PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID F. LINOWES, CHAIRMAN OF THE Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am David F. Linowes, Chairman of the Privacy Protection Study Commission. My purpose in being here today is to testify on behalf of the Commission's request for amendment of Section 9 of the Privacy Act of 1974 to remove the current $750,000 fiscal-year limitation on Commission expenditures, and to increase the Commission's total authorization from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000. I hope that as a result of my appearance today you will agree with us that the adoption of these measures is necessary if the Commission is to fulfill the formidable mandate the Congress gave it in Section 5 of the Privacy Act of 1974. Removal of Fiscal-Year Expenditure Limitation I would like to speak first to the matter of the fiscalyear expenditure limitation. Section 9 of the Privacy Act prohibits the Commission from expending more than $750,000 in any one fiscal year. Since the current fiscal year does not end until September 30, 1976, that means that we are prohibited from spending more than $750,000 over a 15-month period, even though the Congress has now appropriated a total of $1,000,000 for the Commission in FY '76. Moreover, the fiscal-year expenditure limitation has deprived us of any discretion to allocate funds from one fiscal year to another, even though our Commission's life is but a mere two years. I understand that it is not unusual for a limited duration commission such as Increase in Total Authorization Section 9 of the Privacy Act places a total authorization our authorization from the current $1.5 million to $2 million Before giving details on how we plan to spend the additional monies we are seeking, allow me to explain briefly our appropriation status. At its February 13, 1976 meeting the Commission unanimously voted to request an FY '76 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $380,781, to seek an FY '77 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $94,191, and to seek the authorization change that is the subject of this hearing. These requests were formally submitted to the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress on March 10, 1976. Thereafter, on March 23, 1976, the President submitted to the President of the Senate his second FY '76 supplemental budget request, which included $250,000 for the Commission. This additional sum was approved on May 21, 1976, as part of H.R. 13172, Second Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1976, with the proviso that it shall only be available to the Commission upon the enactment of authorizing legislation. The $250,000 approved supplemental was $131,000 less than the Commission had originally requested. We believe that we can operate with that sum for the remainder of FY '76. However, the Commission will need supplemental funds of approximately $100,000 for FY '77 in order to complete its study program. The FY '76 supplemental and the needed FY '77 supplemental will together place the Commission budget at $350,000 over the current authorization ceiling. This was contemplated by OMB as recognized in their support of our requested authorization increase to $2 million. We hope to convince you that these additional funds are crucial. The Commission's Mandate The principal charge to the Commission is to make a thoroughgoing study of the "data banks, automated data processing programs, and information systems of governmental, regional, and private organizations," and as a result of such study to recommend to the President and the Congress the extent, if any, to which the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 should be applied to organizations to which they do not now apply. In addition, Section 5 of the Privacy Act requires the Commission to inquire into and report on Whether an individual should have a right in law to have his name removed from a mailing list he (or she) does not want to be on; Whether the Internal Revenue Service should be prohibited from disclosing individually identifiable data to other Federal agencies and agencies of State government; Whether Federal agencies should be liable for general damages if they willfully or intentionally violate the Privacy Act of 1974; Whether and how the security and confidentiality requirements of the Privacy Act should be ap plied when a record is disclosed to an individual or organization that is not subject to the Act; and Whether and to what extent, if any, information systems affect Federal-State relations and the separation of powers. The Congress also expressly authorized the Commission to include in its inquiry interstate transfers of information about individuals; information systems that affect individual rights other than the right to personal privacy; uses made of the Social Security number and other standard universal identifiers; the matching and analysis of statistical data with personal information gleaned from other, non-statistical sources; and the personal-data record-keeping practices of organizations in the fields of medicine, insurance, education, employment, travel, hotel, and entertainment reservations, credit, banking, consumer reporting, cable television, and electronic funds transfer. Furthermore, in carrying out studies in any of these areas, the Commission is required not only to document the standards and procedures now in force for the protection of personal information but also to determine what laws, Executive Orders, decisions govern the activities under study; to assess the extent to which those legal to collect and utilize, to the maximum extent |