tions, as those basic requirements are now set forth at 18 U.S.C. 2516 (1) and (2) coupled, however, with an additional requirement for prior court approval. I have solicited the views of the Postal Service on the manner in which it would prefer to move forward with remedial legislation, for I believe strongly the Postal Service could use this legislation to protect itself as much as I want that legislation to protect the individual citizens.

I hope to report to the House the progress on this issue of mail covers at the earliest possible opportunity. I think it merits the attention of all of us.

THE PROTECTION OF PUPIL AND PARENTAL RIGHTS

Nothing could be more intrinsically intertwined with the right to privacy than the protection of the sanctity of mind and body, a sanctity which can be subtly eroded by various behavior modification measures.

On March 27, I offered two amendments to H.R. 69, the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1974. These amendments, which were accepted on voice vote, would insure protections against invasions of the privacy of pupils in our schools and against infringements on parental rights.

These amendments, if enacted into law, require that no child shall participate or be used in any research or experimentation program or project, or in any pilot project, if the parents of such child object to such participation in writing, and that the moral or legal rights or responsibilities of parents or guardians with respect to the moral, emotional, or physical development of their children shall not be usurped in the administration of these programs.

Nothing is more essential to the right to privacy, the right to be let alone, than the right to individuality, a right intrinsic in the moral, emotional, and physical development of each person. Programs and projects which seek to modify behavior, or moral values, or physical abilities-for the purpose of achieving modification as deemed appropriate by the modifier, not necessarily the student or the parent-can invade or infringe upon that right. Too often these programs and projects can lead to either conformity or uniformity of behavior, something which inherently denies the right to be different. And, too often these programs and projects use pupils almost as if they were guinea pigs, to test out the viability of new methods, often forgetting the impact such testing-and the failure of methods could have on the pupils.

I urge the Senate to accept these amendments and the committee of conference to preserve them in the final version of the bill.

PROTECTION OF STUDENT RECORDS AGAINST DISCLOSURE

Another area of serious concern has begun to surface during the past several months.

I speak of the potential misuse by disclosure of extensive information about pupils, maintained in the various public and private school systems.

What began more than a century and a half ago to keep registers on enrollment and attendances has grown to grotesque proportions.

Educators have constructed elaborate information gathering and storage systems, all in the name of efficiency, adding a piece here and there, tinkering with new components, assuming all the while they were creating a manageable servant for school personnel. But, what they failed to foresee was the swift development of modern technology and the widening employment of that technology by a social system increasingly bent on snooping.

The growth of student records into an all-inclusive dossier came in response to the increasing centralization and bureaucratization of schools. Another contributing factor was the emergence of education's ambitious goal of dealing with "the child." Out of that context grew such specific actions as the National Education Associations 1925 recommendation that health, guidance and psychological records be maintained for-on-each pupil, and the American Council on Education's 1941 development of record forms that gave more attention to behavior descriptions and evaluations and less to hard data on subjects and grades. By 1964, the U.S. Office of Education was listing eight major classifications of information to be collected and placed in the student record.

How much has the system grown? Let me cite my State of New York. Let me cite New York City's public school system as my specific example.

According to a highly informative article by Diane Divoky, entitled "Cumulative Records: Assault on Privacy," which appeared in the September 1973 issue of the magazine, Learning:

[The article follows:]

The ultimate mushrooming of records may have been reached in the massive New York City school system-largest in the nation. There, the records required or recommended for each child involve, if nothing else, a staggering amount of book work. A typical, rainbow-hued student dossier in New York carries:

A buff-colored, cumulative, four-page record card that notes personal and social behavior, along with scholastic achievement, and is kept on file for 50 years; A blue or green test-data card on which all standardized test results and grade equivalents are kept, also for 50 years;

A white, four-page, chronological reading record;

A pupil's office card;

An emergency home-contract card;

A salmon-colored health record-one side for teachers, the other for the school nurse and doctor;

A dental-check card;

An audiometer screening-test report;

An articulation card, including teachers' recommendations for tracking in junior high school;

A teachers' anecdotal file on student behavior;

An office guidance record, comprised of counselors' evaluations of aptitude, behavior and personality characteristics;

A Bureau of Child Guidance file that is regarded, though not always treated, as confidential, and includes reports to and from psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, various public and private agencies, the courts and the police; And all disciplinary referral cards.

The perspective of a Federal legislator here is severalfold.

First, the maintenance of student records is almost totally a matter of State and local jurisdiction.

Second, while there must be protection of the information contained in these records, it must also be available for a sufficient internal use within the school system itself to permit adequate attention to matters involving the actual education of the student.

Perhaps there is an answer. At many colleges and universities, the transcripts of students and graduates are not released unless the student or graduate specifically gives his consent to the release of that transcript to a specified party. That might be a good guide to follow here that there could be a release of information contained in these records, except for clearly defined internal purposes within an education system or systems, only when the parent or guardian of the student gave written, prior consent, or, once the student has reached the age of majority, he give it himself.

I have this problem under intense scrutiny at this time.

I hope to be able to report to the House and to introduce any appropriate remedial measures at the earliest opportunity.

This is certainly a matter which should not go without redress.

REVIEW OF IRS REGULATIONS

Immediately following the Christmas recess, I had brought to my attention the existence of a number of regulations within the Internal Revenue Service. The possible content of these regulations, but to mention their potential application by agents, concerned me greatly.

On January 7, I wrote to Donald Alexander, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, making inquiry about the existence and content of the following regulations, which I recite by name and number:

"Methods to Achieve Intelligence Mission, 9141.2: "Reporting Informant's Communications, 9271.3; "Confidential Expenditures for Information, 9372; "Electronic or Mechanical Eavesdropping, 9383.5; "Surveillance, 9383.7;

"Entrapment, 9385;

"Arrests without Warrants, 9444;

"Search without Warrants, 9452;

"Seizures Incident to Searches without Warrants, 9452.4;

"Electronic Eavesdropping Devices, 241.44; and,

"Use of Raid Kits, 284.51."

A lesson of history is that the most disliked man in any society at any time in history is "the tax collector." I understand that. But, after reading just the titles of these regulations, I began to wonder if maybe there was not more of a reason for that feeling-in our day and age-that we just have to "pay up" each April 15. I received a response from the Commissioner on February 4, and I want to share excerpts from it with my colleagues today, for they show-according to the Commissioner-that they are efforts to safeguard individual rights and not infringe upon them. Perhaps, but the courts will ultimately have to make that decision. Nonetheless, the Commission stated, in part:

"The various documents cited are not secret; almost all of them are available for public inspection in our Freedom of Information Reading Room in the National Office and have been provided to requesters under the Freedom of Information Act.

"Furthermore, these documents do not contain illegal instructions or promote invasions of privacy, but reflect the Internal Revenue Service's concern that the right of citizens be respected. The instructions are intended to assure fair and proper treatment of investigative subjects. . . . In short our instructions are proscriptive in nature rather than prescriptive. We are now reviewing these documents again to assure that our instructions fully reflect our current practice and goals."

I do not want to be too harsh on the Service, but I think certain things should be pointed out, from practice and from the letter itself.

No regulation is any more self-restricting that the agent using it on a daily basis. With the thousands of agents within the Service the preponderant majority of which are highly competent, I am sure-can one really be sure that all individuals are safeguarded fully every time one of these regulations is used? Inherent to the size of the Service and nature of the confrontation, probably not. The fact that "almost all of them" are available does not mean that "all" of them are available. And it is interesting that one must use the processes of the laborious and time-consuming requirements of the Freedom of Information Act to get them--those which are available to the public.

The question of whether they contain "illegal" instructions begs the question, for the fact that they are regulations promulgated pursuant to law makes them "legal." What it does not do is make them necessarily the right law, reflecting the right policies, which should be passed and instituted to protect fully the right to privacy.

The statement that they do not "promote" invasions of privacy is still no safeguard that such invasions are not committed.

Again, I am not here to infer that the Service has made a practice of violating the rights to privacy. I do, however, believe that in a quasiadversarial position between the Government-IRS-on one hand and the taxpayer on the other, that the taxpayer might sometimes not receive full benefit of the allegedly protective regulations.

One particular thing is important—over and above all else: I intend—and I invite other Members to join with me-to hold the Commissioner fully to his commitment that the regulations are, first, under review, and, second, that they will insure adequately the right to privacy.

I use this opportunity, further, to request the Committee on Ways and Means, particularly as it considers such measures as Executive Orders 1697 and 11709, to review the current regulations cited, as well as any revisions made in them. I think such an inquiry would be fully consonant with the responsibility assigned this Body by the Constitution to protect individual rights.

MUCH TO BE DONE

Mr. Speaker, I want to take an additional moment to express my gratitude for the outstanding work which some Members are doing on this issue. I speak primarily of Mr. Goldwater, Mr. Koch, Mr. Horton, Mr. Moorhead, and Mr. Edwards of California. I am pleased to have joined them in many mutual efforts in this regard.

These measures are but small steps-all be they important ones-toward safeguarding the right to privacy. Much more needs to be done.

I am committed to this task, and I invite my colleagues to join with me in this struggle.

37-583-74-pt. 2- -26

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, as a participant in today's special order expressing a commitment to privacy, I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues in support of this fundamental freedom.

I have introduced five separate pieces of legislation on this; the Right to Financial Privacy Act, an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act, a bill to establish a Select Committee on the Right to Privacy, another to prohibit the use of an individual's social security number as a universal identifier, and finally one to provide for fair personal information practices.

The right to privacy of our citizens has been invaded and legislation such as I have sponsored can reverse this trend. We in this country pride ourselves on independence and our individuality; we resent the idea of others having easy access to our records. Furthermore, I believe that the practice of government and private industry establishing and maintaining data banks on citizens is being overused. This has become so outlandish that information about individuals is placed in these data banks from such diverse sources as church records, marriage licenses, pet registrations, hospital and doctor's files, and even hotel registrations.

I am concerned about the irreparable harm and damage many individuals suffer because of the quantity and quality of information collected and used. Much of it is gossip, biased opinion, unverified fact, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation.

I have learned of a case where a man in his mid-thirties was passed over for a major promotion in a large firm because a data bank revealed he had larceny tendencies. This information it was learned too late, came from a prank when he was in grade school. It just so happened that the boy was involved with several others in taking some gym clothes and hiding them in the rafters. There was no indication of other criminal activity in his records.

Collecting and distributing this type of information is not in accord with the principles on which our country was founded, and our work here today can correct this injustice. Let us get started.

Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, two of the major issues in Government today are the lack of credibility and invasion of privacy. Our citizens are beginning to question whether our Government tells the truth and, perhaps even more ominous, are beginning for the first time to fear their own Government. These developments constitute an evil trend which the people of any free society can only find intolerable.

On that point, let me say this. The Congress of the United States has a duty like the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and make it a living reality. We have a responsibility to do this through the enactment of laws implementing the letter and spirit of that great document. And we are going to do it.

The House Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee is currently considering legislation to make certain that Americans have access to Government files, records, and dossiers kept on them. In all but law enforcement cases leading to criminal prosecutions, and properly classified files. Citizens would have inspection and correction rights.

This landmark legislation, in my view, will be a giant step in protecting the right to privacy-and making certain that Government is the servant of the people and not their master. I hope every Member of this House will support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the chairman of the Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee. Its Members on both sides of the aisle are all able advocates of the rights to freedom of information and personal privacy.

Through the years, the subcommittee has conducted pioneer investigations into the Government's use of polygraphs, telephone monitoring devices, and advanced information technology and their implications on the right to privacy. Last year we conducted an investigation into two executive orders which would have permitted the Department of Agriculture to extract certain personal financial information from the Federal income tax returns of 3 million American farmers. This investigation culminated in revocation of the two privacy-invading orders by the President.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the House Committee on Government Operations has shown a deep interest and concern in the protection of personal privacy for almost two decades. In 1964, it formed the Special House Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy which investigated the psychological testing of Federal employees and schoolchildren, mail covers, electronic surveillance devices, trash snooping, credit bureaus, data banks, and other privacy questions.

Our studies over the years show there is a clear potentiality with the sophisticated and advanced technology of today of almost unlimited invasions of privacy if Government is not carefully watched and checked.

Overall, these inquiries add up to what only can be characterized as a most disturbing picture. Meanwhile, the Watergate investigations have brought out new brush strokes of blackness on the same canvas.

We have heard the details of Tom Charles Huston's White House plan to intensify Government surveillance in the name of improving domestic security. As you may recall, the plan was briefly approved by President Nixon despite its unconstitutionality and objections from the late FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover. It was later rescinded.

Watergate also brought out the existence of lists of "political enemies" who were to be targeted for income tax audits and other possible adverse Government actions. All of America finally found out to what evil extent the privacy invaders of Government had gone. And it was frightening. The first and fourth amendments contained in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution were under vigorous attack.

But fortunately, the barricades were manned by an aroused Congress, a great and fearless free press and many concerned Americans who put their country above partisan political considerations. In the event any of my colleagues believe I am alleging the privacy invaders inhabit only one administration, they would be most mistaken.

Privacy invasions of our citizens have permeated every recent administration in recent decades. The disease must be eradicated. Each Member of Congresseach citizen-regardless of party-must join together in the battle line to keep it strong despite who the President is-Republican or Democrat.

My colleagues, we have heard much about preserving the Presidency. I submit the real question is: Are we going to preserve the Constitution?

Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Speaker, when President Nixon announced his support for the right of privacy in the state of the Union message, it was greeted with guarded praise. After all, a great number of the assaults on citizen privacy had been penetrated by officials in the Nixon administration, by his reelection committee, and, in some cases, by Mr. Nixon himself. After reviewing these events in a statement to this body on February 6, 1974, I noted:

"Thus it was with a touch of irony that we heard, in this Chamber a few days ago, a Presidential pledge to take steps to protect the right of privacy. While we can rent about the demogoguery of it all, perhaps the wisest course is to note that we may have gained another ally in the battle against governmental excesses."

Recognizing that Nixon statements in the area of civil liberties are frequently not implemented in practice, I added: "But time will demonstrate whether Mr. Nixon is merely a sunshine patriot and summer soldier."

Since that state of the Union promise, Mr. Nixon has had myriad opportunities to advance the protection of privacy. On those occasions, he has given the American people half measures supported by half truths. Each time Mr. Nixon could have struck resounding blow for securing citizen solitude, he merely administered a wrist slap. It is now clear that, when it comes to the battle against access to matters considered confidential by our constituents, Mr. Nixon and his appointees are indeed a troop of summer soldiers.

For the past several weeks, the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights of the House Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, has been holding hearings on proposals which would regulate the storage and dissemination of data collected by criminal justice agencies. One of those measures under consideration, H.R. 12574, is the Administration bill introduced on February 5, 1974. I should note that the interest of the subcommittee, under the able leadership of Don Edwards, in this subject antedates the administration bill by many, many months. We conducted hearings last session, for example, without any support from the Nixon administration.

Thus I was surprised and pleased when H.R. 12574 was introduced on February 5 and when Attorney General Saxbe appeared on February 26 to endorse at least some measure to guarantee the right of privacy by regulating the storage and distribution of criminal records. The problem, needless to say, is enormous. The FBI alone maintains almost 160 million sets of fingerprints, and arrest records of a substantial portion of those individuals. Arrest data, with or without dispositions, are in turn circulated to any Federal agency which requests them, to State and local agencies for law enforcement, employment, and licensing purposes, and to certain banking institutions. In addition a number of other Federal agencies,