Legislative history of the Privacy Act of 1974, S. 3418 (Public Law 93-579)


Material Information

Legislative history of the Privacy Act of 1974, S. 3418 (Public Law 93-579)
Physical Description:
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on House Administration
United States -- Congress. -- Senate. -- Committee on Government Operations
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Government Operations. -- Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights
U.S. Govt. Print. Off. ( Washington )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 22563994
oclc - 2580606
System ID:

Full Text


col vm]j pBr"

% t )W
-341, (PUBLIC LAW 93-579)





I it United
the on o1wernineat Opmtfom

J I'
t' 41

2d Sessions

S. 3418 (PUBLIC LAW 93-579)








Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operatinn., Unit,.l
States Senate, and the Committee on Goverinmnt Operation-.
House of Representatives


For sale by the Superintendent of Documpnts, U.S. Government Printiniz Ot i'"
Washington, D.C. 20402 Price $12.45

63-819 0

ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Connecticut. Chairman

SAM NUNN, Georgia

WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR.. Delaware
BILL BROCK, Tennessee
LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., Connecticut

RICHARD A. WEGMAN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
PAUL HOFF, Counsel
CLAUDIA R. HIGGINS, Assistant to the Majority
JOHN B. CHILDERS, Chief Counsel to the Minority
BRIAN. CONBOY, Special Counsel to the Minority
ELIZABETH A. PREAST, Assistant Chief Clerk

JAMES H. DAVIDSON, Counsel, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations



JACK BROOKS, Texas. Chairman

L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina
JOHN E. MOSS, California
WILLIAM S. MOOR IHEA.D, Pennsylvania
WM. J. RANDALL, Missouri
FLOYD V. HICKS, Washington
DON FUQUA, Florida
LEO J. RYAN, California
JOHN L. BURTON, California
ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts
LES ASPIN, Wisconsin

PAUL N. McCLOSKI:Y, JR., Caifornia
SAM STEIG:RIt, Arizona
CHAI.\RoES THONE, N'ebraska
JOEL PRITCHARD, W, -1,irij:ton
EDWIN B. FORSYTIhlE, Nfew Jersey
ROBERT W. KA.ST EN. JR., Wiscon;sin

WILLIAM M. JONES, General Counsel
JOHN E. MOORE, Staff Administrator
WILLIAM H. COPENHAVER, Associate Counsel
J. P. CARLSON, Minority Counsel

BELLA S. ABZUG, New York, Chairwoman

LEO J. RYAN, California
JOhIN E. MOSS, California


PAUL N. McCLOSKI:Y, JR., California


TIMOTHY H. INGRAM, ',tfuff Director
ROBERT S. FINK. Professional Staff Member
THEODORE J. JACOBS. Profess88ionall 'tiff Member
MIARILYN HAFT, Profe8ssional Staff .Mlember


Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013


i -.9ldo


It is a privilege to present to the Senate and to the general public
this source book on the Privacy Act of 1974. That legislation repre-
sents a landmark achievement in securing for each citizen of the
United States the right of privacy with respect to confidential infor-
mation held by the Federal Government.
This legislation would not have become public law without the ex-
traordinary dedication, ability, and leadership of Senator Sai, J.
Ervin, Jr., of North Carolina, who served as Chairman of the Com-
mittee on Government Operations in the 93d Congress.
For two decades, Senator Ervin was regarded by his colleaguo- in
the Senate as a guardian and forceful exponent of the constitutional
rights of our Nation's citizens. The hearings, reports, and legislation
produced by the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the
Committee on Judiciary, which he also served as chairman, laid tlin
groundwork for this first major privacy legislation.
The Bill of Rights guarantees to each American protections which
we equate with specific rights of citizenship in a free society. This
legislation is a major first step in a continuing effort to define the
"penumbra" of privacy which emanates from specific guarantees in
the Bill of Rights and which helps to give them life and substance as
recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut.
This source book is an effort to bring together in one publication
the legislative history which led to enactment of Public Law 93--79.
the Privacy Act of 1974. In addition, it includes statements, articles.
and certain reported cases which may help to shed light on the grow-
ing law of privacy.
It is hoped that this compilation of materials will be a useful ref-
erence for all people concerned with the Federal Government's role
in the protection of privacy.




This source book on the Privacy Act of 1974 should be of : -i--i:i c(
to government agencies charged with observilnr its maIdate-, ai(d
should be of help to private citizens in exercising their rights uldei'
this new law.
The Privacy Act is a law of fundamental importance. In addition
to securing to each individual the right of acc,.s-, to file- nulaintained
by federal agencies, it also provides for the correction of inacrate
and outdated information in those files. The Act also places certainly
curbs on the random distribution of personal intiforniatioin, and requires
that reasonable security safeguards be applied by agencli- in the
handling and storing of such data.
As with other landmark pieces of legislation, such as the Fredlom
of Information Act, when it was first passed in 1966. there is an initial
period when education is needed to acquaint both government eim-
ployees and citizens about the Act's requirements. The Privacy Act
of 1974 is experiencing that situation now, and it is hoped that this
publication will assist its implementation.
Chv mhai n.i
Govenm-cIt Operatiol, C071omm111-ttej.
t '.
Gorvci-nment Ilnformationi aiad Ind;,du1;al
Rights Sufx 'oii, mifttec.

Former Chailnin-ii,.
Fo,(- /gn Operations awul Gorerim /i, it





Prefaces,------------------------------------------------------- vII
Part One: The Major Bills
Senator Ervin introduces S. 3418--------------- 3
Text of S. 3418--------------------------- 9
Markup session transcript on S. 3418---------------------.---------- 29
S. 3418 as reported from the Committee on Government Ope.ration .---- 97
Senate Report No. 93-1183-Protecting Individual Privacy in Fed, r:,l
Gathering, Use, and Disclosure of Information----------------------- 151
H.R. 16373 as introduced, August 12, 1974---_----- --- 239
H.R. 16373 as reported from the Committee on Government Operations.- 25-
House Report No. 93-1416-Privacy Act of 1974---------------------- 204
S. 3418 as passed by Senate, Nov. 21, 1974 and referred to Housei- :.. ... 334
H.R. 16373 as passed by the Senate, Nov. 22, 1974----------.------..- 375
S. 3418 as amended by House, Dec. 11, 1974--------------------------. 437
S. 3418 with Senate amendments to House amendments, Dec. 17, 1974-__ 4)59
S. 3418 with House amendments to Senate amendments, Dec. 18, 1974--- 497
Public Law 93-579-The Privacy Act of 1974-------------------------- 501
Part Two: Additional Prhirac, L qislation
S. 1688-Civil Service Employees Right to Privacy-------------------- 516
Senate Report 93-724 on S. 1688- ------ --------------- 536
S. 2542-Records Disclosure Privacy Act----------------------------- 4
S. 2810-Right to Privacy Act-------------------------------------- 591
S. 2963-Criminal Justice Information Control and Protection of Priv-icy
Act-------------------- ----------------------------------------614
S. 3116-Mailing List Privacy Act-_---- ------------------- 651
S. 3633-Government Data Bank Right to Privacy Act ---------------- .* .4
H.R. 1281-Civil Service Employee's Right to Privacy Act ---------- ,76
H.R. 7677-Civil Service Employees Right to Privacy Act-------- 701
H.R. 12206-Records Disclosure Privacy Act---------------------- 721
H.R. 13872-Records Disclosure Privacy Act ----- 726
H.R. 14493-Federal Agency Information Practices Act-- 7o-

Part Thre: Legislatire Debate
Senators Goldwater and Percy introduce an amendment to halt th,.
spread of the social security number as a universal populatidr i_' iit: r,
September 19, 1974.--------------------------- 7'
Senate considers S. 3418 as reported by the Committee on Go, rr:,. rt
Operations and passes it with amendment-z, November 21, 1974- .- -63
Consideration of perfecting amendments --------------------- --- 4
Memorandum explaining perfecting amendment-_6 ... .. 77
Executive branch views- ----------------------- ..
Senator Percy's remarks on S. 3418------------------------ 775
Senator Curtis' questions regarding the B'irc. ii of the C(7-Is ..... 71
Senator Muskie introduces amendment to enlarge, miiidite ;,f th'.
Privacy Protection Commi'in ---------------------------- *,
Amendment introduced by Senator Nclon to t-tabli-h a Joint C,',n-
mittee on Government Surveillance------------------------ 7'7



Senate considers S. 3418 as reported by the Committee on Government
Operations and passes it with amendments, Nov. 21, 1974-Continued
Amendment introduced by Senator Goldwater to halt the spread of Page
the social .-ecurity number as a universal population identifier- -- 804
Amendment introduced by Senator Weicker-Net Worth Disclosure
Act----------------------------------- 813
Senator Biden introduces an amendment relating to the Privacy
Commission budgeting process- -----------8-----23
Rollcall vote on S. 3418 as amended---------------- 3------------- 83
Senate considers H.R. 16373, substitutes text of S. 3418, November 22,
1974- ------- --------------------- 838
Senate considers House substitute of text of H.R. 16373 to S. 3418 and
adopts compromise amendments identical to those to be considered in
the House------------------------------------------------------ 839
Senator Ervin submits an "Analysis of House and Senate Compromise
Amendments to the Federal Privacy Act," December 17, 1974----___ 858
Staff memorandum in opposition to compromise on law enforcement
pro% visions submitted by Senator Hruska--------------------- ------- 874
Senate considers and adopts three technical amendments passed by the
House which further amend the Senate-House compromise amendments
to S. 3418, December 18, 1974.------------------------------------- 878
House considers H.R. 16373, November 20, 1974---------------------- 880
Perfecting amendments offered by Mr. Moorhead_---------_---- 907
Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn exempting civil service
employment-------------------------- 908
Amendment offered by Mr. Fascell regarding civil remedies for agency
failure to comply with the act-------------------------------- -919
House continues consideration of H.R. 16373 and passes it with amend-
ments, November 21, 1974___________ ------- ..924
Amendment offered by Mr. Moorhead in compromise of positions on
civil remedies provided against the Government----------------- 925
Amendment offered by Mr. Ichord to clarify position on law enforce-
ment records----------------------------------------------- 929
Amendment offered by Mr. Gude to clarify emergency situations
which would allow disclsoure of information without prior consent- 931
Amendment offered by Mr. Goldwater to place a moratorium on the
use of the social security number- --- -------------- 932
Amendment offered by Mr. Butler to allow disclosure pursuant to
court order----_ -------------------------- 936
Amendment offered by Mr. Butler to exempt from disclosure informa-
tion compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or pro-
ceeding---_------- ---------------------------- 936
Amendment offered by Ms. Abzug to strike the exemption allowed
for records maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency----- 938
Amendment offered by Mr. Ichord to exempt from disclosure certain
investigatory material of investigating agencies in limited circum-
stances------------------------------------------------- 944
Amendment offered by Mr. Gude to establish a Federal Private Com-
mission. ---- ------------------------------------ 945
Amendment offered by Mr. Koch to require the Federal Register to
publish a directory of Federal data banks----------------------- 952
Amendment offered by Ms. Abzug to strike exemption allowed for
Secret Service ------------------------------953
Statement by the President endorsing H.R. 16373----------------- 956
Speeches by numerous members in general support of the act---------- 959
Report of the Republican Task Force on Privacy-------------------- 971
Final vote on passage of the bill----------------------- ------ 981
House considers S. 3418 and substitutes the text of H.R. 16373, December
11, 1974--- ------------------ ----- --- 984
House considers and adopts compromise amendments with three technical
amendments. Congressman Moorhead submits an "Analysis of House
and Senate Compromise Amendments to the Federal Privacy Act,"
December 18, 1974------------------------- 985


Part Four: Complementary Spceritts m'l MIaterials
Statement of the Pre-ident upon the signing of the Privacy Act of 1974, '
January 1, 1975---------------------------------.----------------1.. l1
Statement of the President on the inipilenentation of !ll' Priv:acN: Act
of 1974, September 29, 1975 ------------------------- --........ (.,2
Central Intelligence( Agency comments on S. 3418 in a letter to S ,ratr
Ervin on Sep.tember 26, 1974 ;------- -- --.------ ...-..-_... I li,,
Address by the President on the "American Right of Privacy"- live ()n
nationwide radio from the White Houii, Febri.irvy 23, 1974,__--- I',I
Senator Hart responds to Pre-ident Nixon's radio bro.L't:,-t on the Ei-lit
of Privacy, M arch 7, 1974 ------ .------------- ------ ---- -- --... ....-

0MB guidelines, July 1, 1975 --------------- -- 1015
Transmittal memorandum No. 1, circular A-108, S eptemiher 30, 197; 1 127)
Supplement, November 21, 1975-------------------------------. 1131
Congressional casework and the Privacy Act: Letter from Senators RIibicoff,
Muskie, and Percy, Representativt Brooks -:id Abzug to ;'-,11, I-,-.
October 6, 1975------------------------------- 11:34
Congressional Record insertion of February 15, 1976------------------1 13:)
Department of Defense Privacy Board decision memorandum 76-1 --- 1146i
The Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts: Senator Kennedv-'s
communication with the Department of Jii-tic, insert-'l in Con,'r,--ional
Record, October 9, 1975------------------------------------ 1173

Davidson, James H.:
The Privacy Act of 1974-Exceptions and Exemptions------------- 1191
Cohen, Richard E.:
Protection of Citizens' Privacy Becomes Major Fed.ral Concrn,
October 12, 1974 National Journal Reports ------------- 11915
New Privacy Law To Have Major Impact on Government D)atai.
January 4, 1975 National Journal Reports ----------------------- 12,i
Agencies Prepare Regulations for Implementing New Privacy 1.:w.
May 24, 1975 National Journal Reports ---------------1211
Hulett, Privacy and the Freedom of Information A.\ct, 27 Admin. L. Rtev.
275(1975)--------------------------------------------------- 1217
Large, Arlen J., "The Continuing Problem of Privacy," The '-all Street
Journal, November 13, 1974 and "Congr,.-, Finishes \Work on 'Privacy'
Bill But Measure Has a Number of Loophole.-." The Wall '-tr, t JourTi i,.
December 19, 1974----------------------------------------------- 1237
Ervin, Sam J., Jr.:
"The First Amendment: A Living Thought in the C.imput. r A-' ,"
from the Columbia Human Rights Review1, vol. 4, No. 1 1972)__ 12)
"Privacy and Government Inv,. tiLzitions" Excerpts from the Univ\ r-
sity of Illinois Law Forum, vol. 1971, No. 2-- 1261

Selected bibliography of the rights of privacy ,ind maintenance of F, ,icral
R e c o r d s --.. . . . . . . .. . . . .... ... ........ .... .. 1 2 1

A. "Citizen Access to Records: A Guide to Fedtral Sta itry RjIuirc-
ments," by Jerome Hanii-. Government I)i,.i-ion, (`on r -,-ional
Research Service, Library of Congr(---...- .---- --- 12"')
B. Excerpts from University of Michih-ln Law Review, Volume 73, "In-
creasing Protection of Citiztn Privacy":
Introduction-------------------------..--.---- 12,''
Constitutional Law of Privacy------------------------------- 1;'
Statutory Protection Prior to the Privacy Act- - 1329
The Privacy Act of 1974------------------------------------ 133)



C. Selected case law regarding the personal privacy exemption to the Page
Freedom of Information Act and an Analysis- -.. ...--..- ..- 1373
I)epartmrnt of the Air Force V. Rose, U.S. 44 U.S.L.W.
4503 (April 20, 1976)------------------ 1375
Ro.sc v. Department of the Air Force, 495 F. 2d 261 (2d Cir. 1974).. 1390
United Statcs v. Miller, U.S. 44 U.S.L.W. 4528 (April
21, 1976.-_--------------------------------- 1400
Ditlow v. Shultz, 517 F.2d 166 (D.C. Cir. 1975)----------- ------1409
Wine Hobbil USA v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 502 F.2d 133
(3d Cir. 1974)------------------------ 1420
Rural Huqing .4Alliance v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 498
F.2d 73 (D.C. Cir. 1974)--------------- ---------- 1430
Robles v. EPA, 484 F.2d 843 (4th Cir. 1973)---------- 1439
Gelman v. .NLRB, 450 F.2d 670 (D.C. Cir. 1971)---- ---- 1444
D. Expungernent of Records-Chastain v. Kelley, 510 F.2d 1232 (D.C.
Cir. 1975) ------------------------------------------------ 1453












------- T





[From the Congressional Record-Senate, May 1, 1974]
ERVIN, JR., ON S. 34181

[P. S6741]

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, with the concurrence of Mr. Percy and
Mr. Muskie I introduce for reference to the Governnment Operatioyv-
Committee a bill to establish a Federal Privacy Board, to oversee the
gathering and disclosure of information concerning individuals, and
to provide management systems in all Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and other organizations.
Recent months have focused a great deal of attention, bothli in the
Congress and with the public at large, on one of our nmo:4t funda-
mental civil liberties-the right to privacy.
The Constitution creates a right to privacy which is designed to
assure that the minds and hearts of Americans remain free. The
bulwark of this constitutional principle is the first amendment. The
first amendment was designed to protect the sanctity of the individ-
ual's private thoughts and beliefs. It protects the individual's right to
free exercise of conscience; his right to assemble to petition the Gov-
ernment for redress of grievances; his right to associate peaceably with
others of like mind in pursuit of a common goal; his right to speak
freely what he believes; and his right to try to persuade others of the
worth of his ideas.
The fourth amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreason-
able searches and seizures." In addition to the privacy of one's liome
and personal effects, the privacy of his person-or bodily intecrity-
and even his private telephone conversations are protected lby vthe
fourth amendment. The fifth amendment guarantees that a in divid-
ual shall not be forced to divulge private information which li iigiht
incriminate him. It also protects individual privacy by prevelItinlg
unwarranted governmental interference w it hi thIe in (ii Vi (hias | I ,* m.
personality, and property without due proce-- of law.
The ninth amendment's reservation that "thie enunerationll in tli
Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or dis-
1 See p. 9.

parade others retained by the people" clearly shows that the Founding
Fathers contemplated that certain basic individual rights not specifi-
cally mentioned in the Constitution-such as privacy-should never-
theless be safe from governmental interference.
The Supreme Court has hlield many aspects of individual privacy to
be constitutionally protected. In recognizing, that "specific guarantees
in the Bill of Rights have penumbras formed by emanations from
those guarantees that help give then life and substance" (Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479,484), the Court has found that those penum-
bras protect the right to give and receive information, the right to
family life and child-rearing according to one's conscience, the right
to marriage, the right to procreation, the right to contraception, and
the right to abortion.
All Americans can testify to the power of those protections of the
individual's rights. The Constitution assures these rightsto all citizens
whether their exercise is pleasing to Government or not. And by the
same token, it assures the individual the converse of these rights: the
right not to speak what he believes, whether his silence is pleasing 'to
Government or not; and his right not to act. not to associate, not to
assemble, whether his inaction is pleasing to Government or not.
The right of every individual in America to privacy has been a
matter of considerable concern to me over the years. It seems that
now, as never before, the appetite of government and private. organiza-
tions for information about individuals threatens to usurp the right
to privacy which I have long felt, to be among the most basic of our
civil liberties as a free people.
If we have learned anything in this last year of Watergate, it is
that there must be limits upon what the Government can know about
each of its citizens. Each time we give up a bit of information about
ourselves to the Government, we give up some of our freedom. For
the more the Government or any institution knows about us, the more
power it has over us. When the Government knows all of our secrets,
we stand naked before official power. Stripped of our privacy, we lose
our rights and privileges. The Bill of Rights then becomes just so
many words.
Alexander Solzyhenitsyn, the Russian Nobel Prize winner, suggests
how an all-knowing government dominates its citizens in his book
"Cancer Ward :"
As every man goes through life he fills in a number of forms for the record, each
containing a number of questions.... There are thus hundreds of little threads
radiating from every man, millions of threads in all. If these threads were sud-
denly to become visible, the whole sky would look like a spider's web, and if
they materialized as rubber, banks, buses, trams and even people would all lose
the ability to move. and the wind would be unable to carry torn-up newspapers
or autumn leaves along the streets of the city. They are not visible, they are not
material, but every n an is constantly aware of their existence. . Each man.
permanently aware of his own invisible threads, naturally develops a respect for
the people who manipulate the threads.
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that a Russian can master the
words to describe the elusive concept we in America call personal


privacy. He understands, in a way which we cannot, the importance
of being a free individual with certain inalienable rights, an individual
secure in the knowledge that his thoughts and judgments are beyond
the reach to the state or any man. He understands those concepts be-
cause he has no such security or rights but lives in a country where
rights written into law are empty platitudes.
Privacy, like many of the other attributes of freedom, can be easiest
appreciated when it no longer exists. A complacent citizenry only be-
comes outraged about its loss of integrity and individuality when the
aggrandizement of power in the Government becomes excessive. By
then, it may be too late. We should not have to conjure up 1984 or a
Russian-style totalitarianism to justify protecting our liberties against
Government encroachment. Nor should we wait until there is such a
threat before we address this problem. Protecting against the loss
of a little liberty is the best means of safeguarding ourselves against
the loss of our freedom.
The protection of personal privacy is no easy task. It will require
foresight and the ability to forecast the possible trends in informa-
tion technology and the information policies of our Government and
private organizations before they actually take their toll in widespread
invasions of the personal privacy of large numbers of individual
citizens. Congress must act before sophisticated new systems of in-
formation gathering and retention are developed, and before they
produce widespread abuses. The peculiarity of new complex technol-
ogies is that once they go into operation, it is too late to correct our
mistakes or supply our oversight.
Our Founding Fathers had that foresight when they wrote the Bill
of Rights. The first, fourth and fifth amendments are among the most
effective bulwarks to personal freedom conceived by the mind of man.
Justice Brandeis in his classic dissent in the wiretapping case, Olmn-
stead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1927), described with un-
surpassed eloquence the importance of the right to privacy set out in
the Constitution. These words do not go stale from repetition:
The makers of our Constitution undertook to seciire conditions favorable to
the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual
nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the
pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They
sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their einotions and
their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be
let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by
civilized men.
Government and private data collection on individuals is not a brand
new phenomenon. The Federal Government has been collecting im-
mense amounts of very sensitive information on individuals for
decades. Income tax, social security, and census come to mind immedi-
ately. Various surveys by experts, private organizations such as thec
National Academy of Sciences, and a number of congressional com-
mittees have established the fact that the Federal Government stores
massive amounts of information about all of us.

63-619 0- 76 2



Nevertheless, the effect on the right to privacy of massive
information-gathering and disseminationn through the use of sophis-
ticated computer technology is just beginning to be realized. Rich or
poor, male or female, whatever one's cultural style or religious or
political views, each of us is subject to cumulative records being stored
by a variety of Government agencies and private organizations.
One of the most obvious threats the computer poses to privacy comes
in its ability to collect, store, and disseminate information without. any
subjective concern for human emotion and fallabilitv.
Yet the increasing growth of information-gathering by Govern-
ment and private organizations proceeds without any standards or
procedures to regulate these organizations. It is because of this vacuum
of authority that I am introducing, along with the very distinguished
ranking minority member. Senator PERCY, this bill which is essential in
order to preserve individual freedoms. We must act now to create safe-
guards against the present and potential abuse of information about
people. I would like to provide a brief summary of its provisions.

The bill establishes a Federal Privacy Board which shall have the
primary function of overseeing the gathering, maintenance and dis-
closure of information concerning individuals by Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and private organizations.
This Federal Privacy Board consists of five members, appointed
by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, not more
than three of which are to be of the same political party. No member
may engage in any other employment during his tenure.
In addition to its primary responsibility in enforcing the safeguards
to personal privacy proscribed under section II of this bill, the Board
is responsible for making an annual report to the President and to
Congress, as well as publishing, on an annual basis, a descriptive
directory of all information systems currently operating in the United
In order to carry out its functions, the Board is designated several
specific powers. First. the Board shall have the power to compel,
through subpoena if necessary the production of any documents relat-
ing to an information system, either private or public.
Second, upon determination of a violation of any provisions of this
act, the Board is authorized to issue cease and desist orders and to rec-
ommend the institution of either criminal or civil suits.
Third, the Board can conduct open public hearings on any petition
for exemption from the provisions of section II of the act. Upon coinm-
pletion of its hearings, the Board will report its recommendation to
the Congress.


The bill provides safeguards to personal privacy at all tile l t. i t:,r.
of the information systems process: collection, maintenance, and diq-
semrination of information.

Under the provisions of the bill, information may be gathered by
Federal agencies, State and local governments, or any private or..i i-
zations only to accomplish the proper purpose of those agencies and
In gathering information, the individual must be the source of that
information to the greatest extent possible: however, no individual
may be forced to disclose any information not required by law. and lihe
is to be informed of his right not to disclose.
The individual is to be notified of the existence of any information
being maintained on him and the uses to which that information is
being put.
No public or private organization may collect information on an
individual's political or religious beliefs or affiliations unless specified
by law.
A description of all information systems must be reported to the
Federal Privacy Board on an annual basis.

Restrictions on the maintenance of information systems used by
Federal agencies. State and local governments, and other organizations
include requirements that all information in the-e systems be accurate.
complete, timely, and pertinent.
Any individual has the right to inspect the information maintained
in a system relating to him with the exception of medical records. He
has the right to know the nature of the source and the recipients of
that information.
The individual also has the right to challenge any information on
the basis of its accuracy, completeness, timeliness, pertinence, or neces-
sity. Upon receipt of any challenge to its information by an ind(livid-
ual, an organization must: First, investigate and record tlhe current
status of such information; second, purge any information that is
found to be incomplete, not pertinent, not timely. not nece--ary to l,,
maintained, or that can no longer be verified.
If the investigation does not solve the dispute, the individual may
insert a statement, not in excess of 200 words, in his own d(efeni-t, and
he may appeal to the Federal Privacy Board.

The bill places strict restrictions on the dissemination of informa-
tion in personal information systems, both private and public.
All information systems must request permission from the individ-
ual before disseminating any information to any person or organiza-
tion not having regular, authorized access to the information system.
Organizations maintaining information systems are required to
keep an accurate list of all persons having access to the information
including but not limited to those having access on a regular basis.
Federal agencies are specifically restricted in disseminating infor-
mation only to authorized employees of Federal agencies.

The omnibus privacy bill makes it unlawful for any organization
to require an individual to disclose or furnish his social security
number unless specifically required by law.

The bill also provides for the removal of any name and address
from a mailing list upon the written request of the individual.

The remedies provided under this act include both criminal and
civil sanctions.
The act provides for a criminal liability of up to $10,000 or 5 years
in prison, or both, for any violation of the act..
In addition, the act provides that the Attorney General, upon the
recommendation of the Federal Privacy Board, or an aggrieved in-
dividual, may file a civil suit in the appropriate district, court.

Certain types of information are exempted from coverage of this
act. Those information systems exempted include: any information
maintained by a Federal agency and determined to be vital to national
defense; criminal investigatory files of Federal, State or local law
enforcement, agencies; and any information maintained by the press
or news media---except that information related to the employees of
such organizations.
Mr. President, this bill provides a method whereby the Congress
can guarantee that the right of every American to be let alone will be
maintained. I encourage every Senator to support this important
piece of legislation.


21 ssi. S 3418

MAY 1, 1974
Mh. EuVIN (for himself. Mr. PERCvy. and Mr. M sKi:) introdu(Ice(d the follo)wiNi
bill; which was real twice iand referred to tle CI (onmlitteee (m o ( v\erinelit

'To establish a Federal Privacvy Board to oversee thle gatherillo

and disclosure of inforinmtion ei ( cernii"g individuals, to
provide inmnagenment systems in lFederal nagen is, State.
and 11(1local govermiwllents, and other organizations regar(diil"
sucll information, an1d foir other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate a und Housw of RIci/dna-
2 ir"'" of the Unitcd S lats of IAI inca i"in Conjrc',i. asscnth(d,



5 SEC. 101. (a) here is established in tlhe executive
6 branch of the Government tlhie Federal Privacy Board which

7 shall be composed of five members who shall be appointed
8 l)y the President b)y and with the advice i, and consent of tlhe



1 S innate fi')il aTI1l "L iiiS inl r- of tile public ;it largeN who are

2 not (ifficelrs ,)r 'IJJpIoyi e- of to Uited Stite,. NIt llore

3 tlI.;IIi hre(e of t (he membe),,).rs (if tIie Bonard si .1ll 1 e)v ;nidIicre,,,f(<

4 of tio ( -iie politit.il ,pa rty.

5* (b( ) I'I ( ll iinl'i lan of llie , .I ,d d l ill C ('el d lvI iY

G them nlieilier, of tile Bard every' two v\.,.

7 (c) Eaeii ienmiler of the Board sliall he eoiijlpelli.ted at

8 (hlie Irate provided for (iS-1 under -,ciion 5:.)_ 22f title ) 5 l I

9 (tle united Status Code.

10 (d) Memibers of tlie Board simll lie appoiilted for ;a terli

11 oft l]reec vears. No nlemler imi : erve more .(,v ti an (wo ftr l-ni.
12 (e) Va aincies il the mlemlbershlip of lithe 1)rd sl-hall Iw

13 filled illn thlie saiie manner in which tIle ol'iuflinal alpp)oint illit

14 was made.

15 (f) Vacanceies ii tile ml e ,ll.brshlip) of tle B), a d. ;i< li,

1 a~1- t li(re are tl'hree liemIIlPbers in ofli.c, si,;1ll not ilmlipair li'

17 )ow('r (f ill IV Board. to execute thlie fiiiiiiins of tile Boaird.

18 Th 're imelibers of lthe BoI'ard shall conlstitullte a (aillIorlli for

19 thle trani-actioin of buines<.

20 ((g) remlllcr% of thie Boa1rd sliall i lot ela'e iN- aiy oiilier

21 eniployllOlellt dilrilig their tenure s lelbilers o()f iie Bwo;1rd.


23 Si'c. 1()2. I'lie Board slhiall-

24 (1) pulhisil an anl aDl 1)aa Ba' I)se Directry of th(
25 united States colltainiling the iamlle and i harac(ri'i.-

26 of 'l;(i )perollal inlformationll system;




1 (2) consult with the heads of appI-rpjijnq d ep.irt-

2 imeits, agencies, and iniistrmniiiieintalitics of thile (Goverl'lnment

3 in accordance with section 103 (5) oft ltis A. ct

4 (3) IImake rules to assure 'ecopllpliacllee \Vwilli itle IT f

5 tli iis Act: and

6 (4) perform m or cause to 1e perfrme(Icd siticli re-ear.(.I

7 activtiiies as may secomen necessary to iliplpellti Iit 1'c II

8 of this Act, and to assist orga.i/.itions in c oilmplyinlt with

9 the requirements of such title.


11 SEC. 103. (a) The Board is autlhorized-

12 (1) to be granted admission at reasoinaldble ours to

13 premises where any information systc isc kept or vlwere

14 computers or equipment or recordiiings for alltolatici data

15 processing are kept, and may, by Iv sulpelina, cmipel the

16 production of documents relating' to st)st ictiioniitioli

17 system or such processing as is neee,.saIry to carry ou its1

18 functions, except that the produc(tioi iof p1isn.il iitfi)nIiJ-

19 tion shall not be compelled without tlie prior (onsIP' t ,f

20 the data subject to which it pertains:

21 (2) upon the determination of a violation o1 a1 N.

22 provision of this Act or regrulationt proinulolg;tled tinder

23 this Act, to, after opportunity for' a ieat-ring, orderr tlie

24 orgaIization violating such provision, t o cea-r awd deist

25 such violation;




1 (3) to delegate its authority under this title, with
2 respect to information systems within a State or the Dis-
3 trict of Columbia, to such State or District, during such
4 period of time as the Biiard remains satisfied that the
5 authority established ly ) StihSlate or ) District to (carV
6 out the requirements of this Act in such State i, satis-
7 factorily enforcing those provisions;
8 (4) to conduct open, public hearings on all peti-
9 tions for exceptions or exemptions from provisions, appl)li-
10 cation, or jurisdiction of this Act, except that the Board
11 shall not have authority to make such exceptions or ex-
12 emptions but shall submit appropriate reports and rec-
13 commendations to Congress; and
14 (5) to the fullest extent practicable, to consult, with
15 thie leads of appropriate departnientes, agelncice, and in-
16 struinentalities of the Governnment in carrying out the
17 functions of the Board under this Act.
18 (b) The Board may procure such temporary and inter-
19 mittent. services to the same extent as is authorized by sec-

20 tion 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to
21 exceed $100 a day for individuals.
23 Sic. 104. The Board shall report, anuilwly, on its ac-
24 tivities to the ('ongress and the President.







6 SEc. 201. (a) Any Federal agency, State or local g'ov-

7 ernnent, or any other organization maintaining an inforima-

8 tion system that includes personal information shall-

9 (1) collect, maintain, use, and di-,nijinate only

10 personal information necessary to accomplish a )proper

11 purpose of the organization;

12 (2) collect information to the greatc-t extent pos-

13 sible from the data subject directly:

14 (3) establish categories for mnaintaining personal

15 information to operate in conjunction with confidentiality

16 requirements aiid acce-,s controls;

17 (4) maintain information in the system wvitlh ac-

18 curacy, completeness, timeliness, and pertinence as nee-

19 esary to assure fairness in determinations relating 1o ;i

20 data subject;

21 (5) make no dissemination to another systleni with-

22 out (A) specifying requirements for security and the

23 use of information exclusively for the pturp,<< -,rt for1i

24 in the notice required under :lu<'ec(tion (c) includliiim-

25 limitations on access thereto, and (B) dictermiiiniig that


1 tin, .o,,diio,,ns .,i trilii(t'rf plrovide iN ,tii il ."uriiit'
2 that thlose rcliiirc'ements and limnitalionii will be ,,l-rved;
:. (G) tra.s4fer no,1 perscl;(1l il formafiiI, beyvolnd the
4 juiri-dicti,,i of the United Stnte.s witlmut -peeific antllpr-
5 izatiin frn i i tili damt subject ,r pirsuiaiit to a trc.It\ (Ir
6 executive gi't'lltcitlt in1 force iiar1aiiteeiii't tIll;t any
7 fr '(ign g)vv.Iiimllent or ,rgam- Ilizatio Ii rT'c ivi,,ii., p1er.iiil

8 inf,'ritiatioi will c'miply with tlhe applicable pr'vi*-ion1'
9 of this Act with rc..pect to such information;
10 (7) afford any data subject of a foreign natiiality,
11 whether e-iding in the United States otr not. tlhe same
12 rights under this Act as are afforded to qcitizcns. ,f the
13 United States;

31 (8) maintain a list of all pers,,ns h liniin regular
135 -acce.s. to personal information in the information
16 syv.te; ;
17 (9) maintain a complete and accurate record,
18 including identity and purpose, (of every access to any

19 pCr-oMiil information in a system., inluding-l tlie identity
20 of any persons or organizations iot having regular,
21 access authority;

22 (10) take affirmative action to establish rules (,f
2: cndubct and inform each persomn involved in tI(i design,
24 development, operation, or maintenance of the 25 ,or thlie collection or use of any personal inform;ation con-



1 laiIIcd (theri'cl, m1 the euic(elmlcints ol tllii A0. iIic-h(VL*1'

2 I1IV rules and procedirc(s d(1)pted purs uant if) 8lii Act

8 a11d the penalties for 1i.icomipliWInce;

4 (11) Cest1)lishl )ppl)rop()ri:ate s(af Uards ()to -,cre

5 ~(Ie sYsteml frolnmy a rv asonally foreseece'thi irnIt I() is

6 security;

7 (12) ('omiply with tile(' written reqe(si()t of Ii\- li-

8 divid(a1 wlio receives a (0mn111111i1c1ati ii tll e i,.

9 ()ovr the tele)lone), ()or in person from a cominci-iaal

10 o1r0an1lizatiol, \wo believes thiIt tile IamIle omr address

iI (or both)(), ()f su li indidividual is available hc,(,ase of its

12 inclusion on a nmailinog list. to veilmove e1i ;ath1,1111e 1'

13 Md(ldres, )r )(oth. fI'm(1 such li Vt; mnd(

14 (13) collect I()o pelrs nal i nforma(ti(o)l (c)ieertlilil'

15 tle political ()r religious be liesf, aff ilitio()ns, and tivi-

16 ties ()f data sub)jccts whic h1 i 1 1ai1t1i1nted. used o" dis-

17 sem linatedl in or b)y auly inforniatioin svstc ol)('pera(,ted

18 )by alny governmental aienci.y, unless auth11orinzed hy lVaw.

19 ( ) (1) Ally Such orgnanilizlatiol 1altaillitll a ior-

20 nation system thalit disseminatei s st8atlstie;.l repoIts or rOPese(Irch

21 findings based on pei)rsolala information (1d:awil flrn tlhe

22 system, or from systems of other or''anIli z/ationl". shill-

23 (A) muake, available to ai lyi d\at a su )Iject or fr(ii p

24 withoutt I ev r e'v liP t,1a(Ide scr('e ts-) ,eh) d ol()I()-v aajnd

25 i,)atei'1ria'ls I ce 1 ,- to aidate slalical aInalyss,1I aId



1 (B) make no imatvriials available for itldelpeCndent
2 anIalysis without guaranteess that no personal information

3 will bI used in a way that miight prejudice judgments
4 about any data subject.

5 (2) No Federal agency slhall-
6 (A) require any individual to disclose for statisti-

7 cal pturposes any persoiial information unless such dis-

8 closure is required 1)y law, and such individual is

9 informed of such requirement;

10 (B) request any individual to voluntarily disclose
11 personal information unless such request is specifically

12 authorized by law, and the individual is advised that such
13 disclosure is voluntary;

14 (C) make available to any person, other than ain

15 authorized officer or employee of a Federal agency, any
16 statistical study or reports or other compilation of infor-

17 nation derived by mechanical or electronical means

18 from any file containing personal information, or any

19 manual or computer material relating thlereto, except
20 those prepared, published, and made available for gen-
2 eral public use; or

22 (D) publish statistics of taxpayer income classified,

23 in whole or in part, on the basis of a coding system for

24 the delivery of mail.

i :




1 (c) Ally such( orga izatioi iainltlillin ,r r,,,n!-i.

2 to establish nll forml tion syst m tfoi- personal i tonri;tio,,1


4 (1) ,,'ie lotice, of the existence a t "1 clia dra(cer o,

5 ea(chl exitilg" sy\steml o1ce ai yearl to( thle F[tdl( r( l l'riva1cV

(3 Boar:(l

7 (2) grive Ic publ)lic notice of thle existence d a d c.lar-

(S act('r ot e(acli existing system eachli year. ill tle case 4

9 Federal organizationsos in the Federal Re(i'ster. (r i-i tlle

10) as ( of oiliter organizations in local or regionl printed

11 nedia likely to bring" attention to the existence( f t lle
12 records to data sulbjects;
13 (3) publish such annual notices for all its existing

34 svstenis sitmultaleously ;

15 (4) in the case of a new system, or thle sust tiltial

16 modification of an existing system, shIall grive public

17 Toti(ce and notice to thie Federal Privacy B oard withlii a

18 'eas1oI alde thiiie l ut ill o case less than three llmoitlhls, ill

19 advance of tlie initiation or lodificatioi to l ass ( idi-

20 viduals who may he affected i)v its opera tioI a reIasoni-

21 aile opportul1ity to (c'olmmieit" and
22 (5) assure that public notice ivcll udcr fthis ,ul-

23 section specifies tlhe following:

24 (A) thle namlle o)f the sVstelt"

25 (B) the general purlpses (o the systc i:


1 0

C(;) thle r'(.,,rics of pvrs.,oadl information and

2 a proxim.i (it' nl er (,f per.o o wllo ilhf rilla-

3 (ion k^ m-init~ained;

Scoiilideiitiality lrtlliiiceints, and acc-s (*iiilri'l%;

i (E) tile ori'aillizatitois policies i dnd pnrictiics

7 rcgardini igiforii'utioni -('Ijre. duration of retenoinll

S of inforiiintion, and piurll'ii ti of ,\Ic} inforniniitiion;

9 (F) the cat goriies of informialtion solrces;

10 (() a dc,riptiion of tVpe' of use imide of

3I informIat ion inc(Ildlm 11 all .la -s of 'e'r's and the

12 ol'0;iliizatioll, i'(1 ;itionShipll-, iI111.o"i l theln;,
13 (II) the procedu r(-, wlierebyy all i I dividi in] i Iy v

] t (i) be informed if he is the subject of information

1;5 in the ystemin, (ii) L;iill access to such iiiforimatiton,

16 and (iii) contest thel accurailcy, compllet('eneS, timlC-

17 liliness, pertinence, and the nece.ssity for retention

18 of such information

19 (I) the' procedures \wherby an iiadi'viluiial or

20 '''li1) canl gain access to the infornmia tion vysteII i Iistd

21 for statistical reeoliiig or re'.arlch ill order to silijvct

22 tthemi to ill'lpenden('t ainilysis; and

2,) (J) the busiiiess, adtii- .: and telephone imiii-

21 her of the pers(i immiiniedliately lrepolnsible for tlhe

-25 system.



1 (d) \Anyy such orgaIllizaltion mau11litainHig pri.il, i1,-

2 formation shiall-

3 (1) inifori aiiy iiidividiiil ;askcdl io supp)11ly pr.( ii;i ,l

4 information whlcthieri such iIndividlual is rel- i uirlcdlv hi,\v.

5 or imay refCse, to slIpply teili i1formation i ic"picscd':1, ;i11d

S also of any specific (oilseuquicnces which .r1c kiio\\ 11 ( 111c

7 orgaINization, of p)rovidinlg or not providiii 'iicli iiinriiii-

8 tion

9 (2) request permission of a data subject to d!i-'i-

10 inate part or all of such information to mother UI'aiiIa-

11 tion or system not having re(gular access aiilliorilvi ;tiid
12 indicate the use for which such inforninatilon is iii1viided',

13 ad(d the specific conse(qienlces ,for thic id1(ividUmal, which

14 are known to the organization, of providing or imno -

15 hiding such permission;

16 (3) upon request and proper identililicationi ot maYu

17 individual wlho is a data suIbject,, 8ralt s.cli ividiidUal

18 thlie right to inspect, in a fori (ol mipirchecsi i to l -iih

19 individual-

20 (A) all personall itnformitioi n a11ut lit iiili-

21 vidual except that, i (lthe case of medicaitl iti',niia-

22 tion, such information shall, lpo)(mn written al tllionri':I-
23 tion, e given to a pllysician designated yV llic

24 individual;



1 (BI) the ilatllre
2 tio: malld
3 (C) the recipients o( persmunsl ilof,,rilmti,,Illl.1ih t

4 sl'ch individun I il cluding" the idhulil t N.(,Iall 1'r-,,ii-

5 mid ortranin.itions inlv(Iv d and ttl ( ir rc1;itiH)wi ltii

(6 to the system w\liii ij)t lhl\i.. re.Iuaar N.i'tI--

7 nutlHori"tv

( (4) at Ia inhiiiniitti. iakct' dis(clo')sm,. which ;lrv

.() required by this A.ct t(o individi ls wvho arc da.;-Ila i)-

10 j(cts-

(A (A.\ ) duuinii^ I4winial biiiiicsh Imll-'s.

12 (B) in person,' if the data suibje.t ;Ippe)l)ar- i

1: )e'Os( ; aid firlniishles pn( ler idelitific'ati(Ili, or lV

14 lmail, if the (dtlan ,Ilhjct l-, i mde aI wriltell r'(c(ii('et.

15) witlhi )r()I)r i(Iti'tiiic.iilon, at rea I;iia.ll( sital ldard

16 charges for documen('tt sar.chl and d(lplicaitihi ;iild

17 ((1) )'peiiit ie' data;I sulj
18I'b l o e ])ei,)ii (),t Ilis (leioosiiu. wlie iiniiit fuiinsh

19 e;i.s ii;il)l(e liitilic:1i )Io ('x(%(e l lpt that an ()l.i, i/; a-

2(0 tion i nay reljilire ti('e dt (,a1 si,'ljct to firntishl a writi-

21 te ) statement )mli eriissio to l ),1 ('' ii.!-

22 tion o() discuss thiat inldividiial's file ill such pels'rs-.'s

2:1 p ]re-ene
24 (.)) l)01n receil)t ()f notice from ainyv individlil wlho

2. is n data s1)ject, latl 'uchI individual wislh.ies. toli(;dl-



1 l1(nge, correct, or explain ilitorlai ,,tim a otimi ln 11, 1 i it 1

2 systemIi-

3 (A) ilnvestiOZate and record 1li c('rimelt >I (IH-

4 of tsuch personal inforl'iati( n

5 (1B) purge a(nly sullch illf(orwiationll atd i'- foldllt

6 to l)e ilconpll etle, ilaccuIratc, (not pertieinlt. ot1 l

7 timely nor necc sarv' to be retained, (r can IIo lonie (r

8 be verified;

9 ((C) accept and include in thle record of ii'l

10 information, if the investigation does (not resolve

11 the dispute, any statement (not more t,11 i two

12 hundred words in length) provided by sutlh indi-

13 vidual setting forth his position oiln suIL disputed

14 information;

15* (D) in any subsequent disseminatilO( or iv-'4 Of

16 disputed information, clearly note tlat lsucl ihit'for-

17 mation is disputed and supply t lie statement of

18 such individual together with such information:

19 (E) make clear and conspicuous disclosure to
20 such individual of his right to() make a request under

21 this paragraph;

22 (F) at thle request of -1(ch individual, fllo,,\,hin

2-3 any correction or i ,',purgii_,' o)f pen l infi nJ.,ition.

21 furnish to past recipients of such information iin'ili-

63-619 0 76 3



1 c.ittion thatt the item ciI be- fiic purg'd 4l"o .or rr'tcled;
3 (G) ill tl ;i '.se of a failure to ,i',olve a di-pute,
-1 advise .-i'i individual of Ihis right to rIequc-t ille
5 ;issistainc of the lFederal Privay Boarlmd.
6 (e) Eacli such organization iiiit ainiliiiig a pI'rs imil
7 infon iation sv.,em on the date of the einactmenit of this .\et
8 shall notify by mail each datai silijct of Ile fact niot later
9 thanl two years following the date of ciichi'iciet of thi. Act,
10 at the last known address of the subject. Siuch itice shlall-
11 (1) describe lthe type of inforniation held in such
12 system or s-ystems, expected i c,- allowIld or 0contem-
13 plated; and
14 (2) provide the mmiie and full address of the place
15 where the data subject may obtain personal information
16 pertaining to him, and in the svternm.
17 (f) Data subjects of archival-type inactive files, records.
18 or reports shall be notified by mail of the reiacltivalioin,
19 accessing, or reacce.,4sig of such files, records, or rel)orts
20 not later tha, six months after the date of the enactimient
21 of this Act.
22 (g) The requirements of subsections (a) (3) and (4)
23 and sulbec.tions (c) and (d) (1) and (2) of this section
24 shall not apply to any organization that, (1) maintains an
25 information system that disseminates statistical reports or



1 research findings based on persoi"al informatio,,l daI vii l1 iiii

2 the system, or from systems of other or..jiiiti. (2)

3 purges the names, per-onal numbers, or other ideljifi I\.

4 particulars of individuals, and (3) certifies t o thet I i

5 Privacy Board that no inferences may be drawn atb,,ut hin

6 individual.


8 SEC. 202. The provisions of this title shall lot apply to

9 personal information systems-

10 (1) to the extlent that inforlmato1111 iII suchl >ys-Itie

11 is maintained b)y a Federal agnct.y, and t1 latad( (,f tliut

12 agency determines that the relvasec (4lie tolr( itio

13 would seriously damage national defense;

14 (2) which are part of active criminal investigatory

15 files compiled by Federal, State., or l,,a;l lzw e-,ifrce-

16 ment organizations, except where stuc files a\ve be

17 maintained for a period longer tliai is nec,..-aly too con-

18 mence crimiinal prosecution; or
19 (3) miaintainied by the press a in1 tnew, ei,(li;. ex-

20 cept information relating to em uployces (of s tI.cl

21 organtiizations.
22 USE 1,)F S(O 'IAI. St:(' 1'lITY N Mlli'14

123 Six. 20). It shall 4 e uIw awful for an IrllYi 1i io to

I 24 require an individual to discl,-c( or wfrnirihli 1iw< soial shIiiy
! 25 account nmmbcr,. f or iany lmrlWp'c ill (co t ilio -with aly



1 bi-iiif' t'ral-La ti',m or COloIl&1l(i;l l" ('tlie" activity, or to
2 rcfi-(, ti ,xt(.nild 'creit or inm;ike a loan or to enter iito ally

,3 otlir bu-inic,, traii-a'ictoii or commercial r.latioinship with
4 il individual (except to the extentt specifically necessary for
5 the coiidluct ir adiltiitration of the old-aige. survivors, and
6 di-Ibility ili-Il'uince1 program ct;iblishcd iiuder title II of

7 tlhe Sii;il Security Act) in whole or in pNart 1oinplcc;ie such
8 individual d,'its Hot di.i-cl,-e or furnish such iiinber, unless

9 the disci,,.ure or fiurnishing of such niumlbcr is specifically
10 required by law.
13 SEC. 301. As u-cd in this Act-

14 (1) the term "Board" means the Federal Privacy
15 B)oard;
16 (2) the term informationn system" ieans the total
17 components and operations of a recordkeeping process,
18 whether automated or manual, containing personal in-

19 firrn:tiiin and the name, personal number, or other
20 identifying pirticullirs;
21 (3) the termn "personal information" means all in-
22 formation that (dc-:cribe,. locates or ind(lexes anything
23 about an individual including I e(dication, financial

24 trania,:tioi .. medical history, criminal, or employinent



1 record, or that affords a l,-is for itnferrin persial iiar-

2 acteristics. such as finlger aind voice prints. p1olto1grapis.

3 or tilin's done 1b\ or to sw li individil aind tile record
4 of hlis pree, reistratio, or e hip i n na-

5 nizantion or active itv, or .adnmission to an institutitio:

6 (4) the term 'data subject' means ani iidividmial

7 about whom personal informa1tion11 1 indelcxed or my I)(

S located under his name, persoal i lUmer, or ile (,"

9 identifiable particulars, in an information sv'tc":

10 (.") the term '"disseminate means to rclcase.

11 transfer, or otherwise conimmnuiicate inlitformltation'l ,or;lly.

12 in writingo, or by electronic means:

13 (6) the term "organization mieas -y ; Federal

14 agency: the government of tlie District of ('luiilia

15 any authority of any State, local governiciet or oiier
16 jurisdiction; any public or private entity en cHi ld il

17 business for profit, as relates to tliat iustie':

18 (7) the term "purge" melnc.,- to oblitelrac iiitnii:i-

19 tion completely from the transient, pernnlancl t, or
20 archival records of an organization: and
21 (8) the term "Federal a",nc", nit' n a aiv depart-

22 meant, agency, instrumentality, or c-tablishment in tle

23 executive brai-mich of the Goveniient of tlie llited
24 States and includes any officer or em loyi eIe thereof.


2 SE. :3,2. Ill con, ction will any" dipute over the ap-
3 Iplicarion of ;iliNv provi-ion of tliS Act, no organization shall
4 reveal any pcr-,onal ilnfonratilon or amy proft,,.ional, pro-
5 1prictaary, nir 1)nii i'< se-rets; except' as 1' k c(Juiired1 under
I; this Act. All disclosure.; so( required :l inll leie r'.arded ;,
7 (o(mfidIi.tial by thoce to whom theyr ;arc inimde.
9 S KO. 303. An.y or nizatlion or rei-pionsible officer of
10 anloirL .iizat ion who willfully-
11 (1) ke<'lp an information sy-tfln witlotll lavlino-
12 1 (ntificd telie d(de'ril Pii;icv ]oa ird: or
13 (2) isul,'s personal information in vil:ition of
14 tiis Act;
15 simll be fiiid lint more lthu *)10.000 in each ill-taire onr
1(6 ill)risoicd not more tlian five year, or both.

S SE(c. 304. (a) The Attorney generall of ihe nitedl
19 Staht.. o il the advice of the Federal lPrivacvy BViard, or ainyv
2() ag'ri-eved pe)'iin, imav Iriit r an action in t le apI)piropriate
21 1United States di-ict courtt a.;iiiist any person wvlto las en-
_" ,(' ii (.'L,,ca.'ed. or is a-)i.-,t to enolra e in any ;ict.s or prac-
23 ticcs in violation of (lie pro visions of this Act or rules of the
24 Federal Privacy Board, to enjoin s ulih acts or practices.




1 (1)) 'Any person who violates the pr()ovisios (if thi. Act,

2 1or a1l rile. regiiulahition, or order issued thereiider,, -ditll

: lii)le (to amv 1persoll a 'rieved litherebY' ill al ,1 "1 a (nit (e(il1 l)

4 ilie -viiin of-

5 ( I) any tual (daLmnIges sustained by ,111 iidlivNl;d!I:

(2) ,) ,,nitie dai ages where appr(q)rit:

7 (;) il tlie ease of ancV e successfUIl aliuion t(o (e11c(e

S ;a W lia)ilitv under this secliion, itlie c ss (of I(lie a( t io

9 tooetller within reasolnalde a tIton'leV' s fee 1'. ( (Iterll'i(edl

10 b)y the court.

I1 The r united States conlselnts to lie su(id d111(er V -li iloll

12 witholnit limitatiiton on tlhe an1ounl ini cot()(roversp .


14 SE.( )5. The district courts o(f le I lil, c St1ale' lhave

15 jurisdi action to enforce inv sulpeitlMa or orderr issud x tll(,

11 Federall Priviay Board under section,-,, 102 or 1().: r(,1.)(,pc-

17 lively, of this Act.


19 S1(1. :0()6. (a) Anv individual wlo i (il driIied( L- -)

20 i olt,)nlitllion required 1() be1 disclosed older l e1 prm,1i4i, ,

21 fiis .\Act' i's e titledI 1() judicial r I(Ve \Vw lf tie 2Lorowi (-I, 'lr l' uli

22 denial.

23 (I)) Tlie district courts of ti(e I'i ed Stale.s halve ji-u-

24 (lict(ion to ()heear and deterl line civil I(, i ts bro, l' ut ldcfl+.II I,-

25 s'e(ti()l (a) o()f this seeltion.


SSixC. 3017. Tll*s Act shill lake effect otu cyar after tIhe(

Sdtile of it- ciac.tment.

S Si(c'. 308. There anre authoric.d to be aplrpriai ,ted -i'li

u Iiii t s n,11 y lie ncYessary to .:rftiy ii(it tlhe p1rovi!iins of Ili O








1 S. 3418


4 I
TUESDAY, ACt',ST 20, 1974

United States Senate,
I Committee on Government Operations,

Washington, D. C.
The committee met at 3:00 p.m., pursuant to call, in
room S-146, The Capitol, Hon. Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman of
the committee) presidingq.
Present: Senators Ervin, Jackson, Muskie, Allen, Chiles,
S Nunn, Huddleston, Percy, Javits, Roth and Brock.
; 14
Staff Present: Robert Bland Smith, Jr., Chief Counsel
S and Staff Director; Marcia MacNaughton, Consultant, Mrs. Gay
I 16
Holliday, Staff Member; Richard Casad, Investigator, Per.a.-ianent
Subcommittee on Investigations.
The Chairman. It takes a quor=-w to report out a bill.
SWe have a quorum here. We -ay have difficulty getti-.= z qlaoruj
later, so I would like to move that we report the bill favor-
1 ably subject to such apend-en-.ts as may be adoptci by the six
i members in case we fall down to six.
Senator Jackson. I second that motion.
24 A-
25 enduj. ... :- d, T.


i_ _




1 Senator Brock. Mr. Chairman, there are some questions

2 that need to be discussed on the bill. I am not sure what this

S means in a parliamentary sense but, for example, I have a

o- very serious expression of concern from the SEC and I don't
-- I know whether that has been responded to by the committee, or -

--6i whether we have written comments. At least I haven't seen them.

7 Senator Javits. If you would yield, why don't you vote

8 no on this vote and -- rather, vote aye -- and then you can move

9 to reconsider.

10 Senator Roth. Mr. Chairman, I think that establishes a

11 very bad precedent. I think if the legislation is important,

12 we should be able to get a quorum to finally pass it out. It i

13 grounds for raising the issue on the Senate floor. I am just

14 generally opposed to the proposition that any of us should put

15 our stamp of endorsement or otherwise until we know -- I

16 support it.

17 The Chairman. I will withdraw the motion.

18 Senator Javits. I tried to help.

19 Senator Percy. I think it should be noted, Senator Brock,

20 on the question of SEC, staff has discussed with SEC certain

21 reservations that they have and assured them that we can work
22 those out and that they can be worked out to our mutual
23 satisfaction.

24 Obviously, the whole intent and purpose of sending it

25 there was to appraise and analyze what objections they might



have. We have not heard any that could not be accommodated.

2 Senator Brock. I haven't gotten any written response from,

S the SEC. To the best of my knowledge, the committte has none.

If it is true that the bill would, as they say, prohibit them

5 from carrying out their own statutory responsibilities, then I

--6 think it would ill behoove us to move until we have a specific

7 written response from them so we can incorporate such modifi-

8 cations as we deem necessary, but I don't think it is the

9 intent of this bill to hamper the SEC in any sense. That is one

10 of our better regulatory or supervisory agencies.

11 I just got a call from one of the commissioners who was

S12 extremely perturbed over the content of the bill. They had -

13 no time at all to prepare any response, and I question whether

14 we ought to act without --

15 The Chairman. The 0MB made a response on behalf of the

16 entire Executive Branch of the government --

17 Senator Brock. You have been sort of critical of 0MB

18 responding on behalf of the whole government before.

19 The Chairman. Yes.

20 Senator Brock. Now you are going to say it is okay?

21 The Chairman. The SEC has known about the bill. It has

22 had communications with members of the staff and members of

23 this committee. I don't know that we could very well postpone

24 until we hear from SEC. They know our address of the com-

25 mittee. They have had plenty of chance to respond.



I Now we have got something here.

Senator Jackson. From the SEC.
'5 i
SThe Chairman. We can certainly consider the amendments
to the bill. -.--....... ........

Senator Brock. Okay. This says they only recieved your
6 letter yesterday and Committee Print 4. They have not even
seen 5. .
8 Senator Chiles. I doubt very seriously that all the

S agencies see all the Committee Prints, 4, 5, 6 or whatever

10 goes through.

11 Senator Brock. No, but I think it is a practice of the

12 Congress, Martin, when there is a sensitive agency who is

13 according to their interpretation directly affected by the law

14 to be very sure that we take into consideration their views.

15 We don't have to agree with them. But here they say they

16 endorse the concept of the bill, but they question apparently

17 whether or not it would not L-.pinge upon their ability to pro-

18 tect the regulatory authority that they have.

19 Senator Percy. Mr. Chair-nan, if I might be recognized,

20 I think the important part of Garrett's letter is the last

21 paragraph. It is terribly important. It says, "Notwithstandinc

22 our difficulties with the present version of S. 3418, this

2Z Commission strongly endorses the concept of personal privacy

24 z which we believe underlies Confidential Committee Print No. 4.

25 "No agency of the Government should be permitted to abuse



I 5

1 personal or confidential information, and this Cormmnission has
| i
2 steadfastly adhered to such a standard over the 40 years of
its existence, and we are proud of our record in that regard-
i i
L "We- would be delighted to work with the Cormnittee to

5 effect an appropriate restructuring of Confidential Committee

6 Print No. 4 so that it might both achieve the laudable curnpse

7 of protecting personal privacy while, at the same time, permit

8 lawful government regulatory or law enforcement conduct.

9 "We also stand ready to furnish you with more detailed

10 comments on our objections on Confidential Committee Print No.

11 4 of S. 3418 if you should so desire."

-12 I think the question before the committee then is whether

13 or not it is the feeling of the members that we could work this

14 out at the staff level, consulting with committee members as

15 need b, and being able to report out a completely acceptable

16 bill, or whether we should just try to delay this until we have

17 completed every last comma, dash, and dot and put it in that

18 form.

19 I think we have a great deal of confidence in the com-

20 mittee. It could be carried out by the staff during the recess,

21 and we wouldn't lose all that period of time.

22 From the Minority standpoint, we would certainly seek to

23 Z counsel the chairman on it.
24 Senator Brock. I have been a supporter of the lecislationf,

2 as you know. And I would very ch like to see lisatin
25 ;as you know. And I would very much like to see legislation }


1 I passed. I just don't want to do something that does not achieve

2 our desired result.

... The Chairman. I think the SEC is aware of the fact that
4 the bill has been pending, it is aware that the President came

.... 5 out for a privacy bill. There has been a lot of discussion in

-6 the newspapers about it. We can't wait and let Congress be

7 regulated by the delays that SEC may wish.

6 i Senator Jackson. Might I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

9 Do we have amendments from the SEC?

10 Senator Percy. No.
11 Senator Brock. They say, to read further in their letter

12 Chuck read-the last paragraph. I think the next to the last I
i i
15 paragraph is of more concern to me. They just got, as of yestez

14 day, the Committee Print in which the new language bothers

15 them.

16 6 "While time does not now permit a detailed exposition of

17 ithe numerous ways in which Confidential Committee Print No. 4

15 ; apparently would impede and ir.pair our ability to fulfill our

19 statutory functions, I think it should be pointed out that much

20 of the enforcement work handled by this Commission, which has

21 served to protect public investors and maintain the honesty,

22 integrity, fairness and efficiency of our securities markets,
2Z would either be subject to serious limitations or require the

24 significant, curtailment of a number of our activities."

25 I That is a pretty serious charge.



The Chairman. It is, but if they think it is so serious,

2 they ought to be down here on it. They testified before the

SHouse committee.
4 *
Senator Brock. Yes, and the language has been modified.

5 I don't know that they have had an opportunity for hearing since

-6 then.

7 The Chairman. They haven't asked for a hearing before

8 this committee.

9 This bill has been pending here since May, and this is

0 June, July and August, and it seems like the SEC is sure

!I travelling on leaden feet if they have any concern about this

12 bill.

13 Senator Brock. I am not trying to defend the SEC. I am

14 trying to defend the quality of our work rather than quantity.

15 There is a distinction. I don't know what the problem is. If

16 there is a serious problem, it ought to be considered.

17 Senator Jackson. What concerns me is all we have are con-

18 clusions in this letter. They have a copy of Committee Print

19 No. 4. They refer to that, but they don't state wherein they

20 object. It is a general pleading without providing a bill of

21 particulars and I should think, as I understand it, they have

22 had the original bills, they have had the other Prints, but what

23 confuses me is just what is their specific position regarding

24 the kind of language that should be in any bill to properly

25 protect what they consider to be their responsibility.



1 Senator Brock. That is the very question I am asking.

i Senator Jackson. How do you deal with a piece of paper li.e

This except reopen the hearings? That is what it amounts to. -

Si ... The Chairman. They were diligent enough to contact the

- | House committee on the sixth of May. My understanding is that

6 I it is rumored that the SEC is split down the middle of this -

7 bill. Some of them want it and some don't. They can't get a

8 unified position to state to this committee. They could have

9 communicated with us.

10 Senator Huddleston. In the absence of any specific

11 suggestion, wouldn't it be appropriate to report the bill out?

12 Itis always subject to amendment on the floor if somebody could

13 come with some language to improve the bill. ..

14 Senator Brock. The problem that I have with that is that

15 I have been a very ardent supporter of the legislation, and it

16 would put me in the position under the circumstances of feeling

17 almost compelled to oppose reporting the bill until I have the

18 facts on hand on which to make a decision. I don't know what

19 changes in Committee Print No. 4 apparently bothered the SEC.

2C I would like the specific information that the Senator from

21 Washington seeks on which to 7ake my own judgment.

22 I just don't know. I am reluctant to prod them into

23 action that would be ill-advised.

24 Senator Jackson. Could someone get on the phone and ask

25 them if they have an amendment?



I read this letter and it is no -_ide at all. -.is thing
has been pending all these months. They must be able to

identify, irrespective of this bill, the s:r.-cific areas, and

you are quite right, the next to the last omra --ahn --rs to the:

Heart of it on page 2. It says: "While time does not now per-

mit a detailed exposition of the n-r~erous ways in which -on-
fidential Cormmnittee Print No. 4 apparently would impede and
8 impair our ability to fulfill our statutory functions, I think
it should be pointed out that much of the enforcement work
handled by this Commission, which has served to protect public

investors and maintain the honesty, integrity, fairness -7

4 efficiency of our securities markets, wcild either be subject
Sto serious limitations or require the significant, curtailment
14 of a number of our activities."
1 My question is: Wherein does that possibility exist? They
1 just state the general conclusions.
' 17
I Senator Roth. Mr. Chairman --

Senator Jackson. If this is that serious, I woul2 think

" regardless of Committee Print 1, 21, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7, th". ought

S 20
0 tO beable to provide some statutory I n-uage that woulJ pror,-rl.

2 cover their responsibility.
I2 I can see some problems, but I get the same information
S Id
= |that the Comn-mission is split, and they can't agree to statutoryV
o 24 I
?||language. I suggest that we defer this someone talk to the
I ~251|1^.
Chairman on the phone and find out what is the situation. 'is

0i- 76)- -

J63-619 0 76 4




1 is sort of a confession in avoidance.

Senator Roth. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to take this

S to the Senate floor and they raise these same objections, we arl

4 going to be in a difficult position if we don't know what they

5 are or the seriousness of their intent.

6 I am anxious to get this legislation out and adopted. I

7 am not quite sure that I understand the problems of the time

8 frame. If we do report it out today, are we going to take it u

9 this week? Will that come up on the Senate floor this week?

10 Senator Percy. Not until September.

1!1 Senator Roth. There are some problems on the House side.

12 It looks as if somebody is trying to dictate to us. We have some

13 time to still report it out this week. I think Senator Jackson s

14 suggestion is a good one, that we ought to call or have someone

15 call on behalf of the committee.

16 Senator Percy. I wonder if I can make a motion and see,

17 Senator Roth, whether it might not be acceptable.
. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we report the bill

19 out subject to an understand.di:.: that there would be a committee

2-: amendment or a series of commi-ttee amendments offered that woul

21 fully take into account objections, any objections, that come ir

22 that we feel need to be accom'Modated and that those would be

: offered as a series of corr.ittee amendments at the same time

24 that the bill has been offered on the floor.

25 The Chairman. Well, we miqht not be able to agree on the



amendments. I understand the Executive Branch, the President

of the United States was for privacy. I understand they

.. designated 0"MB to represent all the agencies of the Governent,

..... and if SEC could inform the House on the sixth day of May on
5 i
A i their opinion about the House bill, I don't see why they should

travel along on some leaden feet. -....

7 Senator Percy. On the other hand, if they have perfectly

8 legitimate objections that we can accommodate, and from the

9 preliminary talks that staff has had, that seems to be possible,

10 then why not make that provision because it at least accon-modatis

34 those who have raised the issue.

12 This letter is certainly not a totally satisfactory ...

13 answer. We could have an indication today by roll call vote

14 about how we would feel about following this procedure. It has

15 been around a long time. The session is getting short now.

16 The Chairman. I have been informed that the SEC advised

17 the staff that they would have somebody here today. Is anybody

18 here representing the SEC?

19 Senator Jackson. Are they outside?

20 Senator Percy. Take a look in the closets.

21 Senator Brock. Mr. Chairm-an, while we are trying to fil'

22 out --

23 Senator Percy. Is there a second to the 7Dtion?

24 Senator Jackson. The only question is on this point, I

25 would support it, but I think if Senators have reservations



i and that has been expressed by. Senator Brock and Senator Roth,

maybe the wise course would be to start right through these

Sarmendments and see if we can't wrap up as much as possible here
This afternoon and then act? .... .
5 '
Senator Brock. That is what I was going to suggest. I

S would support Senator Percy's motion. This is what we had to do

Over in the Interior Committee to get near the end of the
8 session. I don't like the practice, but realistically we

can't maintain quorums. We have been reporting the subject to

Whatever action the committee may take on amendments, and then

Sif any Senator raises any serious question, I have always moved

12 to reconsider, but it is just the pragmatic problem of --

Swe don't have a quorum now. ... '

14 iSenator Roth. Mr. Chairman -

1 1| The Chairman. We have one over quorum.

16 j Senator Jackson. I am sorry.

17 Senator Roth. If I understand Senator Percy's proposal,

I it was that we go ahead and report it out in its present form
I '
1 subject to the agreement that the considerations of the SEC

- would be considered at a later meeting, is that correct?

2- Senator Jackson. All amendments.

22 Senator Percy. All amen-Iments. We would subsequently

2: report the bill out with cc-Tiittee amendments to be considered

24 at the same time, but at least it takes advantage of the fact

2 that we have nine Senators in the room at the present moment,
-JIthat we have nine Senators in the room at the present moment,



II 13
| and it is hard to get them here. As lo:. as we are in a'reenent

Sin principle that this is a good bill, but there are some

details that have to be worked out, I think we can do that.

... Senator Nunn. Are we going to stay and work out these
Details now, or are we going to -- ......

6 Senator Percy. I am willing to stay right now. What we

I7 are concerned about is losing a quorum. I have to meet Senatori

8 Mansfield and Ribicoff on the floor to work out the next cloture

S position.

10 Senator Brock. Are you going to try again?

ll, Senator Percy. It was supposed to be five minutes front

12| now. Is there a second? = .. .

13 Senator Jackson. I second the motion.

14 I The Chairman. Is there any discussion?

15 Senator Nunn. Let me make sure what this motion is. Are

16 we going to report this out without any amendments being con-

17 sidered?

11_ J Senator Jackson. It is ordered reported out subject to

19 the adoption of committee amend-ents which would recruire a

20i quorum as I understand it, Mr. Chairman --

21 Senator Nunn. Subject to the adoption when? A 7eotin-

22 of this committee or on the floor?

2 Senator Percy. Just stay ri-7ht now. We only require six

24, instead of nine.

25 1 Senator Roth. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to re-,at




that I think it makes a very bad precedent. If you are going
2 to have credibility in the government, to have a committee

Adopt a bill that they don't even know what it is finally going

Sto include is not sound procedure. ___

S If this is important legislation, it is not that difficult

S to get a quorum here. ...
Senator Brock. We could have passed a couple of amendments
if we go ahead and do it. Why don't we take the amendments up
one by one. Let us vote as fast as we can.
10 Senator Nunn. This is an extremely important bill. I am

i~ in favor of it. It has been drastically improved by the staff

12 work. The first bill I saw was broad enough to cover the corner

1 grocery store in the smallest town in North Carolina or Georgia

14 It has been improved by the staff product. It is much better.

15 The Senators have not had a chance to focus on this. That

16 does not mean I am in favor of it because I am. I think we

17 ought to focus on this. It is much, much broader now than many

18 people think. A lot of alternatives and a lot of hypothetical

19 things that have not been considered could happen. I would be

2C reluctant to vote on it without going through some discussion.

21 Senator Percy. I withdraw my motion. I suggest that we

22 proceed on the amendments.
23 Senator Jackson. When Senator Percy comes back, I have a

24 supplemental suggestion.
2 Senator Brock. Are we taking up Committee Print No. 4 or




1 5?

2 The Chairman. Let us start with the bill and go through

-- it as far as we can. .. ....... ..

_4~ Senator Brock. Committee Print No. 5, is that the one

we are taking up? -

---6 The Chairman. Confidential Committee Print No. 5. .

7 Are there any amendments to Title I which starts on page

8 1 and ends on page 13?

9 Does anyone have any amendments under Title I?

10 Senator Nunn. I would like to direct a question for the

-Ii intent on page 6, subsection (c), beginning on line 14 where it

.12 says, "such report shall not proceed to establish or modify any

.13 such data bank or information system for a period of sixty days

14 from the date of receipt of notice from the Commission that

15 such data bank or system does not comply with such standards."

16 I assume that means that once the Commission says to

17 the Federal Agency there is something wrong, this breaches our

18 policy, that they can't act for 60 days.

19 Is it also their intention during that period of time that

20 Congress also will be notified so that action can be taken here

21 if we deemed it necessary?

22 Otherwise, you have got just a 60-day period and it will go

25 into effect. I am not sure of the meaning, maybe it will come

24 from somewhere else.

25 I The Chairman. The Commission is to report to Congress


1 j within a 60-day period.

Senator Nunn. Is that another section? It is not in that

section. I would think that would be the intent, maybe it is

S somewhere else.

5 The Chairman. It says for a period of 60 days from date ol

6 receipt of the notice from the Commission that such data bank

7 or system does not comply with such standards.

8 Senator Nunn. It the agencies proposed a new information

9 system, and the Commission served notice that it breached some

10 regulation of the agency, then the agency can't proceed for 60

11 days once they receive that notice, but my question is: Is ...

12 i there any provision in the bill that provides a corresponding

135 notice to Congress so that we would be able to take action,

14 otherwise, we would just have a notice to an agency saying that

15 it defied the rules and nothing would happen, and it would go

16 into effect after 60 days.

17 The Chairman. It says: "After receipt of any report

18 required under subsection (b), if the Commission determines and

19 report to the Congress that a proposal to establish or modify a

20 data bank or information system does not comply with the

21 standards established by or pursuant to this Act, the Federal

22 agency submitting such report shall not proceed to establish or

23 modify" --

24 Senator Nunn. I see. Okay. My question then becomes

25 this: Is it envisoined the Congress then would have to pass a








1 law to prohibit that?

2 The Chairman. No, not necessarily. If the Federal aents

Sdo not proceed, it gives 60 days for any appropriation action to

- 4 be taken.

- Senator Nunn. But then they could proceed if there was

no action taken. They could go ahead and establish a faulty

7 system?

8 The Chairman. There are just some technical arend-7e-.ts

9 to Title I which has been prepared. They don't change the sub-

10 stance.

,11. The' staff has been in contact with the gentleman in charge

12 of privacy for the Administration, Senator Brock, and he says

13 the 0MB speaks for the Administration with respect to this bill.

14 Senator Brock. It is a noble endeavor, but I still don't

15 accept it. I still want to hear from the SEC, Mr. Chairman. I

16 think thta is only fair.

17 Senator Chiles. I thought this was going to be an open

18 Administration. Is Mr. Ash still reigning?

19 Senator Brock. It sounds like it. With Sam Frvin behi-ni

20 him, he may be in good shape.

21 The Chairman. So far as privacy, 0 B speaks for the

22 Administration and SEC has proposed no a-end-ents. I don't

23 know how we can get the SEC to respond.

24 Senator Brock. Have you asked them?

&ALC-ly ar a.-,



S observer here today. I don't know how Congress can put off its

work for SEC to communicate to us as to what their desires are.

0Senator Brock. Why don't we proceed with the amendments,

S-i Mr. Chairman.

; The Chairman. There are a number of amendments to Title I
on page 2, line 5, strike out "the areas of" and insert in lieu

7 thereof "any of the following areas:".
8 On page 3, line 24, strike out "Chairman" and insert in

9 lieu thereof "members".

10 On page 4, line 1, strike out "during his tenure as

SChairman" and insert in lieu thereof "during their tenure as

12 memberss. -- -.

13 Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, might I make a suggestion?

14 If all of the amendments we have on here, I think they are in

15 the files, aren't they -- if the technical amendments are

16 purely technical and do not change substance, with that

17 assumption, I would suggest that a motion be in order to treat

18 them en block and adopt them, and if there is any substantive

19 change as a result of that, we can go back and correct it and

20 I so move.
21 Senator Brock. All right.

22 The Chairman. Any discussion?
23 Senator Jackson. I second the motion--

24 The Chairman. You can't move and second.

25 Senator Jackson. It is all a matter of form.




Senator Roth. Second.

2 The Chairman. All in favor say aye.

--i Are there any amendments to Title V? -. .

4- Senator Roth. Are we beyond Title I?

5 The Chairman. I mean Title I. -

6 Senator Roth. I have two that I want to offer. On page

7 5, line 2 -- first, the existing language provides that the

8 Commission shall publish annually the U. S. Directory contain-

9 ing the information specified to provide notice under Section

10 201(c(3) of this Act for each information system subject to

.11. the provisions of this Act.

12 And the language, I would like to add, is "and a list of
13' all statutes which require the collecting of such information

14 by a Federal agency or other organization."

15 I think it would be helpful information to know whether

16 or not this information is being collated on their own or

17 whether there is some statutory basis. If there is some

18 statutory basis, we may want to reexamine or modify.

19 Senator Brock. I don't know where you are.

20 Senator Roth. Page 5, line 2.

21 Senator Brock. Subparagraph 2?

22 Senator Roth. Line 2.

23 The Chairman. You would change that semicolon to a coima

24 and add the words --

25 Senator Roth. "And a list of all statutes which require


S the collecting of such information by a Federal agency or

S other organizations."

.. In other words, I would like to have the statutory- basis oi

collecting this information. -

5 ;The Chairman. Any discussion by the members? -- -

^ Senator Jackson. Let me ask a question here. -

7 You know, in every bill that we have passed, we have some

8 kind of a reporting provision. I am wondering, I just raised

9 the question how extensive a compendium we are talking about

Here. I agree they ought to be able to identify the basis of

11 their publication. That is your point?.. .,..*.

12 Senator Roth. That is my point. *, -: t. II"- t r :. Z

13 Senator Jackson. I have no objection. Is there going to

14 be a compact that that is going to be so onerous and long --

15 why don't we try it? It will surely stir them up.

16 Senator Muskie. That will be implementing the provisions

17 found on page 12, lines 17 to 22, "the Commission shall-

18 (A) determine what laws, Executive orders, regulations,

19 directives, and judicial decisions govern the activities under

20 study," and so on, so I think that the information should be in

21 hand.

22 Senator Roth. On the point raised by Senator Jackson, we

23 don't want to make a lot of unnecessary reporting requirements;

24 1 it seems the language should be changed or the report comment

or' %f-3 4 A


1 I








--- 1-













changes. They don't have to go back every year and put in the

same material.

Senator Jackson. We will get a reaction on it. See what

the reaction is the other way. I didn't intend to object.

Virtually, all of the laws that have been passed in recent years

have a requirement so we are talking about almost ever' provision

of the Code.

Senator Roth. I think it is a valid point.

The Chairman. If there is no objection, the amendment

proposed by the Senator from Delaware will be adopted.

Senator Roth. I would also like to add a paragraph (c) to

this Section 103 to provide that the Commission shall --

"Determine whether specific categories of information should be

prohibited by statute to be collected by the Federal, State,

regional, local government and private organizations because

such collections would violate the rights of privacies of



I think in a sense, Senator Muskie might make the same
comment here that he made with respect to my earlier amendment.

' It is implementing something that we were saying later on. -I dc

4. feel very strongly that the Congress at some future time and
This Commission in its study should concern itself with what
6 I data should be collected, and it may be that there should be

7 some statutory limitation on those rights, and that is the

8 purpose of this language.

9 The Chairman. State it again.

10 Senator Roth. New subsection (e). It would be on page 7.

1 "Determine whether specific categories of information should be

12 prohibited by statute to be collected by the Federal,' State,"

13 regional, local government and private organizations because

14 such collections would violate the rights of privacies of

15 individuals."

16 The Chairman. I wonder if it will all go to the local and

17 State government or whether we ought to restrict it to the

lr Federal Government?

19 Also we would virtually eliminate the private sector excep

20 where somebody is counteracting a Federal agency.

21 Senator Roth. I am most concerned about the Federal

22 Government.

2Z Senator Jackson. Why don't you confine it to the Federal.
i i
24 Senator Roth. I will accept that further change.

Senator Muskie. I am aware why this is cut down. I don't


have the basis of hearings and testimony to justify going
beyond that. As I understood the Senator's amendment, it is

designed to get at that problem.
........Senator Roth. Yes. .......

Senator Muskie. And to encourage the notion that we
- 6
continue to look at these other areas and be prepared to act
when we have the necessary information and recommendations to
act upon.
I have no objection to limiting this amendment here, but
10 I wonder if you couldn't have in the report -

.' The Chairman. You have a provision in the bill that they

*-12 -
would report? -

Senator Muskie. We could stand on the report to indicate
14 that is what we have in mind.

15Senator Roth. Yes.

16 The Chairman. You confine it to the Federal Government,

17 you modified it. Any objection to that? If not, the amendment

18 is approved.
19 Senator Roth. With the understanding that the report would

20 expand a little on the further provisions.

21 Senator Muskie. Specifically point to the fact that we

22 didn't get into the other areas because we do not have an

23 adequate base, but that does not mean that we ought not to

24 be looking into these areas as we gain experience under this

25 Ici tin



i The Chairman. Are there any further amendments to Title I

j If not, I would suqqest that someone move that we approve Title

SI, subject to the riqht of the SEC -- ---.-.
4 I!
.........Senator Brock. Those anen.Lnents will be here shortly..

SI so move.-

Senator Jackson. I second the motion. -

7 The Chairman. All in favor of the motion, let it be known
by saying aye.

9 Very well.

10 Title II starts on page 13, the Bureau is asking for

11 exemption of records collected or funded and used solely for

12 statistical purposes under Section 1, Title 18-of the U. S.

13 Code.

14 They don't want to have right of access to records they

15 collect solely for statistical purposes. It seems to me that

16 is a reasonable exemption, so I would propose it.

17 Is there any objection to the Bureau's amendment?

18 If not, without objection, that amendment will be included i

19 The staff will work it out.

20 Any other amendments to Title II?

21 1Senator Jackscn. Mr. Chairman, there is a question I want

22 to raise and ask Mr. Casad from the investigative staff to corn-

23 ment on it if he won't mind.
24 On the use of social security numbers, I am not suggesting

? ; rv+-hina. but there is a real problem here regarding cost; even


i i





- 6


















63-619 0- 76 5


though the military, of course, requires the submission of a

social security amendment, it is a problem that we ought to kno'

about. I did want to address the issue.

Is it all right to have Mr. Casad who has been involved

extensively in investigative work more than I to address t-.he


Mr. Casad. I don't agree with it. You covered it pretty

well. That in essence is the problem.

The Chairman. How would it work?

Mr. Casad. The language connotes that the social security

number could not be used in many legitimate areas; for examDle,

military services, presently used the social security number as

a military identification number. The cost involved in chan-inJ

the system, it would seem to me to be substantial. Perhaps we

should take a look at this and examine it.

Senator Chiles. I agree with that 100 percent. I am think-

ing about other things,for example, identification, where y.ou

are talking about whether it be for food stamps or other thirnsJ,

Where you are trying to determine if people are using false

identities -- where you couldn't use a social security number.

You would be working to promote a lot of fraud.

Senator Jackson. When the banks report your interest, you

have to give your social security number; as I read this, you

would be prohibited from asking for the social security number

11" LAO A- i apntification_


1 All these systems would have to be done over. All the

2 costs Mr. Casad estimates run into millions.

IWe all ouqht to know. We ought to find out precisely what

4 that impact would be. It is in the form of a question.

5 ; Senator Brock. I personally don't see what it adds to the

6 bill to have this particular section, and I would add further

7 that we in the government have insisted and required banks to

S take social security numbers because what we do, we use that as

9 our base code number with which we relate State income taxes,

10 social security taxes and Federal income tax in order to be

11 sure that people aren't paying one and not another, and it is

12 the Central Recording System. It is the address Qf an

13 individual, if you will. ... -:.

14 Senator Roth. Mr. Chairman, I have had some of the same

15 concerns expressed to me by the University of Delaware, that it

16 would tremendously complicate ard increase expenses with them. I

17 recognize the problems of privacy involved here, but I wonder Ii

18 we might not be wise to give this as an area of study to the

19 Commission itself as a way out rather than to attempt to resolve

20 it quickly. It has very extensive ramifications.
21 Senator Jackson. Would the Senator yield?

22 Senator Roth. Yes.
23 Senator Jackson. I would move to strike this and put it

24 in a study section. I think it would be appropriate.

2F, The Chairman. It is in there. It says study the use of





. ...5






















license plate numbers, social security and universal forms of


Senator Roth. Why don't we just strike it from the


Senator Muskie. Could we get from somebody, the staff or

otherwise, the justification for the provision? We have heard

the negatives which are very persuasive. There must have been

a reason why this was included and I am not entirely up on


Senator Chiles. Everything was included to start with.

Senator Nunn. The size of the whole world.

Senator Muskie. If you have a universal identification,

it would take very little to make personal files available to

the central computer. It may seem like a vague kind of fear,

but I would like to know more about it. A case for it must

have been made. I want to know more before I vote.

The Chairman. We have had a number of hearings on the

question of privacy and the argument of people is that if

everybody is going to be reduced to a number, the average

citizen is going to wind up so his number will be zero. That

is the main argument.

Senator Brock. I have the same fear, but I honestly

question whether we ought to put in the bill a flat prohibition.

It seems to me that a study is warranted. There are certain

dan-o-q ipplicit in it. We oucht to prohibit it until we have |



1 had the benefit of a full study.

IThe Chairman. The objection is if you put everybody in

S a computer, every computer, somebody could get ahold of every-

4 i thing in a computer. It has been moved to strike this.

[ Senator Roth. Strike this.

6 The Chairman. Any further discussion? ---

7 Senator Roth. Question.

8 Senator Muskie. As I understand it, and I want to be sure

9 it is before us, you have got one linkage number of that kind,

10 you can use it to convert all of the data banks and all the
21 information files in the Federal Government to one giant data

12 bank making any piece of information relating to any Individual .

13 in any file respond to that one number. -" *'* ,

14 Now, I am not sure that we examined closely enough some

15 of the ways of strengthening these provisions to avoid the
16 horrors that some members have already suggested. Before we

17 jump too strongly to that side, I just raise the point because

18 I feel a little uncertain about my own knowledge in this field.

19 Senator Roth. I very frankly have some of the same concern I

20 which is expressed by Congressmen Rosenthal and Goldwater when

21 they came to our side and testified. They raised a very

22 legitimate problem. I don't feel that we have the opportunity
23 to study the problem in sufficient depth to make the definitive

24 decision now and, for that reason, the Commission is appropriate.

: & y C i .. .. .... - -h t i .44 will
20 Cine uE try cIjnnrns -...s LA. ... WA


1 probably just have some alternative so that will accomplish the.

2 same thing. We are better off making a more carefully, precise

3 study to see if we will come up with the solution ....

_4 Senator Jackson. I share Senator Muskie's concern. With

- 5 the only thing we are sure of, we are confronted with

---6 immediately. I hope they will study it and see if they can't

7 come up with an alternative. We are confronted immediately

8 with a heavy expenditure of funds in connection with the

9 current investment of IRS alone -- the information that is fed

10 in on all savings accounts, would have to be completely undone.,

-11. Corporate dividends -- it covers the whole area using the social

12 security numbers, and my suggestion would be that we have .some-

13 language, Mr. Chairman, in the report here that we have struck

14 this because of certain investments already made, we are

15 just talking, Chuck, about the use of social security numbers.

16 Senator Percy. I would like to comment on this.

17 Senator Jackson. We are concerned with the danger of

18 this sort of system being institutionalized to the point where

19 it can all be fed into one central system in which there could

20 be a misuse of that information and I share that. The only

21 problem that we face immediately is not having the facts here,

22 but we do know that it runs into the millions to completely

23 change the reporting system right away, but why don't we have

24 some language, expressing, Mr. Chairman, the reasons for this ani

^5 oir fsar of the direction we are qoinq by utilizing on a


universal basis, the social security number approach. I think

that is Senator Muskie's same concern.

o Senator Percy. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I was late, but I
can say the cloture vote before the final, last cloture vote
on the agency of consumer advocacy is set for the 18th following
the recess. "- -

I would like to speak on this item because it was the one
8 that I originally had the same--

9 The Chairman. I enjoin upon you not to give anyone else

[ such a mess of political potage as you did some of the farmers.

.''Senator Percy. I was somewhat concerned about the same

12 section for the reason that you interrupt procedures already

1i established. I met with Congressman Goldwater. This provision

14 is in the House bill. I note very, very strong feelings the

15 House has about it. It is their contention and I am now con-

16 vinced if anyone wants to really put together a system that

17 would put everyone on a numerical basis and put everything

18 together as one common number, the social security number is

19 the key to the way to do it. The more we get in it, the more

20 troublesome it can be.

21 I would be compelled to vote against the amendment. I can

22 assure my colleagues, that at least Congressman Goldwater, who

23 2 is on the committee for the House bill, is very strong about

24 it.

25 Senator Chiles. If that .i~ the danger,^ you have to see





1 i that maybe the number doesn't get combined, but to strike the

2 use of the number as being able to use that as an identifyir,.:

i thing, it seems like to me it will cost untold dollars, untold

-4 dollars, and it seems like to me we are just qoin the reverse

-- 5 way -- to say we don't want a number is like saying we are not

6 going to allow people to have middle initials because there is

7 a danger here.

8 I see the danger. Maybe you want to speak to it in this

9 bill that you will not allow the combination -- some way of

10 putting together any machine that starts to group this, but for

11 identification, what is IRS going to do about dividend identifi-

12 -cation?- - --

13- We are beginning to use the number sum to prevent fraud.

14 It seems like to me if you are not going to be able to use it

15 in cross-checking or preventing fraud, then privacy is one

16 thing, and I am for that, but I couldn't be for this bill if

17 I thought we were going to knock all that out.

1E SSenator Percy. As I understand, it will not change IRS ati

19 all because that exists as a matter of law right now. You do

20 not change any existing laws.

21 Senator Brock. But the problem is IRS gets its information

22 from States, banks, S&L's; any lending and depository institu-i
23 ition as of now under the law requires the social security numbe"

24 to be filed with the name, the purpose of which is to have a

25 central address code for each individual by which they furnish


i information to IRS so they can cross-check against fraud or

I against internal revenue abuse, not reporting dividends, not

Reporting interest earned, and that sort of thing. .-.,.

Further, we are on the brink of going to an electronic

S funds transfer system in this country. It will save an awful _

6 lot of money in terms of our business dealings for the consumer

7 to prohibit the application of the one device by which you use

8 that system is, I think, insane. It is penny wise and pound

9 foolish.

10 The Chairman. I am informed that the provision has been

1 deleted from the House bill.. ...... ...., .,

12 Senator Jackson. The social security? : ~*r *. cU.

13 Senator Brock. Yes. .. ,

14 The Chairman. A comparable prohibition. A prohibition on
15 the use of social security.

16 Senator Chiles. They have deleted it?

17 Senator Brock. They ran into the same problems we did.
18 Senator Jackson. Let me ask one question.

19 We are all, I think, in general agreement on the danger

20 that is inherent in the use of numbers because you are going

21 to have to use numbers one way or the other. The danger is

22 pulling them together and centralizing them and putting them

23 in one bank.

24 Senator Brock. Yes.

2 Senator Jackson. How much would it cost to carry out this




Section? Surely we can get an estimate on that. The whole
reporting system on interest on loans, savings accounts, divi-

S dend reporting -- all of it is predicated on this, all of the

S military reporting is based on -- and that would be prohibited

Son your social security. ....

Senator Percy. The key phrase is "required by Federal

7 law." All the banks are required by Federal law. There is no

8 attempt to prevent them from furnishing what they are now. What

9 you would so is someone arbitrarily deciding they are not going

10 to cash a check or will not issue some form of credit unless

ii you give them your social security number .

12 Senator Chiles. You will have to change all the Senate-

13 I.D. cards because they have the social security number.

14 Senator Jackson. Let me ask you the question; I don't

15 know the answer. I'am not sure just what is required

16 specifically by Federal law. I don't think on the military

17 side that that is specifically required that they use social

18 security numbers. They are doinq it because it takes care of

19 the dependents and so on. If you have your physical, you know

20 they ask you for your social security. So I don't know,

21 Senator Percy, what areas are specifically required by Federal

22 law.

2Z I will withdraw the motion. I would just like to know wha

24 this is going to cost because without that knowledge, I think

2 E we are -




SSenator Brock. I don't think you can give a cost answer

2 to a question that is still in flux. The thing that frightens

S me even more, what I consider an excusable cost on the economy

4 l is what the future cost would be because we are very much moving

5 | toward a more simplified recordation system and this is the

6 I part and parcel of it. -......

7 What you are trying to do is deal with the central data

8 bank, with the potential abuse of privacy. I don't see that

9 you can abolish drowning by milk by outlawing milk. That is

10 what you are trying to do by outlawing the social security
.':II number. I think it is wrong.. ....

12 Senator Roth. I don't know who made the motio6n;--if'the-T-..

13 distinguished Senator from Washington withdraws it, I would

14 II make it again.

15 We have inadequate knowledge to make a definitive decision

16 at the current time.

17 Number one, we don't know exactly what the law does require.

18 I SEcondly, you do have a problem. What will it cost the

19 Federal Government and other agencies? I would like to point

20 out again in view of what was written by the University of

21 Delaware, this will have tremendous cost to the private sector

22 as well, and I think, third, Lawton Chiles raises a very

23 important point, this is being used to eliminate fraud in some

24 of our programs. Perhaps it is not essential, but I don't see

P5 i how we can make that decision now. I strongly urge, particular .y !



i ;


1 since the House has receded on it, that we move in the direction

2 tc have a study.

5 Senator Percy. We are not sure about the House situation.

I would like that clarified. The markup isn't until tomorrow

5 |morning at 10 o'clock.

6 I am advised it is not in that bill.

7 Senator Nunn. Can we call the question on the bill?

8 Senator Brock. I don't care what the House has done.

9 Our action is independent.

10 Senator Muskie. I have no desire to delay it. The debate

11 on this provision highlights the issue involved in this entire

12 bill. There are benefits to the computer age. Apparently -1-

"13 it is like blowing into a gale. The benefits are so obvious

14 and so easily stated that we are willing to give up our privacy

15 in order to get them.

16 If you get this close, that one number can make the private

17 lives of each of us subject to anybody's finger on the button--

18 we would weigh the benefits. The rest of this seems to be

19 peripheral.

20 I am not expert in cowputerizing, but it seems to me that

21 the key to the co-..uterized society is the day we arrive at one

22 number that can tie us all tccether. That is what this is. The

23 rest is peripheral.

24 I suspect we don't know enough about it to take this leap.

20I n' ^,t re1]"! object to that. We ought to focus on the fact

1 that the rest of it is rather unimportant. It is a real attack

2 on a threat to privacy, if we are willing, and the momentum

5 seems strong to accept the social security number and all its

4 implications of spreading our private lives throughout our

-5 society.

~6 1Senator Roth. None of us have any judgment on the other

7 side. You raise a very pertinent case. We feel it needs

8 further study than has been made at the present time.

9 The other point I would like to make is that it is my

10 understanding that the rest of the bill is to prevent from

1.1 happening what you have foreseen. The whole purpose of this

.12 legislation is to protect privacy in some single method of-being-

.13 used. It can't be said that we are doing nothing if we just ma e

14 a study.

15 The rest of the bill is to prevent the development of
16 another number that has the same result.

17 Senator Chiles. No, it is more than that. i

18 Senator Brock. It is more.

19 Senator Chiles. It is to prevent a combination of inter-

20 locking data building up and coning together.

21 Senator Brock. Yes.

22 Senator Muskie. The key to combinging them is something

23 so simple as a social security number.
24 ISenator Brock. In working with computers, any system can
he devised for setting an address mechanism to find any




1 individual, however you want to do it. You can take the

2 first two letters of the last name and last three letters of

S the first name and the street numbers.

- 4 Senator Muskie. There is no consensus about any key as

-5 there is about social security. -- .-.

6 Senator Brock. If you strike social security numbers,

7 you don't deal with the problem which is the central bank at

8 all. The rest of the bill deals very forcefully with dis-

9 closure, with access, and all the other things that are

10 important in privacy.

11 I don't think striking "social security" has anything to

12 do with the basic thrust of the bill. *z-? :- L.

13 Senator Muskie. The point I am making is not directly

14 related to the mechanics in that sense. The point I am getting

15 at is that there are such obvious temptations that come from

16 combining the information about the 200 million of us that are

17 members of this society.

18 When we get to the threshold of the benefits, we are will-

19 ing to surrender the benefits whether it is by way of security

20 number or something else.

21 Senator Brock. I am going to stay right here. I am just

22 going to answer the phone.

23 Senator Jackson. Can we take this up out of order? This

24 is a matter pending when Senator Percy was here. If we could

2I tak UP Coa f fz the PC- On




Investigations, this would be a request that we worked out

jointly of $86,000, Chuck, which we will modify. Senator

S Percy has indicated a need -- it is S85,000 instead of $86,000.
4 !The Chairman. We voted not to exceed five minutes?

5 Senator Jackson. It won't take that long. We ask that the

6 resolution before you be revised to reflect that total figure
7 i of $85,000 instead of the $86,000 and that it be modified

8 accordingly.

9 The Chairman. Is there any discussion?

10 Senator Jackson. We will modify our letter to you.

11 The Chairman. All in favor of reporting the bill for more

12 money for the Permanent Subcomrittee, hold up yoar-trfght hand.

1. 5 Let the record show unanimous approval. -- ,

14 Senator Jackson. I am wondering if we can't, and I

15 won't change my mind on the floor, I think we are all in agree-

16 ment on the idea that we want to avoid, and this is part of

17 the problem, we want to avoid a situation of a number -- if it

18 isn't the social security number, it could be something else.

19 We have national health programs coming up. You have the

20 number business again. We will start a whole series of

21 numbers. This is going to be, whether we like it or not, a

22 major problem. Rather than having a lot of numbers floating

237 around, the tendency now is to identify with just the singular

24 social security number.

2 *i thi-z c, the q""a1 cconsensus, if I read our




1 comments here correctly by our colleagues is that what we want

2 to avoid is the pulling together of all of this in such a way
3 in which it can be used to interfere with the civil liberties I

4 of our people.

5 No one feels any stronger about it than any member of the

committee. What really bugs me is if it should go out just the

7 way it is, I just don't know how much it is going to cost.

8 The military is not covered by this, by the way. That is done

9 by, staff checked it, that is done by simple Executive Order,

10 and in the interest of savings to the government, so my

11 recommendation would be that we put language in the report to

12 explain properly our deep concern about the growing- use of the

13 social security numbers and reiterate the study that ought to -

14 be given top priority on the use of social security numbers

15 in a manner and fashion which could interfere with the civil

16 liberities of our people.

17 Senator Chiles. I would hope if we put it in, put where

18 the number is being combined. It is a legitimate thing to

19 acquire some identification for someone who is applying for

20 some kind of a government program, whether it be a crop allow-

21 ance or whether it be an emergency disaster relief or food

22 stamps or something else.

23 One reason people fall out with these programs so bad is

24 where there is fraud in them, where people are applyinc more

2 than one time, and where they are getting money improperly --




to me it is a perfectly legitimate use of social security or

any tool we can come up with to try to prevent fraud.

Senator Jackson. That is the balance you have to deal wit
5 I
Senator Chiles. The danger is in the combination as
Senator Muskie has pointed out. ---
We are dealing with a bill right now that doesn't contain

8 anything about the private banks because we have decided that

9 we can't handle that now, and we are going to study it. When

10 we get into privacy, that is important, I think, some of the

-. abuses that are in the private banks, are more than anything

;12 'we are dealing with in this bill.- And if we allow that, .we -.

13 could certainly allow the study on the possible dangers of

14 social security.

15 The Chairman. Could we vote on this?

16 All in favor of deleting Section 205 and renumbering

17 appropriately the subsequent sections?

18 Senator Jackson. With appropriate language in the report

19 to explain it.

20 The Chairman. Yes.

21 All opposed, raise your right hand. 8 to 1.

22 The committee will put in the report appropriate language.

23 Any further amen.'Ient to this?

24 Senator Nunn. I have got one quick question I might point

South. On pdge 14, ,is get -- if you







look at No. 2, this is saying each Federal agency should
2 I
2 collect information to the greatest extent possible directly

from the subject individual when the information may result in
an adverse determination about an individual's rights and so

forth. -.-.....

That sounds real good, but let me explain what we will

run into.
8The Chairman. Give me the page number.

Senator Brock. Page 14, subparagraph 2.

10 The Chairman. I see.

...."' Senator Nunn. Senator McIntyre and I, he has taken the lea,

12 we have been hearing about duplication, great duplication.

13 Small businessmen are about to go crazy because of the for-n

Sand paper work. The average radio station has to provide

15 several pounds of forms. It takes two or three years for the-t

16 to read through it to get any decision. We are going contrary

17 to the Federal Reports Act. We are telling them the opposite

18 of what we were trying to do. Trying to get together and not

19 require the same man to fill out the same form, so I am not

S20 going to offer an amendment.

21 The only way I know how to change it is delete it

I 22 altogether or substitute the word "practical" for possible, but

( 23 I do caution, and I think everybody ought to realize the

24 direction we are going in in this particular language here.

25t ,We are saying to the Federal!?-ncy, "Boys turn loose thosE

S63-619 0 76 6




1 Federal forms." We want more of it. Put it really on the

Small businessmen of this country. That is what we are telling

C them. That way 0MB couldn't say to two agencies, "You have the

4 same information coming from different sources, combine the

5 forms." I really don't know quite how to handle it.

6 ;The Chairman. This is restricted, however, to information
i i
7i where it may result in an adverse determination against a

8 person.

9 Senator Nunn. Any form you might fill out could result

10 in an adverse determination against an individual. I don't

11 know any agency that has any form -- perhaps only the Census

12 agency and you are subject to criminal provision-with that. ;>. -:

13 Any form you fill out subjects you to an adverse determination

14 if it goes to the Federal bureaucracy.

15 Senator Jackson. Especially if it gets on the computer.

16 The Chairman. On what line is the specific amendment?

17 Senator Nunn. I don't have one. I don't know how to mend

18 it. I don't want to strike it. The only way to successfully

19 mend and to keep it from being completely contradictory to what

20 we are working on in other areas is to strike it. You could

21 strike the word "possible" and put in "practical" and some

22 words that say "subject to the intent of the Federal courts."

23 It is on line 3, page 14. It is directly contrary to

24 the intent of Congress in a lot of other respects.

25 Senator Muskie. As I tecd LhaL laua, it is di-ne



1 to insure that any file on a person shall to the fullest

extent possible be based on information derived from him rather

S than from other sources.

-4 I Senator Nunn. Other sources are other Federal agencies.

5 I That is the way I read it. I gathered this is designed to get

6 them away from hearsay and down to infor-ation that the

7 I individual himself has had a chance to verify. That is how I

8 read that language.

9 Senator Jackson. It places the burden, as I understand

10 it, on the Federal agency to go to the individual and avoid the

.11 hearsay. -,P .. .

12 Senator Brock. May I sugqest-a compromise. Why -don=Lt '

13 you explicitly spell that out and we say by no definition are

14 we trying to further burden the businessmen with further

15 required reports. This is to be within the context of the

16 Federal Reports Act.

17 If you say that you are covered.

Ic Senator Jackson. Those are the magic words.

19 Senator Nunn. That would help it.

20 The Chairman. Priscilla Alden said, "Speak for yourself,

21 John." This is information from the individual. It gives the

22 individual the opportunity to present the information in the

2 best light as they can for themselves.

24 Senator Brock. If you would modify the report to include




1 The Chairman. Yes.
2 Senator Nunn. Scratch the word "directly". It wouldn't

S come directly from the individual to the agency in question,
4 but it would still hve come from the individual.
5 Senator Brock. The basic originating agency would be
6 covered. .... _
7 Senator Muskie. How does eliminating the word "directly"

8 help?
9 The Chairman. This protects the individual and allows
10 them to speak for themselves.

11 Senator Muskie. It says, "when the information may result
-12 in adverse determinations about an individual's.rightsT- "-and ,;-.

i3 so forth, the information ought to come from him ... ;...........

14 Senator Nunn. Yes, I agree with you, but not 10 different,
15 times.

16 Senator Brock. If you apply the basic statute to one
17 agency that gets the original information, then that

18 information, if it complies with the law, should -- you
19 shouldn't have to get the individual to file another report
20 that says exactly the same ting to a different agency.

21 He is trying to leave out repetition.
22 Senator Jackson. Let us get report language.
23 The Chairman. Yes. I agree with you, "practical" instead
24 of "possible".
) c Senator Nunn. I would offer that as an amendment,




1 "practical" instead of "possible".

2 The Chairman. If there is no objection, we will change

5 1 "possible" to "practical" on line 3.

-4 Senator Brock. May we submit report language to Sam Nunn

5 to see if it is adequate? -..

6 The Chairman. Yes. .

7 Senator Nunn. I have another amendment on page 23, section

8 (g), which is on line 3, page 23.

9 "(g) Each Federal agency covered by this Act which main-

10 tains an information system or file shall assure that no per-

11 sonal information about an individual is made available from

'12 the system or file in response -to-a demand for -information made!:

13 by means of compulsory legal process unless reasonable efforts-

14 have been made to serve advance notice on the individual."

15 What I would submit, Mr. Chairman, is what we are saying

16 there, we are telling the agency to defy the legal process if

17 they determine that reasonable efforts have not been made to

18 give advance notice.

19 I don't think that is what we mean. We would be placing

20 the agency or whoever is doi-.g it between obeying the court ordij

21 and obeying this law. I would like to see us change it that

22 "Each Federal agency covered by this Act which maintains an

23 information system on file, make reasonable efforts to serve

24 advance notice on the individual when the file is made avail-

I al


I It is another way of saying the same thing without

Splaguing the agency, without defy in' this law or the compulsory

S lecal process.

4 1 Senator Jackson. I see nothing wrong with it

- j The Chairm.an. That seems to be an improvement. We will

S take your longhand sheet. ...

7 Senator Jackson. I second the motion.

8 The Chairman. Any discussion? All in favor of the amend-

9 ment, raise your right hand.
Very well.

SAny other amendments to Title II?

--- ... ..No further amendments to-Title'I,-; the-Chair-will-take ai.

1i motion that it be approved subject to the previous understand-

I1 ing by any members about the SEC.

15 Senator Jackson. I so move.

16 Senator Brock. Second.

17 The Chairman. All in favor of approving Title II, under

18 those circumstances, raise your right hand. Very well.

19 Senator Nunn. Title II, I am in favor of it and I voted

20 for it, but this language on .age 26, lines 19 and 20, I believe

21 that is in Title II. Perhaps this would have to be a judicial

22 determination, but if you look at line 19 or 20, we are talk-

23 ing about an cxerption for investigative information, and we

24 1 have an exe7-ption here which specifies where such information

2: ^ a bezn mzsint3ie0 fnr a period loncrer than is necessary to














1k 3













commence criminal prosecution. I don't know what "longer than

necessary to commence criminal prosecution means."

I will ask the staff to look at that. Maybe that is as

close as we can come to properly defining it.

The Chairman. I might state that I am informed it is

identical to the language in the Freedom of Information Act

that we since passed and I understand is about to be signed int

the law.

Senator Nunn. If we know what it means, that is fine.

The Chairman. It is sort of left up to the agency to


..... r-;senator Brock. The agency -or the-court? '^ -, r-o

-Senator Jackson. Mr. Casad went into this. He was -.-

satisfied. What was your comment?

Mr. Casad. We had the same concern, Senator Nunn, that

you just enunciated. In Print 5 we reviewed it again

thoroughly. We were satisfied that there would be no problem.

Senator Nunn. I will accept that. I got behind on Title

II, but on the mailing list, this is a sort of considerable

amount of frustration with people throughout the country. On

Section 207, page 29 -- Section 207, lines 12 and 13: "An

individual's name and address may not be sold or rented by a

Federal agency for a commercial purpose."

Do we really intend to make that just a commercial purpose

r)- any urnose? For instance, could --


I The Chairman. I think it could take care of themselves.

2 \ Federal agents say they can't afford to give them out free.

i Senator Chiles. You could sell them for other than a com-

4 I mercial purpose.

5 Senator Nunn. You could sell it to a political candidate,

S Do we intend that?

7 !Senator Brock. I haven't thought about that.

8 Senator Jackson. That is an unprinted amendment.

9 Senator Nunn. It may be construed as a cormnercial purpose

10 Senator Brock. It may be.

11 Senator Chiles. It is bad business.

12 Senator Nunn. I don't think we intend for any of these

13 Federal lists to be sold.

1 !Senator Brock. And direct mail solicitation for Korean

1 Orphans?

16 Senator Nunn. Charitable institutions. I just pose the

1i question. Don't we intend to bar the selling of Federal mailin


I The Chairman. That is what I think ought to be done.
19 i

SI! Senator Nunn. If you struck commercial and put the word

21 "any" in there -- there may be something wrong in that. Shall
22 not be sold or rented, period.

Senator Chiles. Strike "for a commercial purpose, shall

24 not be sold unless."

25 Senator Brock. Strike the words "commercial purposes"


down in the body under 3 also.

2 Senator Nunn. I agree, it ought to be struck all the way

S through there.

4 The Chairman. I would strike out the words as Senator

5 Brock suggested, "for commercial purposes," and that will

6 accomplish what is desirable.

7 Senator Brock. We ought to strike the words "commercial

8 purposes" and "commercial" in 1 and "for commercial purposes"

9 in 3 -- all the way through.

10 If you are going to do it, you ought to be consistent.

11 The Chairman. Where else?

12 Senator Brock. All on line 2, strike "for a commercial

15 purpose".

14 Under 1, you repeat those words, they should be stricken,

15 shouldn't they?

16 Senator Chiles. The others are the exceptions. If you are

17 dealing with the -- if you said they can't sell them, there is

18 no reason to strike them.

19 Senator Nunn. I think it ought to be stricken to be con-

20 sistent.

21 Senator Muskie. A period after agency?

22 Senator Jackson. Let me ask, I understand from staff

23 there is a problem here, I just raise this question again --

24- the blind group and the Indians have asked -- they do buy

25 these lists not for commercial purposes, but for ap-ropriate


1 nonprofit purposes. What happens?

2 They will not be able to buy it. As I understand it, it

is important in connection with what they do. I don't know

S who else is affected.

5 Senator Nunn. You are talking about charitable institu-

6 tions. I posed it as a question.

7 Senator Brock. If you let one group have it for a non-

8 commercial purpose, they can in turn sell it to anybody in the

9 country, so what have you gained? You either ought to do it

10 or not, I think.

11 Senator Roth. I would like to raise a slightly different

12 question while we are on this. Does section (2) permit the head

13 of an agency to use names and addresses for lobbying purposes

14 for its agency functions? In other words, can they make these

15 names available to promote, say, appropriations for their
16 ager.cy? It is subsection (2). It says, "the head of the

17 agency has certified that the co-mercial use of such names and

18 addresses will aid in the perfor-ance of the agency's

19 functions."

20 Are we authorizing the head of an agency to use such names

21 and addresses to promote its own programs or appropriations?

22 I question the wisdom of that.

23 The Chairman. We have a statute designed to prevent any

24 agency of the Federal Government to spend any part of its

25 appropriations for lobbying purposes.



1 Senator Roth. It might be worthwhile mentioning in the

2 report that this new language is not revoking the old.

SThat could be a very valuable aid to the lobb'.'ir.: effort.

4 I am suggesting that we make it clear in the report that we are

Snot authorizing the use of names for lobbying.

6 Senator Jackson. They are now selling them, Interior

7 Department to the Indians?

2 Do I understand the amendment to be that on line 12, it

9 would simply read "An individual's name and address may not be

10 sold or rented by a Federal agency," period, and all the rest

11 would be stricken?

12 The Chairman. I don't know whether we have a consensus

13 about this.

14 Senator Roth. He made a motion that we strike "for a

15 commercial purpose" wherever it appears, per se.

16 I second that.

17 Senator Muskie. The effect is to prohibit sale. Put the

18 period after "agency" on line 13 and delete the rest?

19 Senator Jackson. Yes.

I Senator Brock. You have some exceptions which are obvious

21 If the sale or rental is obvious by law, it may be something

22 we ought to keep.

Senator Muskie. Unless it is authorized by law.

24 4 The Chairman. I would suggest that mavbe the best way

2- ;to do this would be to insert "An individual's name and address


may not be sold or rented by a Federal agency unless such actio
is specifically authorized by law," and strike the rest.
Senator Jackson. I move the amendment to the amendment
Sor the amendment as modified.
Senator Brock. You are not striking the last sentence?
The Chairman. In other words, strike out the whole _

sectionand then reword it like this, "An individual's name and

8 address may not be sold or rented by a Federal agency unless

such action is specifically authorized by statutes or as

-10 provided by law."

11 Senator Brock. I think you want to keep the last

- 12 sentence in the paragraph "shall not be construed to require

13 the confidentiality of names and addresses otherwise permitted

14 to be made public." Strike everything above that and substi-

15 tute your language.

16 The Chairman. Any objection?

17 Senator Jackson. You would knock out (b), too. There is

18 no point to (b).

19 The Chairman. I am going to write a whole lot of letters

20 when I get home. I am on every sucker list in the United

21 States.

22 Senator Chiles. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have found

23 another glaring error and they have asked me to be sure to

24 d raise it. On page 12, subsection (2), where he is talking abou

9 ,---_ ------ -----i- -. itS- n-'' -- In


The Chairman. Will you wait, Senator Jackson?
2 Senator Chiles. They name a number of things that the

I Commission. shall include in its information activities or its

4 examination, and they name hotel, travel, entertainment,

5 restaurants and then they say, "The Commission may study such

6 other information activities necessary to carry out the

7 congressional policy embodied in this Act." That ought to end

8 with a period. While they add "except that the Commission

9 shall not investigate information systems maintained by religious

10 charitable, or political organizations."

11 Why are we exempting religious, charitable or political

12 organizations if you are talking about carrying out the policies

13 of the Act as to privacy?

14 The Chairman. That has been one of the great complaints

15 about the use of computers to select information on these

16 subjects.

17 Senator Brock. That is what we ought to be worried about.

18 That would justify some study to prevent abuse. We are not

19 going to add it up to say that they have to study it. To

20 they can't -- it looks like to me it is a pretty glaring

21 thing.

22 The Chairman. You have got your doctrine of the separation

23 of church and state --

24 Senator Brock. I didn't know that we separate politics

251 from the state.


I The Chairman. I think it is a pretty good thing to do.
2 The Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights conducted a study on

Suse of the Army, military intelligence, to spy on situation
4 1^
Violence, and the favorite information they collected on people

i was their political views and membership in political
organizations -- _
7 I
7 Senator Brock. This is a bill to safeguard and not to


The Chairman. This says this is grass the Commission

can't travel on.

Ii Senator Chiles. Then a religious organization or

12 political organization can invade my privacy any time they want

Sto or a charitable organization.

14 The Chairman. This is keeping you from invading theirs.

15 Senator Brock. It depends on who is trampling on whom.

16 The Chairman. This keeps the Comnission from going into

17 the field of investigating what kind of information churches,

18 charitable and political organizations have.

19 Senator Nunn. You are saying the Rockefeller Foundation

20 could keep a computer in New York and have every single being

21 in the world charted down there, and this Comnission couldn't

22 even look at it?

2Z ; The Chairman. What interest would the government have?

24 Senator Nunn. Or the Ford Foundation.

25 Tho Chairman. I think this is a very good provision.



1 I don't think a governmental commission ought to investigate

2 what kind of information religious organizations are collecting

0 or charitable organizations.

4 Senator Chiles. What is to prevent a restaurant

5 association from setting up a nonprofit organization that is

6 going to be their computer bank or their information system?

7 The Chairman. This doesn't say nonprofit.

8 Senator Chiles. It could be charitable.

9 The Chairman. Or not. A restaurant is a commercial

10 business.

11 Senator Brock. Mr. Chairman, you and I both know how many

12 times we have seen abuses of charities in the last 20 years,

13 abuses of tax exempt foundations by individuals for a political

14 ppurpose.

15 I don't see how you can exempt this sort of thing. How

16 do you define the word "religious" or "charitable" or

17 "political", but it looks like a carte blanche.

18 The Chairman. No, they can't. If it is a jimsonweed,

19 you can't call it a rose and get away with it.

20 Senator Brock. It has been done before.

21 Senator Jackson. It looks to me that we have given the

22 Commission plenty to do. They can postpone getting into this

2-; one.

24 Senator Chiles. I don't think we should give this to them,

25 It .YO hr r. -, g' Yoi sav thp Commission


Smay study such other information activities necessary to carry
3 I,
S out the congressional policy embodied in this Act, but even if

Sit was necessary to carry out the congressional policy embodied

4 in this Act which we are saying is important, they can't do it

Sif it is religious, charitable or political. You have excepted

6 it.

7 The Chairman. The First Amendment says the same thing.

8 Senator Percy. Can't we cover that in the report?

9 The Chairman. I don't see how in the First Amendment you

i0 can put a provision to establish a commission to investigate

11 what kind of religious organizationsor also about political

12 organizations .........

13 Senator Brock. How about the First Amendment as it

14 applies to medical records?

15 The Chairman. The First Amendment -

16 Senator Brock. Doesn't apply to people who are sick.

17 Senator Nunn. Could we eliminate everything but religious ?

1i Anything is a charitable organization. All you have to do is

19 just qualify with the State government. This could be the

20 greatest loophole in the law.

21 Senator Brock. I am charitable, I am not operating for

22 profit.

23 Senator Chiles. I am not sure about the Commission going

24 into a 3-2 split on parties.

? Senator Brock. If the First Amendment protects just



1 against religious incursions, then we don't need to restate it.

2 So strike the exception.

5 The Chairman. It is a good idea to make it certain. There

4 might be a commission that doesn't care much about First

5 Amendments.

6 Senator Brock. I doubt if the courts would go along.

7 Senator Nunn. We are invading the privacy of everybody

8 else here.

9 Senator Brock. Either you are or you are not.

10 Senator Jackson. Why don't we confine the prohibition to--

11 religious organizations or institutions?

12 Senator Nunn. I second that.

13 The Chairman. I think the same thing about political.

14 You should have seen what the Army collected on the political

15 views and organizations.

16 Senator Brock. But this whole bill is designed to stop

17 that, Mr. Chairman.

18 The Chairman. Then why make a study?

19 Senator Brock. The Army is not involved.

20 The Chairman. The most outrageous collection of informati r

21 that I have ever seen was by the Army Intelligence. Even when a

22 Member of the Senate went to Greensboro, North Carolina, that

25 garden of Eden, and the military intelligence put it in the

.24 report to Army Intelligence what the Senator said in his speech

25 Senator Brock. What doC Ah L A iAiy 1U v % Lo Ao wih

63-619 0- 76 -7



political organization?
The Chairman. A lot in '67 and '68. They had those
people spying on the protesters on political things.
Senator Brock. That has nothing to do with that amend-
Senator Chiles. Then you would put the U. S. Army in

7 here?
n. ... .. .
8 The Chairman. Oh, no. They had the U. S. Army spying
on the people to determine what their political beliefs were,

10 and we just say the Commission is not going to study how to

spy on people about their political beliefs.

12 Senator Brock. You are saying they can't stop it.

13 You are prohibiting any study?

14 Senator Nunn. Then we ought to eliminate all of them.

15 The Chairman. The Commission may study such information

16 activities necessary to carry out the congressional policy

17 embodied in the Act except that the Commission shall not invest

18 in information systems maintained by religious, charitable

19 or political associations.

20 Senator Brock. I move that we strike "charitable or

21 political".

22 Senator Nunn. Second.

23 The Chairman. You want a study made by the government

24 how to computerize -

25 T en tor+-% r c, T c- c-.i ^v% !,ass Ctinw t t -y tor%

II . . .