attempt to reach any privately maintained personal data systems in any event. So that if you were to accept that recommendation, you wouldn't reach this question.

Senator PERCY. Thank you very much, indeed.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Senator. And I must say that I feel greatly heartened by the fact that you and Senator Muskie and Senator Ervin have joined in legislation that deals with these issues. I certainly hope that with your leadership it can be enacted in this Congress.

Senator PERCY. I think the fact that you accepted in about 30 seconds our invitation to be here, as soon as you learned what the subject matter was, is an indication of your very high priority for this.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that a statement of Senator Javits on these hearings be inserted in the record at this time. Regretfully, he is now in a closed session of the Foreign Relations Committee and could not be here.

Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection.

[The statement of Senator Javits follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB K. JAVITS, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, the constitutional right to privacy, although not specifically mentioned in our Constitution is inevitably linked to the state and health of individual freedom throughout our society. The foundation stone of this constitutional principle is the first amendment which was and is today designed to protect the sanctity of the individual's private thoughts and opinions. It finds further protection in the fourth and ninth amendments and in numerous Supreme Court

cases.

It needs further protection today. The right of privacy is under accelerating attack through wiretapping, electronic eavesdropping and the new menaces of computer data banks and indiscriminate government and private sector dossiers. The security of individual rights must continue to be of universal concern and it is that concern which is addressed by the legislation before these subcommittees.

Watergate is a symbol of the growing power of government over its citizens. If we are to remain a government of laws, the acknowledged invasions of privacy cataloged in the Watergate affair-so shocking as to represent a fundamental challenge to our system of free government-must be eliminated and never again allowed to recur. The Watergate disclosures must long stand as a shadow upon the constitutional exercise of governmental power and a warning against the abuse of that power. It is for this reason that I recently joined with Senator Mathias and Senator Ervin in introducing legislation to require court orders in all cases for the interception of communications by electronic and other devices, for the searching of any residence, for the opening of any mail, and for the inspection or procurement of certain kinds of telephone, bank, credit, medical, or other business or private transactions records.

Mr. Chairman, in order to restore and reinforce the right of privacy we need new laws to protect the privacy of the individual in the age of the computer. Today, his privacy is inadequately protected

against arbitrary and abusive recordkeeping practices. With greater frequency, the individual is losing control over personal data concerning the most private and intimate details of his own life and his own thinking.

I believe that the following principles ought to be at the heart of the legislation which is reported by these subcommittees:

1. There must be no personal data recordkeeping systems whose very existence is secret.

2. There must be a way for an individual to find out what information about him is in a record and how it is used.

3. There must be a way for an individual to prevent information about him that was obtained for one purpose from being used or made available for other purposes without his consent.

4. There must be a way for an individual to correct or amend a record of identifiable information about him.

5. Any organization creating, maintaining, using, or disseminating records of identifiable personal data must insure the reliability of these data for their intended use and must take precautions to prevent

misuse.

At present individuals provide an enormous amount of information about themselves in income tax returns, in applying for commercial credit, in answering census questions, in applying for Government benefits, in seeking insurance and employment, and in a host of other ways. If this information is decentralized and is not easily obtainable, the individual right of privacy is relatively secure. If these supposedly confidential records are made available for purposes different from those underlying the acquisition of such information, the lives of individuals can be seriously hurt. The massive computer system which can instantaneously centralize information and make it readily accessible constitute a grave threat to privacy.

It is for this reason that I strongly support the three basic functions of S. 3418:

1. To establish for each individual a right of privacy for personal information and to safeguard that right with criminal and civil safeguards;

2. To define standards for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by Government and private organizations;

3. To establish a five-member Federal Privacy Board that can make and enforce privacy rules for personal data files.

TESTIMONY OF MR. RICHARDSON-Resumed

Senator RIBICOFF. Before calling on Senator Roth, may I say to Dr. Westin and Dr. Pyle that after Mr. Roth's questioning of Mr. Richardson, we will have the testimony of Congressman Litton and then we will recess until 2:30. There is a Senate vote at 2. So, Dr. Westin and Dr. Pyle, if you would like to leave at the present time, you are certainly excused until 2:30.

Senator Roth?

Senator ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One question I would like to ask goes back to this question of exemption whereby you would have rulemaking decisions rest with the individual agencies. Do you think that it might be wise to give

37-583-74-pt. 1-5

Congress some power of veto over these exemptions, as we proposed in a number of other areas?

In other words, the exemptions would be reported to the Congress, either House, and within a certain number of days and they would have the authority to veto it?

Mr. RICHARDSON. I always have had trouble, Senator Roth, with the constitutional question. I suppose that where you are in effect delegating legislative authority in the first instance, that there is no reason why you couldn't retain the right to veto the exercise of this delegation. That would seem to me to be a perfectly and appropriate way of dealing with it.

Senator ROTH. I notice that fundamentally you would recommend that we only deal with what happens with information after we collect it and not with the question of what should be collected. And I must say that it would be pretty difficult for this committee to deal with all of the complexities of that problem. But at the same time I think one of the public's concerns is that you can almost build a public need for any type of private information if we are talking about housing, health, education, or any other aspect of governmental affairs. Do you see some need for congressional hearings or oversight or possible legislation reviewing what kind of information should be collected in the first order?

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes, certainly I am for congressional oversight. And of course, if this legislation were enacted, then the existence of all Government information systems collecting information about people would be known and the purposes would be known. So you would have the opportunity to exercise oversight much more effectively than you can now.

There are some situations, but very few, where an individual may be required to furnish information. And I think clearly an individual should be required to furnish information only pursuant to specific legislative provision, for example, compliance with the questions of the Census Bureau. In other situations, where the compliance is voluntary, it is clearly important that the individual understand that compliance is voluntary. And among the recommendations of the Secretary's Advisory Committee are recommendations that deal with how to assure that the individual will be aware of this.

Senator ROTH. You mention the census-collecting data. I am sure you recall at the last census, at the time that was taken, there was a great deal of opposition on the part of some communities against the collation of this material and the feeling that it was an invasion of privacy. Have you ever had a chance to study that, or do you have any viewpoints as to whether or not that information is really needed?

Mr. RICHARDSON. It is being used, of course, for an enormous variety of purposes. I would have to put it the other way around. I haven't seen any convincing showing that it is not needed. On the other hand, of course, given the range of governmental policies and programs today, it is pretty hard to think of any significant information about people and their consumption practices and so on, living arrangements, that would not be relevant to somebody.

Here it seems to me the important thing is to safeguard the information against any use of it that directly affects the individual who provided it-to safeguard the information against improper disclo

sure. This should be the object of the provisions of the various bills that deal with research and social data gathering activities.

Senator ROTH. I suppose part of the real concern on the part of the public is, however, the fact that once you furnish the information, it has to go through a number of hands. And no matter how many provisions you write, that can always be leaked by or to Members of Congress. For example, we had the McCarthy hearing in the fifties, when he claimed the right to that information for what he thought was a legitimate interest. So it seems to me the nub of the question in many ways is: "Should all information be collected?"

And I take it from what you are saying that a justification can probably be made to secure all types of information?

Mr. RICHARDSON. On the whole, I think the answer to that question is, "Yes." And I would focus attention on safeguards rather than on limiting the information that can be gathered.

For example, there is no reason why information that is obtained by the census taker should be traceable to a particular individual. That is, the individual's name need not go into the statistical files. Once the information is turned in by the enumerator, to go from there back to an individual should be exceedingly difficult.

You shouldn't have the problem of the abuse of individual files, such as in the McCarthy case. To the individual files, all of the other provisions of the legislation should apply, so that it would be a serious offense to disclose the information in a situation where that was not justified, and so on.

Senator ROTH. The thing that concerns me is that no matter how well-grounded the safeguards are, the collection of this information does provide the opportunity somewhere along the line, whether it is the first person who collects the information-and sometimes this is the most difficult to disclose because he is known in the communityor whether it is buried somewhere in the files, there is an opportunity for those who want to use it for personal advantage or for other nongovernmental purposes.

I would like to ask one final question because time is growing late. I asked it earlier. You have served both in the executive branch and you have been an officeholder as well. Do you think it is desirable, as a matter of public policy, to make an exception to the right of privacy with respect to officeholders, those running for Congress or even State officeholders, that they be required to disclose their assets and income?

Mr. RICHARDSON. I think in the present climate that it is justified because of the need to take affirmative measures to enhance and restore confidence. I agree essentially with Representative Koch that it is a question in which one is bound to feel torn, but I think basically that whatever sacrifice of privacy is called for on the part of officeholders. is a sacrifice on their part in the cause of creating greater public confidence in the integrity of government generally.

Senator ROTH. Are you saying that at the present time because of Watergate and I believe that was the reason that Congresman Koch was talking about-there should be a temporary requirement or do you think the long range requirement serves the interest of the public?

Mr. RICHARDSON. I wouldn't give it a time limit. Let me see if I can put it this way. It seems to me that we have been in a long period, long

before Watergate, in which there has been a sort of downward spiral of trust in the Government and growing mistrust of the Government.

The University of Michigan's survey research center has collected statistics in the same way year by year which would tend to confirm that.

The Watergate revelations gave the downward spiral a big additional push. The problem is, how do you stop it and turn it back around the other way? Well, it is like braking a runaway freight car and turning it around. It requires an enormously greater amount of energy to stop it and turn it around the other way, than to keep it going in the same direction.

Now if we can turn things around and get them going in the direction. we want them to go, then maybe we can rebuild confidence to the point where there is no longer this same degree of need for the measures that were invoked at the bottom of the downward spiral.

And so I would do a lot of things now cumulatively attempting to turn things around, that I wouldn't necessarily have thought we needed to do if people generally believed that most officeholders were honest and decent people trying to do a job.

In fact, most of the officeholders, I believe are. But where you have a deep degree of public suspicion toward all officeholders, and I am convinced we do have, then you are approaching the point where cynicism so impairs the capacity to carry out the functions of government as virtually to destroy free representative democracy itself.

Senator ROTH. Would you extend that practice to at least, say, key appointments and key civil servants as well?

Mr. RICHARDSON. I think to key Presidential appointees, not to key civil servants. The top levels of the Civil Service are by and large people who have come up through the system and whose lives have been subject to a fairly high degree of scrutiny all the way along. And, of course, they are all subject to the rather stringent provisions of the conflict of interest already.

Senator ROTH. If I understand you correctly, Mr. Richardson, what you are really saying is that you have some question as to whether it should be a matter written into law for civil servants, but you think the individual officeholders should do so. Am I correct in that?

Mr. RICHARDSON. I would favor legislation requiring it.

Senator ROTH. The final question, with respect to Senator Jackson's question, you made an exception on the requirement of taping without knowledge for law enforcement purposes. In view of your service in the State Department, would any exception have to be made there? For example, I understand that it has been the practice in the past to tape meetings, not only in our Government, but in foreign governments, when you meet with foreign representatives.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I think we need not necessarily give notice to individuals who are not subject to the protection of the Constitution of the United States.

Senator ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much. We certainly appreciate your giving us your time. Mr. Richardson.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much. I appreciate this opportunity.

Senator RIBICOFF. Congressman Litton, I understand you have a short statement?