cerned about the privacy they cherish. The time has come, therefore, for a major initiative to define the nature and extent of the basic rights of privacy and to erect new safeguards to insure that those rights are respected..

"I shall launch such an effort this year at the highest levels of the administration, and I look forward again to working with this Congress in establishing a new set of standards that respects the legitimate needs of society and that also recognizes personal privacy as a cardinal principle of American liberty."

Consistent with this statement, the President has created in the White House a Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy. It is chaired by Vice President Ford and includes several highranking administration officials. This committee is directed to examine four areas of concern:

Federal Government methods of collecting information on people and of protecting that information;

Procedures which would permit citizens to inspect and correct information held by public and private organizations;

Regulations of the use and dissemination of mailing lists; and

Ways that we can safeguard personal information against improper alteration or disclosure.

I am pleased to note that the one suggestion which the Domestic Council Privacy Committee has already made has been accepted by the President: in accordance with a recommendation approved unanimously by the House Government Operations Committee, an Executive order granting the Agriculture Department access to the tax returns of over 3 million American farmers has been revoked.

I welcome the President's initiative in the area of privacy, and I welcome his action in invalidating an ill-conceived Executive order. I hope that these acts are indicative of a genuine effort to be of assistance to those of us who have been attempting for many years to preserve citizens' rights to privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to serve as ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Operations, which has demonstrated a strong interest in protecting citizens' rights to privacy over the past decade. Its Special Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy, of which I was a member, was established in 1964. This panel performed highly useful investigations in such areas as electronic surveillance, data banks, mail covers, and psychological testing.

For the last several years, the Government Operations Committee's concern for privacy rights has been manifested primarily through the Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee, of which I have also been a member. That subcommittee, ably chaired by our colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Moorhead, has held important hearings on privacy implications of advanced information technology, Government use of polygraphs, and use of private information by Government employees.

The Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee is currently considering a bill by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Koch) to grant individuals access to records about them maintained by Government agencies. I am hopeful that constructive legislation based on the concepts of this measure will be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to another bill which is now pending before the Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommitteea bill which I have sponsored for several years to protect individuals whose privacy is threatened because their names and addresses appear on Federal mailing lists.

In 1970, Wendell Ames, an eminent doctor in my congressional district, reported to me that he received solicitations from a firearms merchant shortly after registering as a gun collector with the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service. The firearms company was using what appeared to be duplicates of the IRS mailing label. Inquiries revealed that the IRS was selling lists of individuals who had registered as collectors of guns at a cost of less than one-tenth of 1 cent per name. The dangers inherent in this practice are obvious. Fortunately, I can report that following my inquiries, the IRS agreed to cease the sale of lists of gun collectors, but they persisted in making lists of gun dealers available.

Surveys of Federal agencies have revealed that there is no pattern, no rhyme nor reason to Federal agency policy on the subject of mailing lists. Some agencies make lists available on a regular basis-citing the Freedom of Information Act as authority. Others deny access to all such lists-again citing the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, the policy of the Federal Government is no policy at all. My bill, H.R. 3995, would clarify this situation by setting a reasonable govern

mentwide policy which protects individual privacy while adequately safeguarding the public's right to know. H.R. 3995 is limited to prohibiting a Federal agency from distributing lists of names and addresses of individuals either employees or those having business with an agency, where such lists are to be used for commercial purposes or other solicitation or for purposes prohibited by law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to examine the hearing record on my bill as it will demonstrate the tremendous potential abuse that can result without a clear Government policy on the availability of literally thousands of Government-held lists. More than 60 of my colleagues have joined me as a sponsor of the bill and I hope that others will lend their support to this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the participants in this special order will set forth an impressive record of congressional initiative in the privacy area. I have described briefly the important work that has been ongoing in our Government Operations Committee and I know that my colleague, Mr. Moorhead, will expand on the contributions his subcommittee has made. Equally impressive is the work of the Judiciary Committee, particularly related to criminal justice records. But despite the progress we are making, I remain convinced that the Congress is not now equipped to deal with privacy issues on the level those issues demand.

For that reason, I have sponsored legislation for many years to create a Select Committee on Privacy to give breadth and forward thinking to assaults on individual privacy.

The House, traditionally the democratic institution closest to the people, has the obligation and duty to inform itself fully about the range of threats to individual privacy. Because of the immense power of the new technologies of data collection and processing, behavior control, and communication, all of which affect privacy and other individual rights, we need our own source of expertise if we are to legislate in the best interests of the Nation. The select committee could provide that source and would be equipped to understand and evaluate the long-term effects so often overlooked in our rush to deal with immediate problems. Its fundamental task would be to give visibility to ideas now buried within the Federal bureaucracy, in private business, or in academic circles before they erode the integrity of the individual citizen or dictate future American lifestyles. I am confident that our discussions today will demonstrate the need for this type of forum in the House.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the gentleman from New York for his contribution and certainly also recognize the contribution the administration has given by its indication of action currently in appointing the Vice President to head this Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander). (Mr. ALEXANDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.)

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in this effort to focus attention on one of our most precious rights as citizens of these United States the right to privacy.

The American experiment in democracy rests on the belief that Government meddling in matters of individual concern is an evil, as Jefferson said, "no less obnoxious when it is essential." While the Constitution confers no absolute right to be let alone, it does limit the scope of permissible Government intrusion and demands a special sensitivity to the right of privacy in those areas in which it is not strictly prohibited. The Founding Fathers knew that a free government must consciously limit itself in order to safeguard "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."

We are faced with a threat to that right. One of our own making over which we exercise at present only minimal control. That threat is the unprecedented capacity and need by government at all levels to digest information. The capacity of the bureaucracy to handle mountains of often personal data is of course the product of computer technology. The need to do so derives from the increasing demand on our governmental institutions to organize, plan, in short govern, a complex society. But as Jefferson observed, this need makes the practice no less obnoxious and so we must be alert to the ever present possibility of abuse. For this reason, I and a number of my colleagues were disturbed by the publication of Executive Orders 11697 and 11709 which granted authority to the Department of Agriculture to inspect the personal tax returns of 3 million American farmers. This authority was as comprehensive as it was unprecedented. Apparently any employee of USDA could be authorized by the Secretary to inspect the tax return of any farmer. The House Subcommittee on Foreign

Operations and Government Information of the Committee on Government Operations, on which I serve, learned in testimony from the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of the Treasury, that these orders were prepared as a prototype for future tax return inspection orders.

As I stated on February 19, 1974:

"These executive orders present the frightening prospect that the administration is attempting to begin the process of making personal income information of whole classes of people available to various departments and agencies without regard to the private nature of the information, or protecting individuals from possible abuse."

Such a development would hardly be a proper safeguard for that right of privacy described by the President as a “cardinal principle of American liberty.” I am pleased to note that after concentrated and sustained pressure from the Congress, the public, a perceptive member of the press-Alan Emory, of Watertown, N.Y., Daily Times-and the IRS itself, this improvident grant of authority has been rescinded by Executive Order 11732 on March 24, 1974. Unfortunately, the chilling specter raised by these orders continues. I am alarmed by the technical capacity of government to retrieve from its computer banks a dossier on individuals combining bits and pieces of data gleaned from many sources. The collection of such information is easily justified as enhancing administrative convenience and efficiency; it is just as easily subverted into a genuine, sinister force. An enlightened public should not quickly forget the articulated desire of an ex-White House official, John Ehrlichman, to make the Internal Revenue Service "more politically responsive."

Potential political operatives zero in on IRS files for the same reason that the Congress must now step in to assure their integrity and continued confidentiality; an individual's tax return contains a wealth of information about his private affairs, his job, his income, his charitable interests, his family responsibilities. The accurate reporting of all of these matters is indispensable to the administration of our Federal tax system. The remarkable candor shown by the American people each April 15 should not be taken for granted. Congress must take immediate steps to guarantee that the information so gathered is not used for any other purpose not specifically authorized by law.

Any statistical data needed by the administrative arm of the Government should be collected by the Bureau of the Census, the body established by the Congress for that purpose. It is interesting to speculate on why, if USDA believed this type of information was vital to its operations, it eliminated from its 1974 budget all funds for a farm census. Administrative efficiency is a goal to be sought in Government. But the possibility of individual tax returns becoming the bedtime reading of politicians or bureaucrats is simply too high a price to pay for it.

I do not presume that such was the intention of those in the executive branch who supported this relaxation of the confidentiality of IRS files. But the classic atmosphere of personal privacy is a political climate in which each person decides for himself what personal information he will share and with whom he will share it. And as Mr. Justice Brandeis said:

"The greatest dangers to liberty lie in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

I wish to make a part of the Record several news stories on this controversy written by Alan Emory of the Watertown, N.Y., Daily Times:

[The articles follow:]

[From the Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times, Oct. 29, 1973]

FARM TAX SNOOPING SCRAPPED

(By Alan Emory)

WASHINGTON.-The Agriculture Department has decided temporarily, in the face of a hostile reaction from Congress, farmers and civil liberties groups, to shelve President Nixon's order allowing it to inspect individual tax return of farmers.

Assistant Attorney Gen. Robert G. Dixon, Jr., had said the order was drawn up as a model so that tax returns could be used for statistical purposes by other federal agencies. He insisted there was no intent to invade farmers' privacy because the department wanted only "group data" and not data on individual farmers "which would certainly be a matter of great concern."

CONCERNED

“Mr. Dixon should have been greatly concerned," a House Government Operations sub-committee reported, "because that is precisely what the Department of Agriculture was authorized to get."

The Statistical Reporting Service in the department had felt that, despite steadily refined programs of reporting by farmers, still greater precision was necessary. It obtained from President Nixon an executive order-in broad language in January and modified in March-allowing the Agriculture Department to obtain names, addresses and gross income or product sales of farmers from Internal Revenue Service records.

Ironically, the IRS itself had strongly opposed providing personal information from tax returns.

Although the Nixon order affected 3,000,000 farmers, no public or press announcement was made by the White House or the Agriculture Department. The order and regulations were published in the Federal Register, which, one farm spokesman said, was "not every-day reading for the average farm family." No farm leaders were consulted.

DATA VITAL?

Rep. Bill Alexander, D., Ark., said if the data were vital to Agriculture Department operations, as claimed, then President Nixon would not have wiped out farm census funds from his fiscal 1974 budget.

Several congressmen and IRS officials favor giving the Agriculture Department names and addresses of farmers and letting the department ask the farmers for the financial information sought.

"No one asked a single farmer whether he was willing to share this personal financial information with the department," Alexander said.

He asked whether the order would prove a model for the Commerce Department to inspect tax returns of businessmen, the Housing and Urban Development Department to examine returns of homeowners receiving government-insured loans, the Labor Department to look at wage earners' returns or the Health, Education and Welfare Department to pry into returns of doctors and teachers. Dixon said the Justice Department was not requested to express “any policy judgment," and it did not. Alexander called this a "blatant disregard for the rights of private citizens."

HEALTH PLANS

J. Richard Grant, an official of the Statistical Reporting Service, said that the opposition had halted any department plans to pursue access to farmers' data with the IRS "directly."

In an interview, he said that the department had no access to "individual names and addresses" through census data and deplored the "misinformation" about department need for the details and what would be done with them.

Donald O. Virdin, former IRS disclosure staff chief, told the House panel, headed by Rep. William S. Moorhead, D., Pa., that it would be "no problem" to provide the Agriculture Department quickly with names and addresses of the 3,000,000 farmers "if that is all Agriculture wants."

The committee said most farmers would probably be glad to furnish the information if they knew how it would help them and they were assured it would be kept confidential and used just for statistical purposes.

The Justice Department had said that the original, broadly-worded Nixon order that was later changed, “was prepared by the Department of the Treasury as a prototype for future tax return inspection orders."

Alexander called that a "frightening prospect that the administration is attempting to begin the process of making personal income information of whole classes of people available to various departments and agencies without regard to the private nature of the information."

The House Government Operations Committee recommended that the IRS give the Agriculture Department only names, addresses and taxpayer identification numbers and no personal financial data unless the individual voluntarily consented in writing after an Agriculture Department request.

Several congressmen are drafting legislation making tax returns explicity confidential, with the only loophole approved by Congress.

[From the Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times, Feb. 26, 1974]

ISSUE OF FARM INCOME TAX INSPECTION TO BE TURNED OVER TO NEW COMMISSION

(By Alan Emory)

WASHINGTON.-President Nixon says the issue of his controversial executive order allowing the Agriculture Department to inspect key features of individual farmers income tax returns will be turned over to a new federal commission on privacy headed by Vice President Ford.

The President was asked at his Monday night news conference how he explained the executive order-and a Justice Department opinion saying it should serve as a "a model" for all executive departments—in the light of his strong defense of confidentiality for White House papers and his new protection-of-privacy policy for individual citizens.

Nixon conceded that he had not specifically raised the question of tax returns in his privacy message Saturday, but he wanted it considered, along with credit bureau computerized files on individuals.

Not only business concerns, but the federal government itself has taken action that could "impinge" on privacy, Nixon admitted.

The President said the whole question should be considered by his new commission.

Nixon, however, did not offer to withdraw the order which has drawn sharp criticism among farm groups and in Congress, nor did he comment on the Justice Department opinion, which many observers believe opens the door for widespread abuse of income tax return confidentiality by a host of federal agencies.

The Internal Revenue Service had objected to the Nixon order, issued early in 1973 and then slightly modified.

[From the Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times, Feb. 28, 1974]

IRS IGNORES NIXON ORDER ON FARMERS TAX RETURNS

(By Alan Emory)

WASHINGTON.--The Internal Revenue Service has indicated privately it will not enforce President Nixon's executive order authorizing Agriculture Department examination of key parts of farmers' individual income tax returns. However, Agriculture Secretary Earl L. Butz has twice refused congressional requests to shelve the order.

President Nixon said Monday night that the wisdom of the order-which the Justice and Treasury Departments say will serve as a "model" for other federal agencies-would be studied by a new commission headed by Vice President Ford. Rep. Jerry Litton, D., Mo., who uncovered the order, held hearings on it and is sponsoring legislation to tighten IRS rules about allowing others to see tax turns, said the measure had a "good chance" in the House Ways and Means Committee.

He said the IRS was supporting the legislation, but unofficially, since it conflicted with the executive order.

Litton said, in an interview, Nixon's move amounted to authorizing the Vice President to determine whether action Nixon himself had taken was "proper." The Congressman said that was "strange," since the President had not given Ford much authority in any other field.

When Litton originally introduced legislation to kill the Nixon order, but permit the Agriculture Department to obtain just farmers' names and addresses, the department cold-shouldered the idea and would not even comment on it.

After Litton sponsored his measure to tighten the IRS rules about who could see tax returns, however, the department indicated an interest in the first bill. Litton said he had been surprised when listening to President Nixon's State of the Union message, to hear "a man who proposed opening up 3,000,000 tax returns talking about privacy."

Litton said the Agriculture Department had been asked if it placed so much importance on getting facts that it needed tax return details, and officials said it did.

37-583-74-pt. 2- -23