means whereby an individual who would cedures for approval of wiretaps and political and religious beliefs of individ- be adversely affected by receipt of such data other forms of electronic surveillance; uals unless expressly authorized by law may be apprised of it in a manner which the inspection of confidential Federal in- or an individual himself. would not cause such adverse effects. An ox- come tax returns by unauthorized par- Limits availability of records contain- ample of a rule serving such purpose would ties; the scope of the exclusions from ing personal information to agency em- be transmission to a doctor named by the the Freedom of Information Act; and, ployees who need access to them in the requesting individual. various forms of surveillance. performance of their duties. As one who is particularly concerned As a member of the Task Force on Pri- Requires agencies to keep an accurate with the right of privacy as it pertains to vacy, the extensive final report of which accounting of transfers of personal rec- medical records and information-those was released several months ago, I had ords to other agencies and outsiders and records and that information held by the an opportunity to participate in the for- make such an accounting available, with Federal agencies -as well as those held mulation of specific recommendations on certain exceptions to the individual upon within the States-I am encouraged by what actions the Congress ought to take his request. the direction of the committee's action to further assure the adequacy of law Requires agencies, through formal in this regard. But, more should be done. as to the right of privacy. rulemaking, to list and describe routine It is for that reason that I Introduced, And, as a member of the Committee transfers and establish procedures for on October 11, the bill, H.R. 17323, to es- on Education and Labor, I was deeply access by individuals to records about tablish a Federal Medical Privacy Board involved in-and supportive of-the en- themselves, amending records, handling with responsibility for promoting pro- actment of the recent amendment to the medical information, and charging fees tection of the right of privacy as it re- Elementary and Secondary Education for copies of documents. lates to personal medical information. Act, an amendment tightening pro- Makes it incumbent upon an agency to That bill would establish a compre- cedures for disclosure of information keep records with such accuracy, rele- hensive, mandatory program of protec- from student records maintained by vance, timeliness and completeness as is tion of the confidentiality of medical rec- school systems. Offered in the Senate by reasonably necessary to assure fairness ords held by Federal agencies and would the distinguished and learned Senator to the individual in making determina- establish a financial assistance program from New York, JAMES L. BUCKLEY, this tions about him. to States which develop adequate :pro- amendment, known as the Family Edu- Provides a civil remedy by individuals grams for the protection of non-Federal cational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, who have been denied access to their records, held by Government or within is now law and. became effective yester- records or whose records have been kept the private sector, in their respective day. or used in contravention of the require- States. I regard the consideration of this bill ments of the act. The complainant may This subject is too serious-and poten- today-the first comprehensive privacy recover actual damages and costs and tially too far-reaching-to be dealt with 'bill to be reported by a House commit- attorney fees if the agency's infraction as just one of many items to be covered tee-as an indication both of the actual was willful, arbitrary, or capricious. by a more comprehensive act. I support, Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 1110964 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-DOUSE November 21, 19741 as I indicated earlier, the provision in formation contained in them should number of practices which invaded the the bill now before us as to medical rec- ceive the highest commendation. Privacy of American citizens. By regu- ords, but I do not feel It is adequate. H.R. 16373 is a major step In rig- lating the manner in which Government Neither do I feel that amendments to ulating individual files maintained by the agencies conduct their business, as this that section which will be offered this Government. It would give individuals bill does, we take another important step afternoon-although I may support them access to their files, allow copies to be In protecting the "sacred precincts of pri- because they do enhance this section of made, and permit corrections to be in- vate and domestic life." H.R. 16373 does the bill-can adequately deal with this serted. The bill restricts access to rec- not guarantee that abuses will no longer issue. Only the enactment of a compre- ords by agency employees on a "need-to- occur, but it does place checks upon those hensive measure, like that contained In know" basis. Federal workers who could who would exercisepower improperly. I the proposed Medical Records Privacy not demonstrate that threshold require- urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Act, is required. ment would be prohibited from exam- this measure. H.R. 17323 was introduced for the ex- ining individual records. The bill world Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, the bill pressed purpose of soliciting the views also severely limit the transfer of files that was brought before us today was of those to be affected by it-patients, from one agency to another. Finally it a landmark piece of legislation. It was hospital administrators, doctors, associa- would require the agency to record the an essential first step toward the pro- tions, insurance companies, attorneys, et names of all persons who are given tection of every American's right to cetera. Thosecomments are now coming access to a person's file. privacy. in, and they will add Immeasurably in The bill also provides civil remedies Unfortunately, the bill on which we are the preparation of a perfected bill before and criminal penalties for violations of about to vote Is no longer such a land- the end of the session. its commands. A person who has been mark. We have reneged on our promise Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, this- bill aggrieved by agency action may bring to the American people that we would and the right to privacy have been long - suit in the United States District Court pass legislation to protect the right of aborning. Over 80 years ago, Samuel to correct any unlawful practice. Dur- every individual to privacy. Warren and Louis Brandeis published ing the course of that litigation, the dis- We have exempted Federal employees their seminal article on "The Right to trict judge is authorized by section (g) from the protections offered In the pro- Privacy" in the Harvard Law Review. In (2) (A) to review de novo any determines- visions of this bill, and we have allowed exalting the "right to be let alone," they tion by an agency, for example, that a those Federal agencies afraid to conduct identified the need to Insulate from out- record should be withheld. In deciding their business in the light of day to con- side intrusion the "sacred precincts of the case, the judge may order an in tinue to work under acloak of secrecy. private and domestic life." camera inspection to make sure that the I am voting for this bill, but I do so Warren and Brandeis predicted that agency, in refusing to disclose a record, with the sincere hope that when we re- the "question whether our law will rec- has complied with the law, turn in January as -,the 94th Congress ognize and protect the right to privacy These provisions for de nova review and we will keep the promise that we have must soon come before our courts for in camera inspection of dociunents are made. I, for one, will continue to fight for consideration." The expectation that the extremely important. Because of then, strong legislation in the area of privacy. judiciary would secure these rights has the agency cannot hide behind an execu- We must establish through legislation not been fully realized. To be sure, the tive classification which seek; to place an agency with direct oversight of courts have ventured into the area to the file beyond the reach of the citizen privacy statutes and regulations. some degree. But the judicial attempts and the Federal court. Under this section, We must reconsider the exceptions to to protect privacy have been slow and the judge may require any agency, in- this law, and we must severely narrow uneven. They have not been adequate to eluding the Central Intelligence Agency those-exemptions. - meet. the concerns of contemporary so- and law enforcement authorities, to pro- I deeply regret that I cannot offer my ciety, partly because technology has out- duce the records in question for his ex- wholehearted support for this legisla- distanced the common law and partly amination to determine If they w -e tion, legislation which in its former because Government has out-distanced properly within the scope of the- claimed strong and comprehensive state sup- the common man. exemption, portedevery step of the way since coming The present need for legislation is It ay be, for example, that in execu- to Congress. tive agency might seek to conceal some Mr. KOCH, Mr. Chairman, the first quite plain. Through the unceasing ef- of its records by transferring them to the privacy legislation on the subject mat- forts of Chairman MOORHEAD, Congress- CIA for safekeeping. If those files were ter covered by the legislation on the floor man KocH, and others, the Privacy Act then sought by an individual, the CIA today was thebill H.R. 7214 which I in- of 1974 is now before us. As a cosponsor would undoubtedly resist turning them troduced on February 19, 1969. There is of earlier versions of this bill and a par- aver-to that person. If a suit were then no legislation in which I have been in- ticipant in the drafting process through instituted to compel disclosure, the judge volved here in the Congress that has its principal sponsors, I have a particu- could order the records produced for his larly keen interest in it. given me greater satisfaction and a sense in camera inspection to determine of accomplishment than this. The bill H.R. 16373 deals with a subject in whether they were in fact CIA records before us does not contain all of the which I have regularly expressed con- exempted by the statute. In essence th=s safeguards that I would like to see in pri- cern over the years. In the first days of provision achieves the same result as H.P. vacy legislation. I have some differences my service In the House, I spoke to this (2471, the Freedom of Information Ac-t with respect to some provisions of the body on the pernicious effects generated amendments, which we recently passed. bill, but I do believe the bill to be one by the record-keeping activities of the -En that bill, we included a similar section well worth supporting. Internal Security Committee. That prat- -;o overturn the decision of the Supreme The basic weaknesses as I see them -tice and other recordations about the Court in Environmental Protection have to do with several areas. The bill is lives of our citizens continue on a daily Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973). Sec- deficient in the area covering law en- basis by the agencies of the U.S. Gov- Lion (g) (2) (A) of this bill has an identi- forcement agencies. However,-that comes ernment. Personal data which find their cal thrust, about because the House Judiciary Com- way into Government files often find There are, to be sure, provisions in this mittee under the subcommittee chair- their way out and into the hands of bill which should give us pause. The gen- manship of DON EDWARDS is considering others. eral exemptions for the Central Intel- comprehensive legislation covering the The Privacy Act of 1974 seeks to arrest ]igence Agency and for law enforcement entire criminal justice field. The Senate and control the - dissemination of in- authorities are unwarranted and unnec- provision of the comparable bill which formation already collected and stored. essary. There is no provision for the es- covers this particular area is preferable It does not purport to regulate the flow tablishment of a Federal privacy board and yet that too is deficient when com- of data into Government files nor does which was in the predecessor bill, H.R, pared to the needs. Until the Justice De- it seek to affect the storage of such ma- 667. The 180-day delay in the effective partment can come forward with a pro- terial. In this analytical sense it is a date of this bill could reasonably be cut posal that the Congress can agee upon, limited measure. But its importance in half. But even so, it is still a goof] criminal justice systems should be in- cannot be overstated. Providing access proposal. eluded in this privacy legislation. It for persons to examine their files and The recent inquiry by this House into would be completely unjustifiable to ex- restricting the distribution of the in- the office of the President disclosed .c em cr' 1 i stems. Privacy Approved For Release 2002/01/28: CIA-RDP76M00527pR00ff6819'666b Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 H 10965 November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE legislation must affect law enforcement to the public. This language fails to re- Ing the privacy impact of systems will be records. What is significant is section quire the publication of the character taken care of. The National Bureau of 3(e) (4) of the bill which applies to of each personal register with these Standards should be consulted with and agency requirements which states that rules. Therefore the public would not give an assessment of the security safe- no agency, including law enforcement have any indication as to the different guards. agencies, is permitted to maintain a rec- information systems to which they refer. My office has consulted with NBS on ord concerning the political or religious I understand there have been objet- this issue. NBS has the authority to issue beliefs or activities of any individual un- tions to an annual catalog of data banks standards and under the Brooks legisla- less expressly authorized by statute or by by persons who claim it would be an un- tion, NBS with OMB does have input in the individual himself. wieldy series of volumes. If a separate regards to the procurement of data sys- The exemptions section should be lim- publication for agency rules were pro- tems. However, at the present time it is ited only to those files having to do with duced there would be two extensive doc- totally permissive for agencies to come to national defense and foreign policy, in- uments. Convenience, uniformity, and the NBS for technical safeguard assess- formation held pursuant to an active likelihood of the general public's use of ment before the agency launches new criminal investigation, and records this information would be impaired. The personal information systems. In fact, maintained for statistical purposes not cost might be prohibitive. As far as I NBS has yet to be called in on one new identifiable to an individual. I regret that know the so-called unworkability fac- start. This was particularly dramatic in the amendment to allow court assess- tor, duplication, and cost are the only the case of the FEDNET plan, advanced ment of punitive damages failed in a 'OMB reasons for opposing a directory. by GSA. We should specify that NBS vote, and I also regret that the Erlenborn In an effort to learn the true operating should perform this assessment function, amendment to withhold from an indi- situation, the mechanics of preparing particularly in the area of security safe- vidual the source of confidential infor- and publishing such directories, I have guards. mation in his file carried. consulted with officials of the Federal Doug Metz, deputy executive director There is one other area which is in- Register. Strangely, mine was the first of the Domestic Council Committee on eluded in the Senate bill and that is the inquiry from Congress about how to sort the Right of Privacy has said that one establishment of a Federal Privacy Com- out these questions and see that H.R. of the task force recommendations made mission which I hope will ultimately be 16373 is written in a prudent, clear form. to the committee has been that the Fed- incorporated in the final bill. Key to the These discussions provided me with sev- eral Government establish policies and concept of enforcing this privacy legis- eral important conclusions; procedures to insure the establishment lation, insuring the individual's privacy First. An annual directory is not nec- of privacy safeguards in new telecom- and the Federal agencies' carrying out of essary once the basic catalog is pub- munications and data processing systems this function, is a Privacy Commission. lished, after that annual updatings can or substantial modifications to existing Rather than fight the. battle at this be printed to list changes in registers or systems. OMB is now clearing with Gov- note totally new ones. ernment agencies interim guidelines for point, I would prefer that the lo sl s Second. The language providing for such privacy screening. sins tofore a with its imherfectin, is agency notice requires so much detail on Agencies should report on the security sent there and voted out before onference with the before, the procedures for access and notification, safeguards to the Congress and OMB perfected 93d However, since policies for storage and practices over prior to ththe is way bwe will the situa- 3d Congress adjjo ourns. sion amendment to establish a Commis- such things as disposal of records, that tion this we will being contem- must was voted down today, the House this overlaps significantly into the rule- plated and the Congress not knowing be prepared to insure that the Com- making area. It would be impractical to has reached the owing mission's functions are absorbed in the separate the notice requirement and until late the stage. al has moment there is bill. The functions of the Com- agency rules requirement, therefore they ur lith po the piopes way in the mom stages there s mission are: should be printed in the Federal Register no ontemplate sfor Congress to ba e First, a directory of information sys- concurrently and published in a directory notifiedc I see system s reason why a similar to bterns; in similar form. report as the one now formally required Second, management of systems, over- Third. For the original implementation d sight and privacy impact statements; of reporting requirements, it would be by the Congre agencies sf. for OMB Without such cannot be bdv funurneished he Third, research on the scope and effect wise to involve the Administrative Com- in gre Without such ad Congress ro- of the systems; and mittee on Federal Reports composed of tice, wibe lefthe preapproval t to search the Federal ogress Fourth, an ombudsman role for the the Archivist, Attorney General, Public and may left be to t relegated the ederal Regi o r individual. Printer with the Director of the Federal and or modified systems, rather than to Basic to my 5-year effort to establish Register serving as its secretary. This stop or modified privacy standards for all Federal agen- committee could prepare a model notice Contained oredirect athe ll measures I have in- cies has been the requirement that a di- and rule formats for' the agencies thus rectory of data banks be published and helping to assure uniformity and con- troduced tooprote 4 individual e re cords available to the general public. Provi- sistency in presentation. Experience with and sions to this effect were part of the bi- the reports requirement of the Freedom monilis annhea publoc rd ettoan egg. H.R. partisan measure which Congressman of Information Act proves that a mean- 16373 contains r pagency and GOLDWATER and I introduced in April. ingful public document will need expert 16373 contains no privacy va adrift agency and Most regrettably, H.R. 16373 as reported advice by the officials represented on this nleaves eed assistance dlargely or' to f if t in- publication contains no. specific provision for the committee. need to exercise access other rights publication of a directory of the exist- Mr. Chairman, I offered an amendment ability their personal recordo. The Senate ence and character of personal systems so an efficient and economical Directory bill does have a board s. sing ate of records in the executive branch. This of Federal Data Banks will be required in bill have I favor. can be remedied by minor changes to the the Privacy Act of 1974. We cannot suc-function which agency notice and rule requirements sec- teed in protecting privacy with a code of I have looked into the Office of Con- tions of the bill. fair information practices which does sumer Affairs possible role as an "om- The present agency requirements sim- not call for a publically available direc- budsma?n" for privacy complaints as Mrs. ply call for the annual noticing in the tory of personal registers. Knauer's office serves in the consumer Federal Register of the existence . and I do feel that any agency establishing protection area. Aside from good work in character of the systems of personal rec- a new data system or substantially developing and circulating a code of fair ords together with important particulars changing an existing one should obtain information practices for retail stores about the location, categories of infor- from the National Bureau of Standards and other businesses, the Office of CQn- mation, purpose, policies, practices ad- an assessment of that system's security sumer Affairs is not well equipped with dress and procedures for notification and safeguards and that the agency should statutory authority, technical compe- access. Under agency rules, all rules report on this to the Office of Manage- tence, or access to operating agencies. promulgated to carry out the require- ment and Budget and the Congress. This vacuum must be filled and I am ments of the act, in compliance with With no Privacy Commission in the hopeful that a Privacy Commission hav- section 553 of title 5 on rulemaking and House bill, we must be concerned with ing these duties will prevail. The legis- public comment, must be published in how the function that the Commission lative history must indicate a public re- the Federal Register and made available would have performed by way of assess- pository for assistance and complaints Approved For Release 2002/01/28 CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 1111096-6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE November 21, 1974 on compliance with data protection agency, except on an individual's request The bill before us-H.R. 16373-is standards. and when permitted by this act in some necessary to reduce that threat. It estab- Congress has been plagued by lack of specified cases; lishes safeguards to help prevent the mis- information on problems involving tech- Fifth, requires an agency to inform in use of personal information by the nology and practicesof State and private individual of his or her rights when Federal Government. personal records systems. No research di- supplying Information to the agency; Specifically, H.R. 16373 will in most mension is called for in the House bill. Sixth, requires an agency to publi;h cases allow an individual to see and cor- In the Senate measure a well-formulated notice in the Federal Register of the ex- rect the personal information that is research program is provided. We are istence. of any system of records held by kept on him by Federal agencies. It will told that the Domestic Council Commit- that agency so that no system will be also require an individual's prior written tee on Right to Privacy is now doing secret; consent before personal information can much of this job. That is fine. But Con- Seventh, 1equires an agency to set be transferred from one Federal agency gress and the American people cannot rules for access to records, describe the to another. Furthermore, agencies must be expected to rely on a temporary com- routine uses of the records, establir;h make public the existence of all personal mittee operating under the nonstatutory procedures whereby an individual can information systems. These and other Domestic Council, at the behest of the amend his record, keep an accurate a^- safeguards provided for in this bill will sitting President, in the purview of reg- counting of disclosures, and keep records help reassure the right of personal pri- ular.y exercised executive privilege. in a timely, relevant and accurate man- vacy for our Nation's citizens. While I have- a- high regard for the com- net; I am proud to support this legislation mittee, the fact is they cannot give Con- Eighth, prohibits an agency from and I urge its- adoption. gress assurance that the reports and maintaining a record of political and Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, background documents related to their religious beliefs or activities on an in- privacy is a right long cherished by several studies will be made public. dividual, unless expressly authorized by Americans and inherent in the Consti- Mr. Chairman, I bring up these- deft- statute or by the Individual himself; tution and the Bill of Rights. But, as ciencies, along with the need for clear Ninth, provides for certain exemptions events in the last decade have shown, language authorizing a directory, as con- for CIA files, law enforcement files, se- there is a tremendous need to enact leg- structive suggestions for consideration. cret service files and statistical reportin islation that will guarantee the ability of I am particularly proud of the fact systems; and all American citizens to determine who that this legislation moved ahead in the Tenth, provides for a civil remedy for will have knowledge of their own private year of the 93d Congress because it re- an individual who has been denied acce:;.$ lives. H.R. 16373, the privacy bill of ceived across the board political support. to his records, or whose record has been 1974, is an enormous step forward to- it became known initially as the Koch- maintained and used in contravention of ward meeting this need and I am proud and Goldwater privacy bill. And, while - this act and an adverse effect results. to be a cosponsor of this legislation. - it might have seemed strange to some Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I Approximately three out of every four that Kocn and GOLDWATER could join to- nave long had an intense interest in the Americans have part of their fife histo- gether on some piece of legislation, those issue of privacy. In 1962 I introduced a ries recorded in computer data banks who understand the basic premise of bill to curb the brainpicking tests being throughout the country, 7,000 of which conservative and liberal ideology appre- given to our Nation's school children. All are operated by the Federal Government. ciate the fact that on the issue of pri- too often these psychological tests cor - Yet no Federal law currently exists vacy there is a commonality of interest atituted an outright invasion of the which permits citizens access to those and concern. The bill before us is the :2ivacy of the home and family life. files in order that they may insure the work product of a great number of per- T'herefore my bill specifically required accuracy of the personal information sons on the committee. that parents be apprised of tests of a that Is contained on them. Neither can However, I again want to take special nonacademic nature which are admin- an individual control the transfer of per- note of the enormous support and efforts stered to their children. sonal information from agency to agency that subcommittee Chairman WILLIAM More reeehtly, I helped enact the or even to people totally outside the MOOPMAD and Congresswoman BELLA Buckley-Ashbrook amendment to the Federal Government. A.BzUO; gave in shaping the legislation, on Elementary and Secondary Education The implications of this lack of regu- the Democratic side in committee, as did Amendments of 1974. This amendment lation are terrifying. The specter of 1984 all the members on that committee. And denies funds to school districts that do has been raised so often that for some, I also especially want to thank the rank- not restrict outside access to student it seems only a scare tactic. But the case ing minority -members, JOHN ERLENBORN records. It also gives parents and students of a 16-year-old schoolgirl proves other- and FRANK HORTON who worked so dill- in higher education the right of access wise. Because of a- misaddressed letter gently to bring this legislation to the in their files. that was sent to an organization on floor. The bipartisanship shown was re- The threat of government :intrusion which the FBI had placed a mail-cover, flected in the Government Operations into the lives and privacy of individuals Lori Paton became the subject of an FBI Committee vote when it passed the bill has particularly grown during the past investigation. Fortunately, she was able out of committee 39 to 0. I also want to 4:0 years. During that time liberal poli- to obtain destruction of her file through give special thanks to Senators ERVIN, ticians have consistently promoted a court action, but others may not be so PERcv, BAYH, MUSKIE, and RIBICOFF for large Federal Government as the solu-- lucky. , their efforts on the Senate side, which tion to all of our Nation's problems. It H.R. 16373 is a crucial start toward side is today considering companion leg- is somewhat ironic that liberals are nov., guaranteeing that other Americans will islation. discovering that big government can also not undergo experiences similar to those I shall now list the major areas that create problems. Of Lori Paton. The provisions of H.R. the bill covers: A prime example of this is the area 16373 provide basic safeguards of per- First, it permits an individual to gain cf individual privacy. As the Federal sonal privacy to the American people. access to a file held on him by any Fed- Government has grown in power, it han, At the same time, the framework of law era] agency; increasingly 'intruded into the personal it creates to protect the individual does Second, permits any person to supple- fives of its citizens. not interfere unduly with the legitimate ment the information contained In his Particularly disturbing is the vas- need of the Government for- information file; amount of personal information that is about individuals in order toperform its Third, permits the removal of errone- I:eing collected and stored by the variou., required functions. ous or irrelevant information and pro- Federal agencies. This information, The Privacy Act of 1974 has grown vides that agencies and persons to whom which is usually hidden from the indi- from a series of intensive hearings and the erroneous or irrelevant material has vidual's view, is subject to great abuse studies by the House Foreign Operations been previously transferred, be notified With the advent of computer technology and Government Information Subcom- of its removal; and the ability to store almost unlimited mittee and was approved unanimously. Fourth, prohibits records from being amounts of data, the potential threat has Its support is broad based and biparti- disclosed to anyone outside a Federal become all the greater. - san. I urge all my colleagues to support Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H10967 this bill so that the assurance of all (BY House REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMIT- All findings and recommendations are Americans to what Justice Holmes called TEE,, RECOMMENDATIONS OF PRIVACY TASK presented with the intent of being consis- "the right most valued by civilized men" FORCE) tent with these general principles: can be strengthened under law. The House Republican Research Commit- 1. There should be no personal informs- Mr. has approved the following recommenda- tion system whose existence is secret; DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair- tions of the Task Force on Privacy which 2. Information should not be collected un- man, I rise in strong support of H.R. deal with the following areas: Government less the.need'for it has been clearly estab- 16373. Surveillance, Federal Information Collection, lished in advance; The bill, as its name so, rightly indi- Social security Numbers /Standard Universal 3. Information should be appropriate and cates, is for the purpose of insuring a Identifiers, Census Information, Financial, relevant to the purpose for which it has been higher degree of privacy for the individ- Information, Consumer Reporting, School collected; A t Records 4. Information should not be obtained by d ards for the collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personally identi- fiable records maintained by Federal agencies and permits the individual ac- cess to these records and an opportunity to correct errors in them. The need to protect the individual's right to privacy has become increasing- ly more important with the expanded use of interconnected computer systems and has been exemplified by an alarming in- crease in the number of abuses. In particular, I wholeheartedly sup- port the effort being led by my distin- guished colleague from California (Mr. GOLDWATER) to prohibit a person from being required to disclose his or her so- cial security number for any purpose not related directly to the. operation of the social security program. I am a cosponsor of this proposal. A limitation on the use of the social security number is necessary to protect the individual from the impersonal data banks which can thrtaten his right to privacy of information about his activi- ties, his finances, and his lifestyle in general. The prohibition will not prevent the accumulation of such information but it will make the exchange of the information between computers much more difficult than it is at the present time when nearly everyone is asked to include his social security number on nearly every form he fills out. Social security numbers were original- ly for the exclusive use of the social security people, looking out for each per- son's individual equity and benefits. Now it has reached the point where computers ers talk to computers, and the potential invasion of a person's entire private life has become a matter of grave concern to the people. This legislation is an important step forward in our fight to secure the right of privacy for the individual and I urge my colleagues to support it. It is too easy for government to intimidate, harass or monitor the individual-we must end this possibility in whatever way we can. The adoption of this bill, as amended, is really striking a blow for freedom and the retention of our cherished privacy. I am pleased and proud of the Congress' efforts to advance and accept our legis- lative proposal. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I am proud and pleased to state to my colleagues in the House that the Repub- lican Task Force on Privacy played an important part in the successful enact- ment of the Privacy Act of 1974. It is therefore fitting that the product of their investigations be a part of the proceed- ings : s, Ires Records, Juvenile Recor Medical Records, Computer Data Banks, Code illegal, fraudulent, or unfair means; of Ethics. 5. Information should not be used unless The House Republican Task Force on Pri- it is accurate and current; vacy believes that the right to privacy is 6. Procedures should be established so that an issue of paramount concern to the na- an individual knows what information is tion, the public and the Congress. Recently stored, the purpose for which it has been publicized incidents of abuses have begun recorded, particulars about its use and dis- to focus attention on this long neglected semination, and has the right to examine area. Public awareness must be heightened that information; and the legislative process geared up to ad- 7. There should be a clearly prescribed dress the full range of problems posed by the procedure for an individual to correct, erase issue. or amend inaccurate, obsolete, or irrelevant Modern technology has greatly increased information; the quantity and detail of personal informa- 8. Any organization collecting, maintain- tion collection, maintenance, storage, uti- ing, using, or disseminating personnel infor- lization and dissemination. The individual mation should assure its reliability and take has been physically by-passed in the modern precautions to prevent its misuse. information process. An atmosphere exists 9. There should be a clearly prescribed in which the individual, in exchange for the procedure for an individual to prevent per- benefit or service he obtained, is assumed sonal information collected for one purpose to waive any and all interest and control from being used for another purpose with- over the information collected about him. out his consent; On the technical and managerial levels, the 10. The Federal Government should not basic criteria in many decisions relating to collect personal information except as ex- personal information practices are consid- pressly authorized by law; and erations of technological feasibility, cost- 11. That these basic principles apply to benefit and convenience. The right to pri- both governmental and non-governmental vacy has been made subservient to concerns activities. for expediency, utility and pragmatism. Each recommendation of the Task Force The trend in personal information prac- seeks to contribute to a broader, more intel- tices shows no signs of abating. Twice as ligent, viable understanding of the need for many computer systems and seven times as a renewed concern for personal privacy. An many terminals-particularly remote ter- awareness of personal privacy must be urinals-will be in use by 1984 as are in use merged with the traditional activities of the today. And, with each federal service pro- free marketplace, the role of government as a gram that is initiated or expanded, there is a public servant, and the need for national se- geometrically proportionate increase in the curity defense, and foreign affairs. quantity and detail of personal informa- SURVEILLANCE tion sought by the bureaucracy. The theory The Task Force is deeply disturbed by the the the broader the Information base, increasing incidence of unregulated, the more clan- ministration the and successful the ad- destine government surveillance based solely . on administrative or executive authority. Ex- Congress Such situation demands the alic. of The amples of such abuses include wiretapping, Congress s and of the American public. bugging, photographing, opening mail, exam- to divi does not by definition mean Injury thing confidential records and otherwise in- to individuals. toais the Its American presence has economy con- the tercepting private communications and mon- ability government o serve the people. private activities. Surveillance at the Under s present gov prot procedures, the. federal level receives the most publicity. Under however, the However, state and local government, mili- American citizen does s not have a o clearly tary intelligence and police activities also definedright to find out what information n must be regulated. is being collected, to see such information, to correct errors contained in it, or to seek The Fourth Amendment of the Constitu- legal redress for its misuse. Simply put, the tion clearly specifies "the right of the people citizen must continue to give out large to be secure in their persons, houses, papers quantities of information but cannot pro- and effects, against unreasonable searches tect himself or herself from its misappro- and seizures." The First Amendment guards priation, misapplication or misuse. Both against abridgement of the rights of free government and private enterprise need di- speech, free press, and assembly for political rection, because many of their practices and purposes. The Fourteenth Amendment states poliices have developed on an isolated, ad that none of a citizen's rights may be taken hoc basis. from him by governmental action without The House Republican Task Force on Pri- the due process of law. vacy has investigated the following general The direct threat to individual civil liber- areas involving the investigation and record- ties is obvious in those cases in which a per- ing of personal activities and information: son is actually being monitored, but even government surveillance, federal information more alarming is the "chilling effect" such collection, social security numbers and uni- activities have on all citizens. A person who versal identifiers, census information, bank fears that he will be monitored may, either secrecy, consumer reporting, school records, subconsciously or consciously, fail to fully ' juvenile records, arrest records, medical exercise his constitutionally guaranteed lib- records, and computer data banks. These erties. The mere existence of such fear erodes inquiries have resulted in the development basic freedoms and cannot be accepted in a of general suggestions for legislative remed- democratic society, ies. Each statement is accompanied by a set The various abuses of discretionary au- of findings. thority in the conduct of surveillance pro- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 H 10968 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R00070015DO90-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21, 1974 vide ample evidence that current safeguard mechanisms do not work. Procedures allow- ing the executive branch to determine wheth- er a surveillance activity is proper or not pose certain conflict of interest questions. A degree of controversy surrounds the ques- tion of the authority of the President to initiate electronic surveillance without the safeguards afforded by court review. Present law is clear on this point: the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 lists those specific crimes in connection with which electronic monitoring may be insti- tuted and requires that court approval be obtained in these cases. However, dispute has arisen over Executive claims of Constitu- tional prerogatives to implement wiretaps for national security purposes. The Supreme- Court has ruled that, if such prerogative exists, it does not apply to cases of domestic surveillance unrelated to national security. The Court has not yet ruled on the consti- tutionality of national security wiretaps unauthorized by a court. Cases are pending before the courts at this time which raise this issue. The Task Force agrees with the movement of the Judiciary to circumscribe unauthorized wiretaps and hopes it will pro- ceed in this direction. The Task Force feels that surveillance is so repugnant to the right to individual pri- vacy and due process that its use should be confined to exceptional circumstances. The Task Force further feels that no agent of federal, state, or local government should be permitted to conduct any form of surveil- lance, including wiretapping of U.S. citizens in national security cases, without having demonstrated probable cause and without having obtained the approval of a court of competent jurisdiction. The Task Force rec- ommends enactment of new legislation to prohibit the unauthorized surveillance by any means, and, further recommends that existing laws be clarified to the extent this may be necessary to ensure that no agent of the government, for any reason, shall have the authority to conduct any surveillance on. any American citizen for any reason with- out first obtaining a court order. The Task Force believes that this proposal would not lessen the capability of the govern- ment to, protect and defend the American people, but would go a long way toward as- suring the individual citizen that his con- stitutional rights will not be abridged by government without due process of law. FEDERAL INFORMATION COLLECTION Recently, there has been a pronounced in- crease in federal data and information col- lection. Over 11.5 million cubic feet of rec- ords were stored in Federal Records Centers at the beginning of FY 1973. Accompanying this increase has been a rise in the potential for abuse of federal information collection systems. The Federal Reports Act of 1942 was en- acted to protect individuals from overly bur- densome and repetitive reporting require- ments. The agency entrusted with the respon- sibility for implementing the Act has ignored the legislative mandate and failed to hold a single hearing or conduct any investigations. With the exception of the Bureau of the Census and the Internal Revenue Service, there are few restrictions on the collection or dissemination of confidential information compiled by federal agencies. The Task Force recommends that the Office of Management and Budget immediately be- gin a thorough review and examination of all approved government forms and eliminate all repetitive and unnecessary information requirements. Legislation setting down clear guidelines and spelling out restrictions is needed 'o protect the individual from unrestricted and uncontrolled information collection. Indi- viduals asked to provide information must be apprised of its intended uses. Individuals supplying information which wil- be made public must be notified of that fact at the time the information is collected or request- .d. Public disclosure (including dissemin i- tion on an antra- or inter-agency basis) of financial or other personal information mu;t be prohibited to protect the privacy of re- spondents. Returning the use of the Social Security Number (SSN) to its intended purpose (i.e. operation of old-age, survivors, and disability insurance programs) is a necessary corollary to safeguarding the right of privacy and cur- tailing illegal or excessive information collef:- tion. The use of the Social Security Number lire proliferated to many general items including state driver licenses, Congressional, school and employment identification cards, credit ,ards and credit investigation reports, tar::- payer identification, military service nuir_- oers, welfare and social services program re- capients, state voter registration, insurance :)olicies and records and group heal .h records. There are serious problems associated with ;he use of - the SSN as a standard universal :lumber to identify individuals. A standard universal identifier (SUI) will relegate in- dividuals to a number; thereby, increasing :'eelings of alienation. The SSN's growing ul:e as an identifier and filing number is already :having a negative, dehumanizing effectupon :many citizens. In addition, the use of a SDI by all types of organizations enables the link- ing of records and the tracking of an in- dividual from cradle to grave. This possibil- ity would negate the right to make a "fres:-i start", the right of anonymity, and the right to be left alone, with no compensating bene- fit. A well-developed SUI system would require s. huge, complex bureaucratic apparatus to control it and demand a strict system of professional ethics for information techni- cians. The " technology needed to protect f,gainst unauthorized use has notyet been f.dequately researched and developed. A lost. leak or theft would seriously compromize a eystem and official misappropriatc:on could become a political threat. The following Con- iressioxial action is needed: 1. legislation should be enacted that sets i:uidellnes for use of the SSN by limiting it to the operation of old-age, survivors, and disability insurance programs or as required by federal law; 2. any Executive Orders authorizing federal agencies to use SSN's should be repealed, or alternatively, reevaluated and modified; 3. legislation should be enacted restrict- 1 ig the use of the SSN to well-defined uses, and prohibiting the development- and use of any type of SUI until the technical state or, tixe compute can ensure the security of such a system. At that time, a SUI system should I ave limited applicability and shoe.ld be de-. veloped only after a full congressional In- vestigation and mandate; and 4. new government programs should be prohibited from incorporating the use of thc: :8N or other possible SUI. Existing program; using the SSN without specific autrorizatioi by law must be required to phase out their use of the SSN. State and local governmenta, agencies, as well as the private sector, should: follow this same course of action. A review should be conducted of the In- thrnal Revenue Service In both its collection and dissemination policies. Leaks must bc. ended, The need for stricter penalties for un- authorized activities should he reviewed. CENSUS BUREAU The greatest personal data collection agency is the Bureau of Census. Created to count the people in order to determine con- gressional districts, this agency has mush- roomed into a vast information center which generates about 500,000 pages of numbers and charts each year. Under penalty of law, the citizen is forced to divulge intimate, personal facts surround- ing his public and private life and that of the entire family. These answers provide a substantial personal dossier on each Ameri- can citizen. The strictest care must be taken to protect the confidentiality" of these rec- ords and ensure that the information is used for proper purposes. The Census Bureau sells parts of its col- lected data to anyone who wishes to pur- chase such information. Included are all types of statistical data that are available on population and housing characteristics. As the questions become more detailed and extensive, broadscale dissemination becomes more threatening and frightening. When used in combination with phone directories, drivers' licenses and street directories, cen- sus data may enable any one interested to identify an individual. Therefore, it is vitally important that rules and regulations governing the access to and dissemination of this collected data be reviewed, clarified and strengthened. Legislation is needed to guarantee the con- fidentiality of individual information by ex- panding the scope of confidentiality under existing law and by increasing the severity of punishment for divulging confidential information. These provisions should be spe- cifically directed at the officers and employ- ees of the Bureau of Census, all officers and employees of the Federal government and private citizens who wrongfully acquire such information. In addition, the Bureau of the Census must use all available technological sophistication to assure that individuals cannot be inductively identified. FINANCIAL INFORMATION On October 26, 1970, sweeping legislation known as the Bank Secrecy Act became law. The Act's intention was to reduce white collar crime by making records more ac- cessible to law enforcement officials. How- ever, in accomplishing its purpose, it allowed federal agencies to seize and secure cer- tain financial papers and effects of bank customers without serving a warrant or show- ing probable cause. The Act's compulsory recordkeeping requirements, by allowing the recording of. almost all significant trans- actions, convert private financial dealings into the personal property of the banks. The banks become the collectors and cus- todians of financial records which, when im- properly used, enable an individual's entire life style to be tracked down. The general language of the Act allowed bureaucrats to ignore the intent of the law and. neglect to Institute adequate privacy safeguards. The Supreme Court affirmed this approach by upholding the constiutionality of both the law and the bureaucratic mis- interpretation of it. Congress must now take action to prevent the unwarranted invasion of privacy .by prescribing specific- procedures and stand- ards governing the disclosure of financial information by financial institutions to Fed- eral officials or agencies. Congress must en- act legislation to assure that the disclosure of a customer's records will occur only if the customer specifically authorizes a disclosure or if the financial institution is served with a court order directing It to comply. Legis- lation must specfy that legal safeguards be Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Ap'prbved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 November 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE H 10969 provided requiring that the customer be properly notified and be provided legal means of challenging the subpoena or summons. Passage of such legislation would be an important step forward in reaffirming the individual's right to privacy. CONSUMER REPORTING The consumer reporting industry, through its network of credit bureaus, investigative agencies, and other reporting entities is in growing conflict with individual privacy. Most Americans eventually will be the sub- ject of a consumer report as a result of ap- plying for credit; insurance, or employment. The problem is one of balancing the legiti- mate needs of business with the basic rights of the individual. Consumer reports fall into two categories. First, there are the familiar which contain "factual" information on an individual's credit record such as where accounts are held and how promptly bills are paid. 100 million consumer reports are produced each year by some 2600 credit bureaus. The second ones go beyond factual infor- mation to include subjective opinions of the individual's character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and mode of living. These are often obtained through interviews with neighbors, friends, ex-spouses and former employers or employees. An estimated 30 to 40 million such reports are produced annually. The first Federal attempt at regulating the collection and reporting of information on consumers by third-party agencies came in 1970 with the enactment of the Fair Credit Reporting. Act (FORA). In theory, the Act had three main objectives: to. enable con- sumers to correct inaccurate and misleading reports; to preserve the confidentiality of the.information; and to protect the indi- vidual's right to privacy. The specific safeguards provided by the FCRA are: A consumer adversely affected because of information contained in a con- sumer report must be so notified and given the identity of the reporting agency. The consumer is entitled to an oral disclosure of the information contained in his file and the identity of its recipients. ftems disputed' by the consumer must be deleted if the in- formation cannot be.reconfirmed. The con- sumer may have his version of any disputed item entered in his file and included in sub- sequent reports. The FORA needs to be strengthened in two major areas: disclosure requirements and investigative reports. The individual should be entitled to actually see and inspect his file, rather than rely on an oral presentation. Further, he should be allowed to obtain a copy of it by mail (the consumer is often geographically distant from the source of the file). Users of consumer reports should be required to specifically identify the in- formation which triggered any adverse action. The FCRA protects the sources used in in- vestigative reports..The Task Force believes that this is contrary to the basic tenets of our system of justice and that the informa- tion source must be revealed upon the sub- ject's request. Furthermore, the Task Force recommends that advance written authoriza- tion be required from any individual who is the subject of an investigative report for any purpose. SCHOOL RECORDS hibited from challenging incorrect or mis- leading information contained in his file. At the some time, incidents of highly personal data being indiscriminately dsseminated to inquirers unconnected with the school sys- tem are not uncommon. Remedial measures are available to the Congress in the form of legislative actions. The sanctions under which such provisions would operate, however, are the key to their effectiveness. The Task Force proposes the Congress adopt as a general policy the rule that federal funds be withheld from any state or local educational agency or institu- tion which has the policy of preventing par- ents from inspecting, reviewing, and chal- lenging the content of his or her child's school record. Outside access to these school records must be limited so that protection of the student's right to privacy is ensured. It is recommended that the release of such identifiable personal data outside the school system be contingent upon the written con- sent of the parents or court order. All persons, agencies, or organizations de- siring access to the records of a student must complete a written form indicating the spe- cific educational need for the information. This information shall be kept permanently with the file of the student for inspection by parents of students only and transferred to a third party only with written consent of the parents. Personal data should be made available for basic or applied research only when adequate safeguards have been estab- lished to protect the students' and families' rights of privacy. Whenever a student has attained eighteen years of age, the permission or consent re- quired of and the rights accorded to the par- ents should be conferred and passed to the student. Finally, the Secretary of HEW should es- tablish or designate an office and review board within HEW for the purpose of in- vestigating, processing, reviewing, and ad- judicating violations of the provisions set forth by the Congress. JUVENILE RECORDS The Task Force supports the basic philoso-, phy underlying the existence of a separate court system for juvenile offenders, which is to avoid the stigmatizing effect of a criminal procedure. The lack of confidentiality of such proceedings and accompanying records sub- verts this intent and violates the individual's basic right of privacy. Most states have enacted laws to provide confidentiality. Yet the Task Force finds that due to a lack of specific legislation, and con- trary to the intent of the juvenile justice system, the individual's right of privacy is often routinely violated. Juvenile records are routinely released to the military, civil serv- ice and often to private employers as well. This occurs in cases in which the hearing involves non-criminal charges, in cases of arrest but no court action, in cases in which the individual is no longer under the juris- diction of the juvenile court, and in cases where this file has been administratively closed. Many new questions about confidentiality, privacy and juvenile rights are being raised, and the Task Force finds that the establish- ment of safeguards has lagged significantly behind technological developments. For ex- ample, presently no state has enacted legis- lation regulating the use of computers in juvenile court; as a rule, each system estab- lishes its own guidelines for data collection, retention, and distribution. The Task Force finds that with the use of computers, the juvenile's right to privacy is additionally threatened by the increased accessibility to his record and therefore in- creased possibility of misuse. Staff careless- ness, less than strict adherence to rules of limited access, and electronic sabotage must now be added to the existing threats to the juvenile's right to privacy. The Task Force recommends the establish- ment of minimum federal standards for state laws to include the following provisions: 1. all records of the juvenile court and all police records concerning a juvenile shall be considered confidential and shall not be made public. Access to these records shall be limited to those officials directly connected with the child's treatment, welfare, and re- habilitation; 2. dissemination of juvenile records, or divulgence of that information for employ- ment, licensing, or any purpose in violation of statutory provisions shall be subject to a criminal penalty; 3. to protect the reformed delinquent from stigma continuing into his adult life, pro- visions should specify a procedure for either the total destruction-or the sealing of all juvenile court and police investigative and offender records at the time the youth reaches his majority, or when two years have elapsed since' he has been discharged from the custody or supervision of the court. Sub- sequent to this expungement, all proceedings and records should be treated as though they had never occurred and the youth should reply as such to any inquiry concerning his juvenile record; and 4, all police records on juveniles arrested but where no court action was taken should be systematically destroyed when the inci- dent is no longer under active investigation. The Task,Force recommends the enact- ment of legislation specifically prohibiting federal agencies from requesting information relating to juvenile record expungement from employment applicants or from requesting such information from the courts or the police. The Task Force further recommends the cessation of all Federal funding for com- puterized systems which contain juvenile records unless it can be demonstrated that these systems provide adequate safeguards for the protection of the juvenile's right of privacy. These standards must fulfill all the requirements of the minimum standards for state legislation previously enumerated, in- cluding special provisions to strictly limit data accessibility. ARREST RECORDS A large percentage of arrests never result in conviction. Yet, in over half the states, individual's arrest records are open to public inspection, subjecting innocent parties to undue stigma, harrassment, and discrimina- tion. Persons with arrest records often find it difficult, if not impossible to secure employ- ment or licenses. A study of empolyment agencies in the New York City area found that seventy-five percent would not make a -referral for any applicant with an arrest record: This was true even in cases in which the arrest was not followed by a trial and conviction. This is just one example of the widespread practice of "presumption of guilt" based on the existence of an arrest record. - The Task Force holds that release of in- formation about arrests not followed by con- Legislation, governing the confidentiality of juvenile court and police records varies widely from state to state. Only 24 states control and limit access to police records, therefore enabling a potential employer who is refused access to court records to obtain the information from the police. Only 16 The recent increase in popular awareness states have expungement laws providing for of the seriousness of the privacy issue has the destruction of such records after a speci- been accompanied by an increase in the fled period of good behavior. Only 6 states general concern over loose, unstructured make it a crime to improperly disclose juve- and unsupervised school recordkeeping sys- nile record information. And, one state, Iowa, tems and associated administrative prac- in fact provides that juvenile records must tices. There has also been general discussion be open to the public for inspection. The about what information should be kept on Task Force finds that even in those states a child and considered part of his or her whose laws provide adequate protection, "record". Parents are frequently denied ac actual practices are often inconsistent with cess to their own child's record, or are pro- legislation. Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 11110970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 21; 1974 viction is a direct violation of the individual's rights of privacy. It thefefore recommends that legislative efforts be directed toward: 1. establishing minimum standards for state laws calling for the automatic sealing of all individual arrest records which were not followed by conviction and which are no longer under active investigation; 2. requiring the FBI to seal arrest records not followed by conviction; and 3. prohii3lting inclusion of arrest records not followed by conviction on computerized systems involving more than one state or using federal funds. MEDICAL RECORDS Medical records, which contain sensititive and personal information, are especially in need of privacy safeguards to maintain basic trust in the doctor-patient relationship. Yet, development of automated data processing systeras has enhanced the ability of govern- ment and private organizations to store, an- alyze and transfer medical records. Increas- ingly, this occurs without the individual's knowledge or consent. Abuse of such informa. tion systems can have a deleterious effect on doctor-patient relations. To guarante the privacy of medical records, the Task Force recommends that: 1. the federal government provide dollar grants and incentives to States for the vol- untary adoption and execution of State plans to insure the right to privacy for computer- ized medical information systems. Such a plan would place principal responsibility on the States, giving the federal government the right to set minimum standards; 2. Congress review the recently enacted Professional Standards Reviews Organiza- tions (PSRO) legislation. There are increas- ing numbers of reports and complaints re- garding Review Board uses of medical files and the threat this poses to privileged, con- fidential doctor-patient relationships; and 3. provisions be included in national health insurance legislation which specifically en- sure the individual's privacy. The institution of a national health insurance plan will create a vast medical information network which will require fitringent safeguards to prevent abuses of the patients' right to privacy. COMPUTER DATA BANKS The use of the computer has brought great commercial and social benefits to modern Amer1;a. Greater reliance . on the computer, however, increases its integration into all aspects of daily life. The result is increased vulnerability to abuse or misuse of com- puterized information. The Task Force finds that-the Individual possesses inadequate remedies for the cor- rection of such abuses. In fact, the Task Force considers it probable that many abuses have gone unreported simply because the indivi- dual involved did not know of the data being collected about him. Even if the individual is aware that data is being collected about him, he faces several obstacles if he wishes to expunge purely pri- vate information or to correct erroneous in- formation. Among his obstacles are the fol- lowing: the lack of statutory support for legal action (except in the credit reporting area), the cost of litigation, and even fear of retaliation by the company or agency be- ing challenged. Despite their potential for abuse, data banks remain an inescapable fact of life in a society growing more complex and more tech- nological. The Task Force does not oppose Countryman, Vern. The diminishing right data tanks as such, but favors strong safe- o:' privacy: The personal dossier and the-com. guards against their misuse, and recom= p titer. Texas Law Review, May 1971. mends that: Curran, William J., et. al. Protection of 1. rights under the Fair Credit Reporting p:'ivaey and confidentiality. Science,, v. 18J, Act of 1970 be extended to all data collection. Nov. 23, 1973. The individual must have and be informed De Weese, J. Taylor. Giving the computer a of his right to review information in any conscience. Harper's, Nov. 1973. collection of data about himself (excluding Gotlieb, Calvin. Regulations for tuforma- national security and criminal justice files r ; tion systems. Computers and automation, v. 2. Congress establish categories (i.e. In- 19, Sept. 1970. depth biographical, financial, medical, etc ) Gough, Aidan R. The expungement of ad- if information which may not be included judication records. Washington University in reports on an individual unless the indi- Law Quarterly, 1966. vidual knowingly gives his uncoorced con- Hunt, M. K. and Rein Turn. Privacy and sent; security in data bank systems: an annotated 3. limited exceptions be granted for nn- bibliography. 1969-1973. 11-1044-NSF. Santa tional security and criminal justice invests- Monica, Calif., Rand Corp., 1974. rations; Hoffman, Lance J. Security and privacy in 4. criminal and civil" penalties be estate- computer systems. Los Angeles, Calif., 1973. ished for any use of statistical data (col- Hoglund and Kahan. Invasion of privacy sated for collective analysis) to wrongfully and the freedom of information act: Geman acquire information on Individuals; v. NLRB, 40 Geo. Washington Law Review, 5. ti ansfer of personal information b(- 1972. :ween governmental agencies be strictly Koehn, E. Hank. Privacy, our problem for imited; tomorrow. Journal of systems management, 6, the creation of a centralized Federal v. 24, July 1973. data bank (except for national security and Kraning, Alan. Wanted: new ethics for new criminal justice purposes) be prohibited; techniques. Technology review, v. 70, Mar. and 1970. 7. a federal "privacy protection agency" be Kuhn, David. Your life: how private? Re- established to enforce the proposed legisla.- print from Minneapolis Tribune, Oct. 7-12, ion. 1973 by the Project on Privacy and Data Col- CODE OF ETHICS AND STANDARD OF CONDIICT lection of the American Civil Liberties Union The Republican Task Force on Privacy b(- Foundation, Washington, D.C. loves there to be a definite need for the de- Lapidus, Edith J. Eavesdropping on trial. ^elopment of a universal code of ethics and Rochelle Park, New Jersey, Hayden Book Co., standard of conduct for the technical, mar- 1974. agerial and academic personnel involved In Levin, Eugene. The future shock of in- the development and use of personal in- formation networks. Astronautics and aero- iormation systems. The Task Force regards nautics, Nov. 1973. this to be essential for the automated and Lusky, Louis. Invasion of privacy: a clari- computerized information systems. Persons fication of concepts. Columbia Law Review, Information systems are becoming- an irate- v. 72. l;ral aspect of the daily life of every individ- Miller, Authur R. The assault on privacy., ital In our society. This sensitive re"ationshi p computers, databanks, and dossiers. Ann demands and merits the development of an Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1971. i.ttitude of professionalism. It is recognized Miller, Herbert S. The closed door. U.S. that some efforts have been made to develop Dept. of Labor, 1972. n.nd foster such atttiudes. But, the informa- National Committee for Citizens in Educa- tion industry as a whole has not supported tion. Children, parents and school records. such efforts as a matter of policy. The Task Columbia, Md., National Committee for Citi- Force declares its commitment to the de- zens in Education, 1974. i elopment, maintenance, management and Organization for Economic Co-operation use of personal information systems, and Development. Toward central govern- " Studies, 1973. The Task Force is aware that this is a rela- Pennock, J. Roland and John W. Chapman. tively new area of concern. Some recom- Privacy. New York, Atherton Press, 1971. riendations may go too far and some not far Privacy In the First Amendment. The Yale enough. Some areas may have been over- Law Journal, June 1973. looked. But there is no questionthat now I:; Project Search Staff. Committee on Secur- the time to address ourselves to this impor- ity and Privacy. Security and privacy con- tsnt and far reaching Issue. If we fail-- siderations in criminal history information George Orwell's 1984 may become a realit' systems. Technical Report No. 2. Sacramento, by 1976 Calif., Project Search. California Crime Tech- BIBLIOGRAPHY Breckenridge, Adam Carlyle. The right to privacy. Lincoln, University of Nebraske I ress, 1970. - Canada. Department of Communication,. and the Department of Justice. Privacy and computers. A report of a task force estab- lished jointly by the Canadian Department or Communication and the Department of Justice. Ottawa, Canada, Information Can- a ia, 1972. Campaign, Howard and Lance J. Hoffman Computer privacy and security. Computer; and automation, v. 22, July 1973. Cashman, Charles E. Confidentiality of juvenile court proceedings: A review. Juue- nile Justice, v. 24, August 1973. Cohen., Richard E. Justice report,'hearings focus on privacy, limitations on use of FBI data. National journal reports. Feb. 16, 1974 Computer applications in the Juvenile jus- tice system, National Council of Juvenile nological Research Foundation, July 1970. Ralston, Anthony G. Computers and demo- cracy. Computers and automation, v. 22, April 1973. Reed, Irving S. The application of informa- tion theoryto privacy in data banks, Santa Monica, Calif., Rand Corp., 1973. Rule, James B. Private lives and public surveillance. London, Allen Lane, 1973. Sargent, Francis W. Centralized data banks-where public technology can go wrong. Astronautics and aeronautics, v. 11, Nov. 1973. - Schrag, Peter. Dossier dictatorship. Satur- day Review, April 17, 1971. Social Security Administration. Social Security Number Task Force: Report to the Commissioner. Department of Health, Edu- cation and Welfare, 1971. Springer, Eric W. Automated medical re- cords and the law. Pittsburgh, Aspen Sys- tems Corporation, 1971. Stone, Michael and Malcolm Warner. The data bank society: organizations, computers, and social freedom. London, George Allen and Unwin LTD, 1970. Thomas, Uwe. Computerized data banks in public administration. Paris, France, Organi- zation for Economic Co-operation and De- velopment, 1971. Turn, Rein. Privacy and security in per- sonal information databank systems. Pre- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 November> 21, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE pared for the National Science Foundation. 8-1044-NSF. March 1974. Santa Monica, Calif., Rand Corp., 1974. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Gov- ernment Operations. Federal information systems and plans-Federal use and devel- opment of advanced technology. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Foreign Opera- tions and Government Information. 93rd Cong. 1st and 2d session, Washington, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1973, 1974. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Federal data banks, computers and the Bill of Rights. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. 92nd Cong. 1st session, Washington, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1971. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems. Records, computers, and the rights of citizens. Wash- ington,, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1973. Westin, Alan F. and Michael A. Baker. Databanks in a free society: computers, rec- ord-keeping, and privacy. Report of the proj- ect on Computer Data-banks of the Com- puter Science and Engineering Board. Na- tional Academy of Science. New York, Quad- rangle Books, 1972. Wheeler, Stanton. On record: files and dos- siers in American life. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1969. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any fur- ther amendments? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises. . Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the Chair (Mr. BRADEMAS) Chairman of the Com- mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Com- mittee having had under consideration the bill H.R. 16373 to amend title 5, United States Code, by adding a section 552a to safeguard individual privacy from the misuse of Federal records and to provide that individuals be granted access to records concerning them which are maintained by Federal agencies, pur- suant to House Resolution 1419, he re- ported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole. The SPEAI ER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee amend- ment in the nature of a substitute adopt- ed in the Committee of the Whole? If no, the question is on the amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes ap- peared to have it. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ob- ject to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. H 10971 Evidently a quorum is The SPEAKER Roush Steele Ware . Rousselot Steelman Whalen not present, Roy Steiger, Ariz. White The Sergeant at Arms will notify Roybel Steiger, Wis. Whitehurst absent Members. ' Ruppe Stokes Stratton Whitten Widnall The vote was taken by electronic de- Ruth Ryan Stubblefield Wiggins vice, and there were-yeas 353, nays 1, Sandman Stuckey Williams as follows: not voting 80 Sarasln Studds Wilson, Bob , Sarbanes Sullivan Wilson, [Ron No. 6411 Satterfield Symington Charles H., Scherle Tal.cott Calif. YEAS-353 Schneebeli Taylor, Mo. Wilson, Abdnor Dorn Long, La. Schroeder Taylor, N.C. Charles, Tex. Abzug Downing Long, Md. Seiberling Thompson, N.J. Winn Adams Drinan Lott Shipley Thomson, Wis. Wolff Addabbo Duncan Luian Shriver Thone Wright Alexander du Pont McClory Shuster Thornton Wyatt Anderson, Eckhardt McCloskey Sisk Towell, Nev. Wydler Calif. Edwards, Ala. McCollister Skubitz Treen Wylle Anderson, Ill. Edwards, Calif. McCormack Slack Udall Yates Andrews N C Ellberg McDade Iowa Ullman Smith Yatron , . . Andrews, Erlenborn McEwen , Smith, N.Y. Van Deerlin Young, Alaska N. Dak. Esch McFall Snyder Vander Jagt Young, Fla. Annunzio Evins, Tenn. McKay Spence Vander Veen Young, Ill. Archer Fascell McKinney Stanton, Vanik Young, Tex. Arends Findley Macdonald J. William Veysey Zablocki Ashley Fish Madden Stanton, Vigorito Zion Badillo Fisher Madigan James V. Waggonner Zwach Batalis Flood Mahon Stark Walsh Baker Flowers Mallary Steed Wampler Barrett Flynt Mann Bauman Foley Maraziti NAYS-1 Beard Ford Martin, Nebr. Landgrebe Bennett Forsythe Martin, N.C. ill Be Fountain Mathias, Calif. NOT VOTING-80 v Biaggi Fraser Mathis, Ga. Armstrong Froehlich, Patman Biester Frelinghuysen Matsunaga Ashbrook Giaimo Poage Bingham Frenzel Mayne Aspin Grasso Podell Blackburn Frey Mazzola Bell Grover Powell, Ohio Blatnik Fulton Meeds Bergland Hansen, Wash. Quillen Bolling Fuqua Melcher Boggs Harsha Rangel Bowen Gaydos Mezvinsky Boland Hastings Rarick Brademas Gettys Michel Brasco Hays Rhodes Bray Gibbons Milford Breaux Hebert Riegle Breckinridge Gilman Miller Brooks Heckler, Mass. Roe Brinkley Ginn Mills Burke, Calif. Hillis Roncallo, N.Y. Broomfield Goldwater Minish Camp Hogan Rooney, N.Y. Brotzman Gonzalez Mink Carey, N.Y. Hunt Runnels Brown, Calif. Doodling Mitchell, Md. Chappell Jones, Ala. St Germain Brown, Mich. Gray Mitchell, N.Y. Clancy Jones, N.C. Sebelius Brown, Ohio Green, Oreg. Mizell Clay Barth Shoup Broyhill, N.C. Green, Pa. Moakley Conable Kastenmeier Sikes Mollohan Crane Kluczynski Staggers Daniels, Kuykendall Stephens Burgener Gubser Moorhead, Dominick V. Landrum Symms Burke, Fla. Dude Calif. Danielson Latta Teague Burke, Mass. Gunter Moorhead, Pa. Dent Luken Tiernan Burleson, Tex. Guyer Morgan Devine McSpadden Traxler Burlison, Mo. Haley Mosher Diggs Metcalfe Waldie Burton, John Hamilton Murphy, Ill. Dulski Minshall, Ohio Wyman Burton, Phillip Hammer- Murtha Eshleman Moss Young, Ga. Butler schmidt Myers Evans, Colo. Murphy. N.Y. Young, S.C. Byron Carney, Ohio Hanley Hanna Katcher Nedzi So the bill was passed. Carter Hanrahan Nelsen The Clerk announced the following Casey, Tex. Cederberg Hansen, Idaho Harrington Nichols Nix pairs: Chamberlain Hawkins Obey Mr. Hebert with Mr. Dulski. Chisholm Heckler, W. Va. O'Brien Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Aspire Clark Heinz O'Hara Mr. Moss with Mr. Luken. Clausen, Helstoski O'Neill Mr. Sikes with Mr. McSpadden. Don H. Del Clawson Henderson Hicks Owens Parris Mr. Boland with Mr. Young of Georgia. , Cleveland Hinshaw Passman Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Tiernan. Cochran Holifield Patten Mr. Giaimo with Mr. Traxler. Cohen Holt Pepper Mr. Staggers with Mr. Patman. Collier Holtzman Perkins Mr. Hays with Mr. Minshall of Ohio. Collins. 111. Horton Pettis Mr. Bergland with Mr. Kuykendadl. Collins, Tex. Conlan Hosmer Howard Peyser Pickle Mr. Chappell with Mr. Hunt, Conte Huber Pike Mr. Carey of New York with Mr. Hogan. Conyers Hudnut Preyer Mr. Brooks with Mr. Camp. Corman Hungate Price. Dl. Mrs. Burke of California with Mr. Froeh- Cotter Hutchinson Price, Tex. Itch. Coughlin ichord Pritchard Mr. Breaux with Mr. Ashbrook. Cronin Jarman Quie ith Mr Grover ski M Ki c Culver . . zyn , w r. u Johnson, Calif. Railsback i Daniel, Dan Johnson, Colo. Randall ne. Mr. Landrum with Mr. Dev Daniel, Robert Johnson, Pa, Rees Mr. Metcalfe with Mrs. Grasso. W., Jr. Jones, Okla. Regula Mr. Murphy of New York with Davis, Ga. Jones, Tenn. Reid able. Davis, S.C. Jordan Reuss Mr. Teague with Mr. Hillis. Davis, Wis. de la Garza Kazen Kemp Rinaldo Roberts Mr. St Germain with Mr. Powell of Ohio. Delaney Ketchum Robinson, Va. Mr. Riegle with Mr. Bell. Dellenback Mr. Latta with Mr. Hastings. Dellums Koch Rodino Mr. Rangel with Mrs. Hansen of Wash- Denholm Kyros Rogers ington. Dennis Lagomarsino Roncalio, Wyo. P Mr. Roe with Mr. Crane. Derwinski Leggett Rooney, a. Mr. Jones of Alabama with Mr. Harsha. Dickinson Dingell Lehman Lent Rose Rosenthal Mr. Kastenmeier with Mr. Eshleman. ponohue Litton Rostenkowski Mr. Karth with Mr. Clancy. Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9 1110972 Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R00070015OD90-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE Novemb'ep. 21, 1974 Mr. Jones of North Carolina with Mi. Quillen. Mr. Diggs with Mr. Roncallo of New York. Mr. Evans of Colorado with Mr. Sebelius. Mr. Dent with Mr. Shoup. Mr. Dominick V. Daniels with Mr. Stephens. Mr. Clay with Mr. Waldie. Mr. Danielson with Mr. Symms. Mr. Runnels with Mr. Wyman. Mr. Rhodes with Mr. Young of South Caro- lina. Mrs. Heckler of Massachusetts with Mr Rarick. The result of the vote was announced. as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. GENERAL LEAVE 1tr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days In which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just passed. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS TO HAVE UN- TIL MIDNIGHT FRIDAY, NOVEM- 13ER 22, 1974, TO FILE A REPORT ON H.R. 17045, TO AMEND THE :;OCIAL SECURITY ACT Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means may have until mid- night Friday, November 22, 1974, to file a report on the bill, H.R. 17045, to amend the Social Security Act to establish a consolidated program of Federal finan- cial assistance to encourage provision of services by the States, along with any supplemental and/or separate views, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Vfr. ARENDS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I take this time toask the majority whip to kindly advise us of the program for next week. Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, if the gen- tleman from Illinois will yield, I will be glad to provide this Information. There is no further legislative business for today. Upon the announcement of the program for next week, I will ask unani- mous consent to go over until Monday. The program for the House of Repre- sentatives for the week of November 25, 1974, is as follows: Monday is District day, and there is one bill, H.R. 17450, People's Counsel for >?7ls- trict; of Columbia Public Service Com- mission. The other measures to be considered are: House Resolution 1387, place for amendments In CONGRESSIONAL RECORD; H.R. 16609, AEC supplemental au- thorization, under an open rule, with 1 hour of debate; House Joint Resolution 1161, entry into foreign ports of U.S. nuclear ships, under an open rule, with 1 hour of debate; and H.R. 16074, nuclear information for Congress, under an open rule, with 1 hour of debate. On Tuesday there will be considered: H.R. 15580, Labor-HEW appropria- tions, fiscal year 1975, a conference re- port; and H.R. 17468, military construction ap- propriations, fiscal year 1975. Conference reports may be brought up at any time, and any furtlb:er program will be announced later. The House will recess at the close of business Tuesday, November 26, until noon, Tuesday, December 3. ADJOURNMENT OVER TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1974 Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent that when the House ad- journs today, it adjourn to meet on Mon- day next. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so only to ask the gentleman a question. I thought per- haps I could ask the question before he made this request. Does the gentleman anticipate that there will be legislation for a pay increase for Members of Congress, members of the ;judiciary, and some of the other em- ployees of Government In the remainder of the 93d Congress? Mr. McFALL. If the gentleman will yield for that purpose, I am sorry to say I have not heard of any. Mr. GROSS. The gentleman has heard of no Intention? Mr. McFALL. I am sorry to say that I have not heard of any, and I regret that there is not legislation, not just for the Members of Congress, but for the 10,000 other people In the executive branch. I believe that it is necessary for the whole civil service structure that such legisla- tion be considered, but I am sorry to say I have not heard of any. Mr. GROSS. I will say to my friend, the gentleman from California, that I am sorry to say that I have heard of pro- posals to that end, and that s the rea- son for my inquiry. Mr. McFALL. In response to what the gentleman stated just a moment ago, those who retire will get a raise In their retirement because of the cost-of-living escalator clause. Mr. GROSS. No, I had not heard of that. How do we go about that I will not take the time of the House REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS TO HAVE UNTIL MIDNIGHT TO FILE CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 425, STRIP MINING Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent that the Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs may have until midnight tonight to file a conference report on S. 425, strip mining. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. Objection is heard. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Speaker, I. wish to announce that I missed the rollcall 641 on the bill H.R. 16373, the Privacy Act of 1974. Had I been present, I would have voted "aye." TRIBUTE TO THE BLOUNT COUNTY PATRIOTIC YOUTH FESTIVAL (Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend his re- marks, and include extraneous matter.) Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, last August 24, a unique patriotic rally to dramatize what is good about America was held in Blount County, Ala., which is In my con- gressional district. The program was planned and carried out by young people from several high schools in Blount County. The message they brought was: get involved in poli- tics, register to vote, and join in the process of making decisions that move the country. The project proved to be a huge suc- cess and has drawn praise from people throughout the State of Alabama. Presi- dent Ford sent a telegram of greetings and support. Representatives of the Patriotic Youth Festival have been Invited by the White House to come to the Nation's Capital to present the resolution of patriotism from the youth of Blount County. In Washington Wednesday to present the resolution to a representative of President Ford were Steve Jones, presi- dent of the student council of Oneonta High School; Beverly Latham, festival treasurer and function chairman.; Randy Vaughn, author of the resolution and Tri-State winner of the FFA public speaking contest. Mr. Brice Marsh, who assisted with the production of the festi- val, his wife Mary, and 10-year-old daughter, Terri, accompanied the group to the White House. The resolution that was presented reads as follows: A RESOLUTION FROM THE YOUTH OF BLOUNT COUNTY, ALA., TO PRESIDENT GERALD FORD and find out how we go about obtainia5g tse it hereby resolved that I stand with renewed faith in America. I desire to re- that, at the gentleman's leisure. kindle the spirit of patriotism and pride that Mr. McFALL. I think it is automatic. has been tarnished by the apathy, distrust Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw and dishonesty that have become so apparent my reservation of objection. in current events. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to We, the people, must share the responsi- the request of the gentleman from Cali- , bility for the state in which we find our- the re? selves. Only through our interest and in- . volvement can we hope for an improvement There was no objection. in our state of affairs. We must humble our- Approved For Release 2002/01/28 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700150090-9