some new outrage is not reported. For example, this past Sunday's Parade magazine carried an article relating to incredible consequences which may befall an adult merely because of records kept on him as a child in elementary school.

The American experience, ever since the days of our Founding Fathers, has been imbued with the spirit of personal rights and liberties. This spirit developed from the history, character, and the circumstances of the frontier and has been reinforced by the millions who came to us to escape some form of oppression in their native lands-social, political, religious or economic. They wanted to escape restrictions of one sort or another which prevented them from being or doing or believing what they wished. They enriched American life in many ways but perhaps most of all in their passionate devotion to the concept of freedom as it has developed here. That concept is embodied not only in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but also in a way of life. To them it meant the inherent right to make what you can of yourself in every way, without being told what to think, do or say, and without fear of Government reprisal.

But what of the present situation? In the short space of less than 200 years we have witnessed the consistent erosion of the basic right of privacy. We are now a great industrial nation of a wholly different type from the America in which the American concept of freedom had its genesis and growth. Jefferson thought democracy and our ideals of liberty would fail when our population became "piled on each other" as in the Europe he knew in his time. Have we reached this stage? Do the economic and technological changes we have achieved necessitate corresponding changes in what men consider freedom? Does our computer technology necessarily mean depersonalization and a loss of freedom for the individual American? Does our urban society mean we are to be constantly subject to barrages of intrusion into our private lives? At this point in our history we must determine whether we are to be a people who controls their Government or a Government that controls its people.

My interest in the issue of privacy is not recent. In fact, one of the first bills I cosponsored when I came to Congress in 1971 was a privacy bill, designed to guarantee an individual's knowledge of and access to records concerning himself which are maintained by Government agencies.

However, Mr. Speaker, I must admit I had not realized to what extent there was citizen concern about privacy until recently when one of my older constituents, distressed over medicare reimbursement, refused to give me his social security number so I could check with the Social Security Administration regarding his case. Very simply, my constituent feared Government retribution. How could I assure him that seeking information regarding medicare is his privilege as an American citizen, that in a democracy he has the right to seek clarifying information and to secure a hearing, if necessary, on his complaint? How can I assure this citizen and the many others who share his fear that his name would not be included in a file as a potential trouble-maker? How do I assure him that his is a Government committed to protection of individual rights and liberties? My constituent has been reading the newspapers and listening to news reports; he knows, as we all know, that simple acts, statements or inquiries can and have been interpreted in a different fashion than intended and have been included in Government dossiers. He knows, as we all know, of the host of actual and potential intrusions into individual's private lives, from political surveillance to computer data banks and the expanding use of social security numbers as a means of identification.

Today there is fear among our citizens because of the abuses of the individual right to privacy. And this Congress must act to conquer that fear. For fear in itself is degrading; it easily becomes an obsession; it produces hate of that which is feared. Already there is citizen distrust; already there is citizen fear: are we to live to see citizen hate of their Government because of fear? While eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, our lot today seems to be eternal anxiety about our liberty.

But mere concern, mere prating about privacy will get us nowhere.

We must enact legislation to control all kinds of automated files on individnals, for the mushrooming unguarded, uncontrolled data banks pose an obvious threat to civil liberties and the potential for injury is magnified by the very real possibility that a person's record will be inaccurate or misleading. I speak not just of Government computer systems but the programs of private industry as well. The privacy problems posed by the $20-billion data-gathering business and the 7,000 or so Government computers which hold information on citizens' private lives is enormous.

Congress can make a start toward fulfilling our responsibilities in this area by enacting legislation curtailing the use and dissemination of criminal arrest and other law enforcement records, particularly the FBI's National Criminal Identification Center's program. While I believe it is important that the FBI compile pertinent data for effective crime control, I question the registering of names and actions of all persons who have any kind of contact with law enforcement officials. When a system includes unproven accusations, arrests not followed by convictions, allows agencies not connected with law enforcement to have access to these confidential records; when people without criminal records are recorded for noncriminal acts, suspicions or for political beliefs, then we have an intolerable violation of privacy and civil liberties.

We must give a conscience to our computers and deal with our citizens as individuals, not as numbers on a card. Retention in data banks of every aspect of our lives, including uncorroborated statements with no opportunity for the individual to review and correct his record, has a very chilling effect on the full expression of first amendment rights.

Congress must take steps to protect the privacy of bank records and credit ratings; make major improvements in the Fair Credit Reporting Act; protect the confidentiality of the individual tax return so these forms will no longer be used as a tool of Government harassment. We must also limit decennial census questions to prevent unnecessary and undue invasion of the Government into the privacy of its citizens.

The growing use of the social security number as a means of identification not relating to the individual's social security account, is an issue of gravity to be investigated. Even the practice of the Government selling mailing lists of names and addresses of individuals to private commercial businesses can be an invasion of privacy. Individuals should have the right and a practical means of preventing the Government from including them on such lists.

Undoubtedly most difficult of all our tasks, we must come to grips with the problems raised by illegal and improper wiretaps, political surveillance, domestic spying plans, illegal search and seizures, infiltration and harassment of dissident groups, use of agents provocateurs, and the whole raft of related abuses which have come to public attention in the past few years. Such actions constitute a brutal attack on our Bill of Rights, on our right of privacy. Government surveillance of political activity stifles the free expression of ideas and discourages participation in the political process, the very basis of our democratic system. Congress cannot avoid the hard decisions of how the Government's police powers ought to be used and what kinds of investigations, by what agencies, are necessary and legitimate. A limit must also be found and placed upon what can be done in the name of "national security."

Concern over protection of the right of privacy has been evoked by representatives of the entire political spectrum, from those labeled conservative to those considered liberal. Indeed, this is an issue that transcends all labels for it is an issue fundamental to our system of Government, intrinsic to our individual lib. erties and to our future as a democracy. Innumerable articles have been written on the issue of privacy, advocating various approaches and solutions to the problems we face; advisory committees have been established within the various Federal agencies and they have issued reports, most notably the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's report on "Records, Computers and Rights of Citizens." Innumerable legislative proposals have been introduced in the Con. gress on the subject of privacy. Certainly with this wealth of materials at hand the Congress can band together and enact meaningful and effective legislation in this field, to insure that the abuses that have occurred are not repeated, to insure that our right of privacy does not become a mere abstraction.

Mr. Speaker, today we express the congressional commitment to the right of privacy. Let us give meaning to our words by meeting our responsibilities, enacting legislation to insure that the constitutional guarantee of privacy is more than just words and thus reinstill in our citizens confidence that their Gov. ernment does indeed respect the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in urging Congress to enact legislation which will guarantee every American protection of our right to privacy. This special order is evidence that there is growing bipartisan support for this legislation to be passed into law.

If this legislation is to be effective, it must apply to all of the information maintained under an individual's name, and all information kept in other files. It must apply to information obtained from an individual, and information obtained from sources other than the individual whose files it is in.

We must not allow the serious problems which have resulted from the introduction of computer technology into the area of recordkeeping eclipse many other equally important issues.

A vast amount of information is still maintained in manual files. Even though the data in these files is available from one source, and computer files are available from many, sometimes hundreds of sources, manual files must be as carefully controlled as computer files. All personal dossiers maintained by Federal agencies must be strictly supervised if every American is to be sure that the Federal Government will not invade his or her privacy.

Even more importantly though, the information gathering process must be carefully controlled. Unnecessary information must not be collected. Inaccurate data must not be retained.

For example, we should direct our attention to the misuse of the postal service and the telephone system as means of gathering personal information. The information gathered from these sources, by tracing who contacts who, is often misleading. It is clearly an invasion of the right to privacy. Legislation must control the use of these services, and other inaccurate means of collecting data. We must determine when it is propore and necessary for data to be collected, and how it may be collected. We must decide what constitutes improper information gathering, and when it should be illegal.

Equally important to regulating the means of data collection, is the need to monitor the accuracy of the data collected. Every individual must be permitted to see files maintained under his or her name, and information on themselves maintained in files under other names as well. Everyone must be made aware of the existence of his or her files.

People must be able to challenge Federal agencies that certain data should be removed from their files because it is either inaccurate or misleading. In order for this to be feasible, a regulatory board will have to be established.

An individual must be given ample notice before his or her file is released, so that an appeal of the decision to release that file is possible.

This legislation should require that every agency keeping personal records establish strict rules regulating the distribution of information contained in their files. These regulations should then be approved by Congress. Congress must maintain oversight in this area.

For Congress to consider regulations of hundreds of agencies would be a cumbersome task. This task would be greatly simplified if a board were established.

It is important that this board be independent of other Federal agencies. It must be composed of representatives from the broad spectrum of people involved in law enforcement, civil liberties and the legal profession. It must not become an arm of either the FBI, or of the Justice Department.

A complaint often heard against this proposal is that the cost would be too great. I find this response unsatisfactory. This board will be small in light of other Federal agencies and boards, and its function is vital. I do not see how anyone respecting the Constitution can say that freedom is not worth the price of this board.

Whatever guidelines we set up will be insufficient. The same is true for regulations adopted by Federal agencies. There must be a regulatory board to make decisions on individual cases as they arise. It is to the advantage of both Government agencies and people whose files are concerned for this board to exist to expedite the decisionmaking process.

Law enforcement officers often cannot afford time delays. Most people would not bother to appeal decisions for their files to be released or to have information removed if the appeals process were complicated.

I am inserting into the record information relating to the Massachusetts experience with a regulatory board.

Because Massachusetts has been in the forefront of the fight to protect the right to privacy, I am aware of the struggle which exists between the Federal Government and State and local governments in the area of recordkeeping. Massachusetts has refused to participate in the FBI's National Crime Information Center because of this conflict and has also risked losing many benefits offered by the Federal Government because of this.

Massachusetts law provides that records shall be carefully scrutinized before they are released. Massachusetts provides for the expungement of many types of criminal records after a period of time and does not keep a record of unsubstantiated accusations.

The NCIC computer, on the other hand, keeps all of this information. After an individual was no longer in the Massachusetts criminal files, he could very well remain in the SCIC files and his record-forgotten by the State with the authority to prosecute him-will be retained by the Federal Government.

This raises two very serious questions. The first is a constitutional problem. Why should the Federal Government have control over data collected by States fulfilling the constitutionally mandated responsibilities? The answer is that it should not. This question is not limited to matters of criminal histories either. All records kept by States to help implement their laws should be under those States' control.

If a State feels that those records should be expunged, then the Federal Government should automatically expunge that same information.

The second question is a practical one which arises directly out of the problem I have just described. How can a State protect the rights of its citizens by carefully regulating the release of data unless there are correspondingly strong Federal rules? As long as the information in a State's files is available through Federal data banks to hundreds, if not thousands, of Federal, State, and local officials, a State cannot. That is why Massachusetts has been unwilling to participate in the NCIC or in other national data centers.

If every State in the Union passed strict laws to regulate the release of personal data, those laws would be worthless unless there were correspondingly strong laws on a national level. It is imperative that the national laws be as strong as the strongest State laws, and that they be enforceable.

I hope that the day is not too far away when we will rise in support of a bill which will guarantee every American his or her right to privacy. It is important that this legislation be considered soon, but it is also important that this issue be treated comprehensively, and with great care.

As you well know, what we are dealing with is basic to the American concept of freedom. The rights of every individual are sacred to the people of the United States. And we as legislators must also hold those rights to be sacred. What is at stake is the very essence of our democracy.

[The information follows:]

TESTIMONY ON PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
INFORMATION SYSTEMS

(By Arnold R. Rosenfeld)

I would like to thank the Chairman for the opportunity to appear here today and comment, on behalf of the Governor of Massachusetts and the state Criminal History Systems Board, on the proposed regulations governing the dissemination of criminal record information and criminal history information.

I will divide my statement into four parts; background, general comments on the content of the regulations, specific problems with the regulations, and suggestions for remedial action.

Let me first provide you with some background on our perspective. We believe Massachusetts has played an important role in encouraging the federal government to come to grips with the important issues to be considered here today.

As a result of our examination and analysis of the information needs and practices of our criminal justice agencies, we recognized that they were at the same time grossly misused by a myriad of other public and private agencies for purposes never originally intended or understood. These misuses included employment and credit checks, social welfare agency checks, and many others.

We, therefore planned out a carefully constructed automated system, obtained legislative authorization for it, and set up strict laws and rules to insure its integrity. We purposely limited discretion, because when you're dealing with an issue as a sensitive as individual privacy, it should not be subject to executive whims.

We recognized from the outset, however, that regardless of how stringent we made the safeguards in Massachusetts, if we participated as planned in NCIC, they were only as good as what would exist in other states or in the federal government. And we recognized that such participation would be to our advantage.

Since we felt strongly about privacy, we wanted to be sure that the federal government and other states understood our position. Governor Sargent, therefore, wrote to the Attorney General and expressed our concern. Our Criminal History Systems Board carried out our statute, which had strong privacy provisions. We were rewarded with a suit brought by the Small Business Administration and the Defense Investigative Service.

We pressed on, however, Governor Sargent joined in a petition to require the Justice Department to promulgate regulations. This petition stressed privacy concerns and the need to regulate NCIC especially. The suit was dropped and we were informed that legislation was being drafted and that rules would soon be promulgated.

We believed that we were being hard. It is now clear that we are not being taken seriously and that the commitment of this administration to improved privacy of data banks is just words.

In the introductory statement of these regulations, we note that the "purpose of these regulations is to afford greater protection of the privacy of individuals who may be included in the records of the FBI, criminal justice agencies receiving funds directly or indirectly through LEAA, etc."

In our opinion, Mr. Chairman, this is the closest these regulations come to requiring th FBI to do anything to protect anyone's privacy as far as its responsibility is concerned with NCIC.

These regulations require the states to develop a plan within an extremely short time and to file a series of reports on action to be taken. The requirements are quite comprehensive, and except for a few specifics, we generally agree with them.

Subpart C requires nothing by the FBI. It is a statement of what they presently do now in operating NCIC. The only new items are section 20.33 and 20.34, which limit access and dissemination and provide the individual the right to look at his own record. There is no interpretation of the issues raised by these two items, which are extremely complex. In our draft regulations, interpretation of these two matters took more than thirty pages.

It is clear to us that the Department of Justice has not understood the concerns of the petition, or it has missed the whole issue, or the President's statements on privacy have no meaning. We wanted regulations to govern this system, . not a description of the system. We wanted interpretations and definitions, not a statement about the discretion of the Director of the FBI. We wanted procedures to correct mistakes and remedy inaccuracies, not a statement of regulations that were already in existence.

Let me now be specific.

Section 20.2-The Definitions-we believe raises some problems. Section 20.2 (b) is completely inadequate. It does not define intelligence. This is essential because of the sensitivity of this type of information. Criminal justice agency, as defined in 20.2(d), uses the principal function test. We found this to be confusing without further specification. The sealing provision does not really involve sealing, if it allows the information to be used by criminal justice agencies.

We feel we can comply without great difficulty with Subpart B, with one exception. Section 20.22 (a) (1) includes access by agencies authorized by federal executive order. This is contrary to our statute. So is section 20.33 (b) which is similar. We do not believe federal executive order should be able to overrule states' statutes. If these agencies have a legitimate right to these records, let them go to the Congress for the authority, as was suggested by the previous Attorney General.

I believe that most other states will have difficulty meeting the requirements of Subpart B, but we will not.

Subpart C really defies specic comment. It does not even purport to regulate NCIC. I will comment only on Section 20.35, which establishes the Advisory Policy Board. It is solely at the discretion of the Director of the FBI, and while it provides for broader representation than before, it still is police oriented. In any event, the Advisory Committee really has no power.

As a result of our review, we believe that the Department should actually prepare regulations governing the NCIC system. These regulations place great burdens on the states and more on the federal government. If this system is to truly operate so as to achieve the purpose stated in the introduction, then both the federal and state governments must establish careful safeguards.

Mr. BAFALIS. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has ever read George Orwell's classic "1984" has expressed dismay at the complete lack of individual privacy portrayed in the book.

This sense of outrage transcends political philosophy.

One's right to privacy is a very basic, almost innate instinct. It is also one which has been the hallmark of all free forms of government. In fact, the individual's right to privacy makes the most definite distinction between freedom and totalitarian or communistic forms of government.