PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070107-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 26, 2001
• Sequence Number: 107
• Publication Date: March 4, 1976
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2002/01/02: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070107-2
H 1670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
respect to Puerto Rico constitute major road-
blocks to the formalization of relations be-
tween the United States and Cuba. It is im-
portant, however, that the United States let
Latin America know that it stands ready, in
return for an appropriate Cuban response, to
move toward normalization of relations. Ini-
tial measures could include lifting the block-
ade on food and medicine. -
Steps such as these will be helpful indica.
tions of our commitment, but basic problems
will remain. We will have to understand that
Latin American countries will continue to?act
in ways which they determine to be best for
them-whether or not these will be helpful
or harmful to the United States. We cannot
assume an easy or permanent mutuality of
interests. It is simply in our best interests to
try to work cooperatively with the countries
of Latin America.
By the same token, Latin America will
have to recognize that in this changed world
it will have to assume responsibility for its
own future and that it must fulfill that re-
sponsibility with discipline and self restraint,
Kicking Uncle Sam around may be great fun,
but it can also be costly in terms of invest-
ment, tourist travel, development of markets
and in many other ways. The heart of the,
matter is that all of us-both in the United
States and in Latin America-are playing for
high stakes at a critical time. We can all win
if we work together to shape the kind of
hemisphere we seek-one free from war and
free from want.
CONNECTICUT, PHARMACEUTICAL
ASSOCIATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Connecticut (Mr. COTTER) is
reccognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COTTER. Mr. Speaker, 100 years
ago in February, 25 Connecticut: phar-
macists met in New Haven to organize
the State's first professional pharmaceu-
tical association.
According to its constitution, the as-
sociation was created "to'secure cooper-
ation and concert of action in the ad-
vancement and-diffusion of a knowledge
of pharmacy and its collateral branches
of science, and to promote the elevation
of the professional character of, and
facilitate an open and friendly inter-
course between its members."
The association began Its history with
a campaign to regulate the practice of
pharmacy in Connecticut. As a result of
its efforts, the first such regulatory law,
was passed by the General Assembly in
1881.
In addition to its concern for legisla-
tion, the association also has been a force
behind the quality of pharmaceutical
education in Connecticut. In 1921, the
Governor approved a charter for the
State's first college of pharmacy. Unable
to attach the school to an existing uni-
versity, the association itself created and
financed the school. The college is now
part of the University of Connecticut and
is recognized as one of the finest phar-
maceutical institutions in the Nation.
The association naturally is concerned
with the needs of its members, but it
has been conspicuous in its efforts to
meet the health needs of the people of
Connecticut, especially in time of disas-
ter. The association contributed emer-
gency relief afte the destructive flood
that devastated Large areas of our State
in 1955, the urban riots of 1969 and other
crises. In 1944, its members sold almost
$1 million in war bonds, money that was
used to purchase six ambulance planes.
The -association began its life with 25
members. Today, more than 1,100 phar-
macists belong. Twenty-eight local com-
mittees are active in the State.
It was appropriate that Gov. Ella
Grasso of Connecticut designated Feb-
ruary as Pharmacy Month in our State,
for the 100th anniversary of the Connec-
ticut Pharmaceutical Association should
give all the people of Connecticut reason
to remember the history of this group
of dedicated professionals.
The Governor's declaration follows:
"To secure cooperation and concert of ac-
tion in the advancement and diffusion of a
knowledge of Pharmacy ... and to promote
the elevation of the professional character
of, and facilities an open and fraternal inter-
course between, its members" .... these are
the words of the Constitution adopted by
the Connecticut Pharmaceutical Association
when it was organized 100 years ago.
The Association included 25 members pri-
marily from Hartford and New Haven in the
year 1876. Seven years later, the Connecticut
legislature' enacted a bill that governed phar-
macies throughout our state, and Governor
Hobart Bigelow appointed Connecticut's first
Pharmacy Commission.
In its first century, the Association has
grown to more than 1,200 members. These
concerned men and women have devoted long,
hours of their own time to community health
programs that combat venereal disease, rheu-
matic fever, diabetes and cancer. They have
raised funds for flood relief, war bonds, am-
bulance services, hospitals and many health
organizations.
The Association offers several scholarships
each year to encourage young people to en-
ter this venerable and honored profession.
Members have also worked diligently for leg-
islation to improve the practice of pharmacy
and upgrade'the educational requirements
for the profession.
I therefore designate the Month of Feb-
ruary, 1976, as Pharmacy Month Connec-
ticut in tribute by the citizens ur state
which this'yeamn its a cent of servic
the Connecticut Pharmac
ciation.
PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous Order of the House, the gentle-
woman from New York (Ms. ABZUG) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, when the
privacy Act of 1974 went into effect on
September 27, 1975, the capability of
Members of Congress to perform services
for their constituents was brought to a
near halt. It is my view that some agen-
cies deliberately interpreted the law to
exclude access by Members to informa-
tion on individuals.
Congress, its committees and subcom-
mittees, the act says, have access to per-
sonally identifiable information if that
information falls within the jurisdiction
of the body. Members of Congress acting
individually received no right under the
act to see personal information from an
March 4, 1976
individual's record. Executive branch in-
terpretation prevented congressional of-
fices from representing the very constit-
uents we are elected to serve by stopping
our access to agency records without spe-
cific written authorization from the sub-
ject of the records.
The act does provide that agencies can
release information to persons other than
the subject of the record if such release
is routinely made and the. decision to
routinely release. such information is'
published in. the Federal Register, On
October 3, 1975, James Lynn, Director of
OMB, issued the following guideline for
agency considerlition:
Disclosure may be made to a congressional
office from the record of an individual in
response to an inquiry from the congressional
office made at the request of the individual.
Under this guideline, congressional
offices need not write agencies for in-
formation or show the agencies proof
that a request has been received by that
office. At the same time, the Federal
agencies are able to respond immediately
to the. congressional inquiries without
obtaining the individual's consent and
without the need to respond to the con-
gressional office in writing: In substance,
the OMB guideline, if observed by Fed-
eral agencies simply allows Congressmen
to continue helping constituents as we
had done before September 27, 1975.
Unfortunately, troubles developed in
the implementation of this OMB guide-
line, either because employees of execu-
tive branch agencies had not gotten the
word that such releass should be made,
or because agencies refused to comply
with the OMB guideline.
As chairwoman of the Subcommittee
on Government Information land Indiv-
idual Rights, I wrote to each Federal
agency at the end of 1975 urging com-
pliance with the OMB guidelines. If an
agency felt it was impossible to be in
conformity with the OMB guideline, I
asked for an explanation as to why not.
A sample copy of the letter is
appended.
I have received responses from 49 Fed-
eral agencies out of a total 150 letters
sent. Notably, the only Cabinet-level de-
partment that failed to respond to my
query is the Depa tment of State. Others
outstanding for their lack of response are
the CIA, the SEC and the numerous
boards, committees and commissiofis.
Of the agencies that responded to my
inquiry, the Selective Service Admin-
istration is the only agency that has
refused outright to comply with the
guideline, based on its need to keep re-
cruiting information in strictest con-
fidence. The agency did state its desire
to be responsive to all written congres-
sional inquiries.
Four agencies hedged by saying they
are studying the guideline, or that they
would not refuse to deal with congres-
sional inquiries. These were the Federal
Power Commission, the Civil Rights
Commission, the Federal Home Loan
Board, and the Federal Maritime Com-
mission,
The chairman of this last body has
"directed the Commission staff to draft
an appropriate `routine use' provision
to permit disclousures from the records
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070107-2
 March _4, 1976
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070107-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1669
and toward insuring its financial sound-
ness.
The first section of the bill will sta-
bilize replacement ratios by decoupling
increases in the permanent benefit of re-
tired persons: The decoupling concept
has been recommended by virtually every
individual and group thati testified be-
fore our subcommittee.
The report of the Advisor committee
on Social Security called decotpling "by
far the most important step to be taken
to improve the system." Likewt a the
American Academy of Actuaries ter ed
decoupling "an essential and practaI
step toward improvement in the finah-
cial soundness of the OASDI system." "
The specific decoupling approach em-
bodied in this bill was recommended by
the Consultant Panel on Social Security
employed jointly by the Ways and
Means Committee and the Senate Fi-
nance Committee to prepare constructive
proposals on financing social security.
Under this decoupling proposal, bene-
fits for future retirees will be computed
using earnings that have been indexed in
proportion to the change in price levels
(CPI) during the retirees' working life-
time. This approach provides appropri-
ate increases due to cast-of-living related
inflation for future retirees, while simul-
taneously providing flexibility in the fi-
nancing for Congress to adopt real dollar
increases in the future, should that be
desirable.
The second section of this bill liberal-
izes the limitation on outside earnings to
$4,000. The earnings limitation is ana-
tional insult to our older Americans, and
it deprives this Nation of the continuing
contribution of these citizens. Although
I support complete.repeal of this limita-
tion, the $4,000 figure is one that can be
enacted.
It has never seemed right to impose a
penalty on those older Americans who
either want to, or need to, continue
working. Perhaps this increase will pro-
vide some direct relief.
I have also included a new dimension
to the earnings limitation. In addition to
the $4,000 level, an individual may also
earn, without penalty, the difference be-
tween his actual received benefit, and
the highest benefit paid in that particu-
lar category. This means that an individ-
ual receiving only the minimum monthly
benefit would be able to earn an addi-
tional amount equal to the highest bene-
fit allowed, for example, a single person
aged 66.
This allows those individuals who are
receiving less in monthly benefits, and
who may actually need to work, the op-
portunity to do so without being pen-
alized.
The third section of this bill directs the-
General Accounting office to determine
the shortfall in the social security trust
fund attributable to low-interest invest-
ments made prior to 1960, when the law
was changed. Any deficiency Is to be
replaced over a 5-year period out of gen-
eral revenues.
This provision is designed to restore
the trust fund to a "whole" status, and
to put the Government on notice that
the trust fund. Is not to be used for low-
interest loans to the Treasury Depart-
ment.
My bill will not be a panacea for the
problems of social security, but it does
propose three concrete recommendations
that are practical, and that will move us
in the direction of stabilizing the trust
fund and insuring the long-term viabil-
ity of the trust fund.
LINOWITZ ON LATIN AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Florida (Mr. FASCELL) is rec-
ognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, the distin-
guished lawyer and former U.S. Ambas-
'sador to the organization of American
inive article in the February 22, 1976,
Los 'iangeles Times on the current state
of the: S. relations with our hemisphere
nelghbs. As Chairman of the Commis-
sion on `:United States-Latin American
Relations~,5ol Linowitz remains actively
involved iii ursuing his lifelong avoca-
tion of givi%for our Latin and Carib-
bean neigh s the rightful priority
they should h'at'e in our foreign policy.
Icommend Amb sador Linowitz' article
to the attention o Members:
DANGEROUS. TI \A=.- UN]5555
`E E
By SDI owitz)
es and people,
he other. Few
cans will do anything for Latin A
except read about it.
But a lot has been happening In
few years ago. For suddenly Latin America
has changed; the relations between Latin
America and the rest of the world have
changed; and the relations between Latin
America and the United States have changed.
We are in a new ball game with Latin
America and old assumptions are no longer
relevant. No longer can we treat Latin Amer-
ica patronizingly and take it for granted. No
longer can we threaten to take our hat and
ball and go home
Today we need Latin America as much as
Latin America needs us, for we are living in
an interdependent world when security
means more than military and political
power. When we think of security we have
to think of oil' and copper and bauxite. We
have to think of what we can do to Improve
the prospects for a peaceful and cooperative
world. And these are problems we confront
here in our own hemisphere.
In Latin America today, millions of people
who have not yet become part of the eco-
nomic system of their countries have
through rapid urbanization and mass-com-
munication acquired political awareness.
Faced with increasing demands to provide
jobs and services, Latin American countries
have pressed for freer access to the markets
of the United States and other developed
nations for their manufactured and semi-
manufactured products.
At the same time we have been hearing
new voices from Latin America-voices of
nationalism. voices of independence, voices
of out-.Age at lingering dependency. Some
have ? been asserting their independence
stridently and provocatively. Others have
done So more quietly, but also resentfully.
To Latin Americans the United States re-
mains a giant In a crowded room.
Two ears ago, Secretary of State Kissinger
called for a new dialogue between the na-
tions of the hemisphere. Latin American ex-
pectati+,ns were again raised but once again
remain unfulfilled. In recent months-we have
witnessed a continued erosion of mutual
trust and respect as U.S.-Latin American
relations have been clouded by revelations of
covert intervention in Chile; by sharpening
differences in the hemisphere over how to
respond to major violations of fundamental
human. rights; by the failure to make real
progress in the vital area of economic cooper-
ation; and by continuing uncertainty as to
the strength of the commitment by the
United States to the solution of hemispheric
problenis.
If one thing is clear it is that we are
headed for difficult and dangerous times if
we continue to focus our attention and con-
cern on otherparts of the world and ignore
our own hemisphere. Venezuela is a major
exporter of oil to the United States. Other
Latin American suppliers of important com-
modities-bauxite, copper, iron ore, sugar-
speak of increasing prices or curtailing pro-
duction without regard to the effect on the
American economy. Argentina and Brazil
have turned to other nations for technical as-
sistaflee in the development of nuclear pow-
er plants. Panama is supported by virtually
every other country in the hemisphere In its
insistence that the outdated 1903 Panama
Canal Treaty be - revised.
What are the major areas of tension?
Trade and investments: Economic matters
are a vital concern to the countries of Latin
America' today. As they continue to grow
and develop it is likely that their economic
Interests will diverge from those of the
United States. Such differences are inevit-
able. But confrontation can be avoided if the
United States pursues policies that reflect
a sensitivity to the problem. In an address
to the United Nations, Secretary Kissinger
launched new Initiatives and a broad con-
structive approach to the economic prob-
lems affecting Latin America and the rest
of the developing world. But in Latin Amer-
A w Panama Canal Treaty : There is
virtu unanimous support for a revision of
the try y throughout Latin America. It is
one issii n which all the countries seem to
have of common cause. It is therefore of
the utmos mportance that the Administra-
tion's supp for the new treaty negotiations
be strongly med. An unequivocal com-
mitment mu be made to assure necessary
Congre signal public support.
A firm stand ainst violation of human
rights in the he sphere: Documented re-
ports have eonti,n to substantiate allega-
tions of torture a repeated violations of
basic human rights some Latin American
countries. But there been no strong pro-
test from the Unite tates. The United
States should make cI that it is ready
to press for an internati al investigation-
by the United Nations o y the Organiza-
tion of American States alleged repres-
sive practices and to cease p viding aid and
suppora to regimes which sys matically vio-
late human rights. No othj' position is
consistent with the principles o which we
have so long expressed our oo fitment.
Relations with Cuba: Clearly"Cuban in-
te.rven, on In Angola and its position with
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070107-2
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070107-2
March 4, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
of their constituenn's in response to a
written request from Members of Con-
gress made on behalf of such con-
stituents."
Four agencies had simialr provisions in
their guidelines already. For instance,
the Commodity Futures Trading Com-
mission makes information "available to
any Member of Congress who is acting
in his capacity as a Member of Congress."
The Community Services Administra-
tion discloses information routinely "to
a Member of Congress seeking informa-
tion concerning the individual, but only
when the individual is a constituent of
the Member and had requested assistance
from the Member with respect to the
subject matter of the record."
The National Science Foundation and
the Occupational Safety and Health Re-
view Commission also make information
routinely available to Members of Con-
Five agencies said the guideline is not
necessary or. applicable to their opera-
tion. The Appalachian Region Commis-
sion "does not make grants or provide
other funds to individuals, therefore, we
feel the regulations to which you refer do
not apply to this agency."
The Federal Mediation and Concilia-
tion Service - has' concluded that the
agency can respond fully to "infrequent
congressional inquiries in these other
areas within the rationale of the OMB
recommendations without amending our
existing regulation." The service will ask
for a copy. of the constituent's letter ask-
ing for aid or for assurance that the re-
quest from the constituent was in writing,
presumably, all contained in a written in-
quiry from the congressional office. This
is a particularly innovative evasion of the
question and completely unresponsive to
the OMB guideline, not even showing a
need for written congressional inquiries.
The Indian Claims Commission simply
stated that the only records it maintains
pertaining to individuals are commission
employee personnel records. No discus-
sion was made of intention to comply
with the OMB guidance.
Although the Smithsonian Institution
has not seen fit to publish any Privacy
Act guidelines in the Federal Register to
date, I have been assured the OMB
guideline has been circulated to several
persons in the institute so no problems
should arise regarding constituent case-
work.
The National Mediation Board states
that its policy since the establishment of
the board is to respond fully to all con-
gressional inquiries and it will continue
to, so no specific regulation is needed.
All other responding agencies are in
some stage of implementing the guide-
line. Fourteen of these are in the process
of adopting the guideline as an agency
regulation and 17 have already done so.
This includes HEW and its component,
the Social Security Administration, the
entire Department of Defense, the Vet-
erans' Administration and the General
Services Administration which controls
the Military Personnel Records Facility
and the National Personnel Records
Center, both in St. Louis. NASA has
agreed to implement the OMB guidance
with the condition that the. congressional
inquiry be made in writing. No mention
was made by NASA that the constituent
inquiry should be in writing also.
I am in hopes that those agencies de-
linquent in responding to my inquiry will
realize the importance of establishing a
uniform policy of responding to congres-
sional inquiry.
In the meantime, any agency that does
not think it can provide the congressional
offices with personal information is at
liberty to gather information requested
through the congressional office and for-
ward it dirgctly to the individual who is
the subject of the record and request.
Congressional offices report that they
have had few problems attributable di-
rectly to the Privacy Act in obtaining in-
formation from agencies since the imple-
mentation of the routine use regulation.
Problems with the Immigration and Nat-
uralization Service, Department of the
Navy, and other agency components have
been quickly solved by referring agency
officials to their own privacy regulations,
or by conferring with privacy policy-
makers within the agencies.
I am referring copies of all agency re-
sponses to my 'survey to the OMB for
support in asking all agencies to comply
with the October 3 guideline. Further,
the Department of Justice has declared
its support of the guideline and its In-
tention to ask all agencies to comply
should there be any agency that seeks
to exclude Itself from the government-
wide policy.
One purpose of the Privacy Act of
1974 is to insure that information col-
lected by Federal agencies will be used
only for the purposes for which it was
collected. The routine use does not en-
able congressional offices to collect in-
formation that has not been-solicited by
the subject of the information. Should
any congressional office knowingly and
willfully obtain a record on' an indi-
vidual from an agency under false pre-
tenses, the person responsible in the
congressional office is guilty of a mis-
demeanor and subject to a fine of up
to $5,000.
In January, my staff conducted a sur-
vey of congressional offices to discover
how many are collecting evidence that
a request from the constituent has been
received. Such evidence-a letter, sig-
nature form or other authorization-is
valuable for the congressional office to
have in its files should the subject of
any records request later claim he never
made the request. Of course, under the
OMB guideline as implemented by 31
agencies, this written evidence need not
be presented to the agency concerned.
Sixty-nine representatives' presented
over 90 different forms to the subcom-
mittee. Several others always ask con-
stituents to write a letter describing their
difficulty, Many Congressmen also make
written requests to agencies about par-
ticular sensitive cases. 'Only one office
reported it never asks for something
with the constituents signature at-
tached.
The forms used range from simple
mimeographed consent forms asking
only the constituents signature to de-
tailed forms asking the constituent to
present his problem, supporting data and
H 1671
authorization to the congressional office
in order to pursue his case with a par-
ticular agency. A. few offices wisely note
where the request was received, on what
date and who handled the request.
I commend these offices for their de-
sire to comply with the Privacy Act to
the fullest and their initiative in de-
termining that a requester is who he
claims to be.
Facsimiles of several good forms will
soon be available in the Congressional
Handbook published by the Joint Com=
mittee on Congressional Operations.
The subcommittee will continue to
monitor the constituent casework prob-
lem. Should any congressional office find
an agency that is not complying with the
OMB guideline, or its own regulation, I
would appreciate having that informa-
tion brought to my attention.. Similarly.
I hope Federal agencies will apprise me
of problems they encounter in imple-
menting the regulation. The referred to
letter follows:
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND IN-
DIVIDVAL RIGHTS SuDcommITTE'E
OF THE COMMITTEE ON ? GOVERN-
MENT OPERATIONS,
Washington, D.C., December '22, 1975.
Hon. RODERRCS HILLS,
Chairman, Securities and Exchange Comn.mis-
sion, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN HILLS: It has recently
come to my attention that many agencies
have not yet implemented the Office of Man-
agement and Budget guideline for the Pri-
vacy Act of 1974 regarding congressional in-
quiries on behalf of constituents. These
agencies are not releasing information in
response to telephone calls from congres-
sional offices which affirm that a constituent
request has, in fact, been received. In some
cases, agencies are refusing to respond to in-
quiries even when the constituent's letter
requesting help, or a form signed by the
constituent authorizing the congressman to
help, has been forwarded to the appropriate
division within the agency.
When the Privacy Act became effective on
September 27 of this year, this Subcommit-
tee was overwhelmed with complaints from
Members of Congress because executive
agencies were refusing to deal with con-
gressional inquiries and were citing the Pri-
vacy Act as the reason.
As a result of over a week of meetings be-
tween myself, congressional representatives,
the OMB, and agency representatives, OMB
Director James Lynn issued the following
directive on October 3:
"Disclosure may be made to a congres-
sional office from the record of an individ-
ual in response to an inquiry from the con-
gressional office made at the request of that
Individual."
The guideline, a copy of which is enclosed,
appeared In the Congressional Record of Oc-
tober 6, 1975, and the Federal Register of
December 4, 1916.
Representatives of the Defense Depart-
ment, the Veterans Administration, and the
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare quickly assured me that their depart-
ments would amend their regulations to
permit release of a constituent's personal
data to congressional offices upon telephonic
assurance that the request for congressional
help had been made by the constituent.
I am writing now to ask whether your
agency is complying with the OMB guide-
line. As you may know, the guideline pro-
vides that if a constituent has asked for as-
sistance, the Representative should inform
the agency of that fact. The guideline does
not require that the request be in writing,
or that it be presented to the agency.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070107-2
 11 1=-'72
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070107-2-
CONORESSIONAL RECORD -HODSI March 4, 1976
Please supply the Subcommittee with a
copy of your agencys regulation implement-
ing the 0MB guideline. If you have not yet
implemented the OMB language, please in-
form the Subcommittee of your reasons for
not having done so.
Thank you for your prompt attention to
this important matter.
Sincerely,
BELIa. S. i0zwq,
Chairwoman.
MEDAL OF 'HONOR PRESENTATION
CEREMONY
The SPEAKER pre 'tefnpore. Under a
previous order of theilfouse, the gentle-
man from Wisconsin (Mr. ZIislocsx) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. ZABLGCKI. Mr. Speaker it was
my personal honor earlier this afternoon
to be in attendance at the Medal of
Honor presentation ceremony at the
White House during which the President
gave the following :address:
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT "MEDAL OF
HONOR PRESyNTATION CEREMONY, TH'ORS-
DAY, MARCH 4, 1976
We are gathered here today to honor four
Americans for exceptional military gallantry
in the service of our Nation.
All four of these men distinguished them-
selves above .and beyond the call of duty. I
deeply regret that one of the awards, to the
late Captain Lance P. Sijan (Sigh-Jan) of
the United States Air Force, is posthumous.
The other three-Rear Admiral names B.
Stockdale, United 'States Navy; Colonel
George E. Day, the United States Air Force;
and Lieutenant Thomas R. Norris, United
States Naval Reserve-are with us today.
We confer our -highest decoration upon
them for their inspiring and heroic conduct.
We do this in realization of the simple truth
that they have helped to preserve America's
future peace by demonstrating through their
courage the dedication of those entrusted
with our defense.
Their bravery places them in the ranks
of the finest of America's heroes from the
present back to the year 1775-when we were
forced, as a nation, to first take up =arms to
defend our liberty. These four men served 1n-
Vietnam. The war in Vietnam Is now over.
But as we today confer the Medal of honor
on heroes who distinguished themselves in
Vietnam, we have not forgotten others whose
fate still remains unknown. We will con-
tinue, on humanitarian grounds, to press for
a full accounting for those men to resolve
questions that keep many American families
living in endless anxiety and agony.
The United States today honors four men
of uncommon courage with the Medal of
Honor. But we can-and must-also .honor
these men by living up to their example of
patriotism.
We can do this by fulfillment of our own
duty as a nation, the highest trust that we
bear-the preservation of the safety and
security of the United States in a very dan-
gerous world.
As we celebrate our Bicentennial year, we
take satisfaction in our power to ,preserve
peace through strength. We are today the
strongest nation in the world.
As President, I intend to maintain our de-
terrent power.
While I will do everything in my ,power
to reduce the danger of war by diplomatic
means; my policy for America's security can
be summarized in three simple words of the
English language-peace through strength.
I am gratified that the United States is
today at peace. No Americans are in battle
anywhere. We have strengthened vital alli-
ances that preserve peace and stability
throughout the world.
By maintaining unquestioned strength
and resolve, we can command respect and
preserve the peace. We cannot win against
the enemies of freedom, big or small, with-
out the kind of vigilance and valor sym-
bolized by the medal of honor, the highest
of all this nation's decorations.
We will win by patient and persistent pur-
suit of a defense second to none in a world
that knows that America says what it means
and means what it says.
By so doing, we will pay America's debt to
the men we honor today, and the many
others who served with such courage.
A grateful nation thanks its defenders for
their resolve in keeping the United States
of America the world's best hope of peace
with freedom.
On behalf of the American people, I salute
the cherished memory of .Captain Sijan
(Sigh-jan)-And the living example of Ad-
miral Stockdale, Colonel Day, and Lieu-
tenant Norris. You served your nation well
and have given us all a clearer vision of a
better world.
Mr. Speaker, it was a deep honor and
privilege to witness this impressive, in-
spiring and dramatic presentation by the
President of the United States of the
Medal of Honor award to the following
four distinguished Americans: Capt.
Lance P. Sijan, Rear Adm. James B.
Stnckdale. Col. George D. -Day, and Lt.
Thomas R. Norris.
Mr. and Mrs. Sylvester Sijan, long-
time friends and constituents of mine,
received the posthumous Medal of Honor
for their son, Capt. Lance P. Sijan. A
deep sense of pride and indebtedness
was shared by all as the President pre-
sented the award to Mr. and Mrs. Sijan,
for it was my privilege to have met
Lance Sijan.for the first time at Christ-
mastime in 1960. A talented and able
high school senior, Lance had applied for
the fourth congressional appointment to
the Air Force Academy. His obvious
academic ability and personality-quali-
ties of leadership-and numerous
achievements gained the approval of
the reviewing board which evaluates the
many competing candidates. Lance was
their unanimous first choice. And I was
most honored to name him as my.prin-
cipal appointee.
As periodic reports of his grades and
other evidence of his outstanding per-
formance and maturity were received
over the years, I shared the joy of his
parents, particularly when he graduated
from the academy in June, 1965, when
he became a pilot, and now most re-
cently, this afternoon, when he most ap-
propriately received the Medal of Honor
award from the President of the United
States.
It is at this time, Mr. Speaker, that I
would like to read the citation of the
Medal of Honor posthumously given to
Capt. Lance P. Sijan by the President
of the United States.
CITATION
The President of the United States of
America, authorized by Act of Congress,
March 3. 1863, has awarded in the name
of The Congress, the Medal 02 Honor post-
humously to Captain Lance P. Sijan, United
States Air Force, for conspicuous gallantry
and intrepidity in action at the risk of his
life above and beyond the call of duty:
While on a fight over North Vietnam on
9 November 1967, Captain Sijan ejected from
his disabled aircraft and successfully evaded
capture for more than six weeks. During this
time, be was seriously injured and suffered
from shock and extreme weight loss due to
la^?k of food. After being captured by North
Vietnamese soldiers.' captain Sijan was taken
to a holding point for subsequent transfer to
a Prisoner of War camp. In his emaciated and
crippled condition, he overpowered one of his
guards and crawled into the jungle, only to
be recaptured after several hours. He was
then 'transferred to another prison camp
wl.ere he was kept in solitary confinement
and interrogated at length. During interro-
gation, he was severely tortured; however,
he did not divulge any information to his
captors. Captain Sijan- lapsed into delirium
and was placed in the care of another pris-
ol er. During his intermittent periods of con-
sciousness until his death, he never com-
plained of his physical condition and, on
several occasions, spoke.of future escape at-
tempts. Captain Sijan's extraordinary hero-
ism .and intrepidity above .and beyond the
call of duty at the cost of his life are in
keeping with the highest traditions of the
U;,ited States Air Force and reflect great
credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of
ti's United States.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gen-
tleman from California, Congressman
Boa WILSON.
Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Speaker,
among other Members of Congress, I was
today privileged to be present at the
White House for a Congressional Medal
of Honor presentation to four gallant
servicemen, one of whom being a long-
time friend and constituent, Rear Adm.
James B. Stockdale, USN.
Admiral :Stockdale was the senior
naval officer in the North Vietnamese
prison camps. He set a courageous exam-
ple of leadership in resisting efforts of his
captors to propagandize the POW's.
His wife, Sybil, and their four sons,
plus his cousin, George Bond, and other
rc latives were present to watch him re-
ceive his award from President Ford.
I insert his citation as a portion of
my remarks:
CITATION
The President of the United States in the
name of The Congress takes pleasure in
presenting the Medal of Honor to Rear
Admiral James B. Stockdale, United States
Ncvy, for service as set forth in the following:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity
al the risk of his life above and beyond the
call of duty on 4 September 1969 while senior
naval officer in the Prisoner of War camps of
North Vietnam. Recognized by his captors as
the leader in the Prisoners' of War resistance
to interrogation and in their refusal to par-
ticipate in propaganda exploitation, Rear
Admiral (then Captain) Stockdale was sin-
gled out for interrogation and attendant
torture after he was deteted in a covert com-
munications attempt. Sensing the start of
of other purge, and aware. that his earlier
efforts at self-disfiguration to dissuade .his
captors from exploiting him for Propaganda
purposes had resulted in cruel and agonizing
p,=niahmel t, Rear Admiral Stockdale resolved
to make himself -a symbol of resistance re-
gtardless of personal sacrifice. He deliberately
inflicted a near-mortal wound to his person
in order to convince his captors of his willing-
ness to give up his life rather than capitulate.
He was subsequently discovered and revived
by the North Vietnamese who, convinced of
his indonhitahle spirit, abated in their em-
ployment of excessive harassment and torture
toward all 03 the Prisoners of War. By his
heroic action, at great peril to Iimself, Me
se.rned the Everlasting gratitude of his fel-
low prisoners and of his country. Read-
Ad-miral Stockdale's valiant leadership and ex-
traordinary courage in a'hostile environment
Approved For Release 2002/01/02: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800070107-2