to the relatively simple governmental existence of 1789, it is impossible. Today's complexity demands information for the Government to make intelligent decisions and to govern responsibly and responsively. Probably the greatest source of personal information for the Government is the decennial census. Every 10 years since 1790, the Federal Government has sought, with increasing detail, specific information on American families from the names of each person to the numbers and kinds of bathroom facilities. The questions themselves and the type of information sought have come under increasing congressional scrutiny in recent years.

I might add here, Mr. Chairman, that this subcommittee has given great service to the American people by carefully screening the questions proposed by the Census Bureau for 1970 and by weeding out those that might tend to put in jeopardy the right of privacy, which we all cherish.

As chairman of the Special Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy, I have seen and heard of the increasing incursions threatened by the proliferation of personal information held by and available to the Federal Government. Even now, Mr. Chairman, as you know, there is a pending proposal to put all of this personal information held by the Government into one, unified and computerized center-mixed with information by other agencies-a center giving its controllers the maximum access to the almost boundless amounts of information that the Government holds on its citizens and their lives. And I need not point out to this subcommittee that much of that information is irrelevant and, in many cases, downright false. Yet the computer neither forgives nor forgets.

The bill this subcommittee is studying today, introduced by my good friend and able colleague, Congressman Jackson E. Betts, would limit the mandatory categories on the Federal decennial census to seven. Other information would be voluntary with no penalty for refusing to

answer.

Mr. Chairman, this bill would obviously provide a great degree of protection to the individual respondent. By opting to answer specific questions he would give his consent for someone to know that information. By refusing to answer certain questions, the Government would not be given certain information which a respondent, for whatever reason, does not want known.

Mr. Chairman, this is one instance in which I believe that the Government's need to know overcomes the possible intrusions into a citizen's right to privacy. The real question we need to answer, and on which this committee is doing an outstanding job, is what and how much information does the Goverment need to function effectively without an undue intrusion into the personal lives of its citizens. Besides being a population count, the census has come to be a method for collecting and collating information necessary to make the economic and social predictions on which the future planning and policy of our Nation will be based.

For this reason, we cannot predict on the basis of a poll and a very poor poll is what would be the end result of a census system as proposed by this legislation. Response would be greatly uneven. I would predict that the least response would come from those strata of our society who are most in need of being included in our future planning

and whose needs we are not yet even partially aware of. Any voluntariness of census would render all information subject to the vagaries of the poll. As a matter of fact, this type census would not even allow for control of the sample of respondents, rendering it even less valid than the average public opinion poll.

The real issue with which we should now be concerned is not whether response to a question is forced by law, but rather whether the question violates or threatens to violate privacy in the first place and what happens to the information after it is collected. What we need most is to strike a reasonable balance between the information that the Government needs and the lease of power such information will give to the Government to invade the private lives of its citizens.

Where a question clearly requires information that humiliates, degrades or where a question seeks information that intrudes too far into the private life of the respondent, then that question should be deleted from the census because many people will unwittingly answer, giving no thought to the consequences and regardless of any warning appearing on the questionnaire. The simple fact that the question appears on an official form, bearing the imprimatur of the Federal Government, will be enough to coerce many people into feeling that in some way they should answer all of the questions regardless of directions or voluntariness.

The key to the conflict of privacy and the census seems to be that there is a need to screen each and every question. Mr. Chairman, last year, as a direct result of hearings before the subcommittee, at which I was privileged to testify, questions which-a very dangerous requirement in my opinion-pertaining to religious affiliation and requirements to include the social security number of each respondent were deleted on the grounds that the threat to privacy far outweighed the need for that specific information.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Congress is the best-suited agent of the people to oversee the census, to determine whether any questions unduly infringe upon the right of privacy.

I am presently drawing up legislation to require that, after the Census Bureau has designed a census questionnaire and after all of the questions to be included have been decided, the final version be submitted to the Congress, most appropriately to this subcommittee, for final review. In the event that any question is found to infringe on the right of the respondent to keep certain personal information from the Government, then the committee would have the power to recommend by appropriate legislation that such question be deleted from the census. In effect, I am calling for congressional review of the decennial census.

In addition, it is my belief that criminal sanctions for failure to answer the census are too overpowering. I suggest that penalties be fines rather than jail sentences.

Mr. Chairman, you recently received a letter from Prof. Arthur R. Miller of the University of Michigan Law School concerning this legislation. Professor Miller is a friend of mine and one of the most accurate and knowledgeable critics of the increasing tendency of gov ernment to subvert the rights of the individual. He was kind enough to send me a copy of his letter, and I would like to quote one short passage. He says

The constant magnification of governmental information collection and dissemination all contribute to the debilitation of an American's right to be let alone. Rather than focusing on ways to stem or reverse this tide, all too many Federal and State officials are advancing proposals that will maintain and intensify it.

I could not agree more with Professor Miller, and I think that congressional review of the census along with a decrease in penalty will at least stem the tide.

The Federal Government, State, and local governments, industry and private individuals now hold tremendous amounts of information on citizens and groups of citizens. There is an ever-increasing pressure on the information gatherers to get more and better information. There is an ever-expanding technical ability to gather and make better use of information. The computer will have indeed is having a tremendous impact on the ability of man to gather, manage, and utilize to the full extent information on any subject. The tremendous input of information from quasi-legitimate sources such as credit bureaus and employment agencies is multiplying at a frightening rate. Covert information gathering by wiretapping and the sophisticated electronic eavesdropping equipment is gaining in frightening proportions both by the private and the governmental sector.

I might say, to point up the danger of all this, just recently at a seminar I heard someone express the thought that since low-cost housing presents so many problems, perhaps the best way to get a meaningful study would be to insert a bug in each apartment, a bug that could be placed in the structure, such as, you recall, the bug placed in the construction of the American Embassy in Moscow. Just consider the implications of that. Of course, it was all done not to harass people, but the suggestion was made this would be the best way we could study how people live in low-cost housing and the best way to escalate them up into the next stratum of society.

Fortunately for the private individual, this information for the most part is separated and uncoordinated. Much of it is protected by strict existing safeguards. I might point out that the Census Bureau has one of the finest records of protecting the information it receives. As you know, there is presently a great amount of pressure to mix this information with agencies that do not have very good records in this field. But much of the information is open to all who wish to thumb through it. Many holders of information of individuals are unrestricted in disclosure I might say, too, there are restrictions imposed upon people who seek this information, not the information concerning the individual-either legally or through lack of proper supervision and informality.

On this point I might say that there is a tremendous exchange of confidential information under the heading of the "buddy" system in governmental agencies. While it might be confidential by law, there is an exchange of information at the various levels of government. I might say here, too, that this does not apply to the Census Bureau. As a result of this fantastic supply of information, the greatest threat that confronts the American people as individuals and as a Nation is the proposal to collate, coordinate, and combine this information within one single computerized system. Congressman Betts, I note, referred to this on page 12677 of the Congressional Record, where he states that we should make better use of the information

gathering service we now have. Of course, this computerized system has been referred to, among other names, as the national data center. The hearings held by my Special Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy demonstrated beyond doubt that no adequate legal or technical safeguards now exist to protect such a gathering of information from misuse either deliberate misuse or the abuse brought on by overzealous officials-and we certainly do have them-who control or might control the center. Mr. Chairman, to make even a beginning in establishing the national data center without preexisting legal and technical shields against abuse would be to abdicate any reins of control and overview we may now have. The pressures to expand a national data center, after it is begun, will surely magnify the arguments of those who propose such a center and overpower any who might question the propriety of such a data accumulation system.

Mr. Chairman, the real issue comes to light when you think of the national data center not as a benevolent proposal, but as a reality. When one recognizes the tremendous amount of information now in the hands of the Government, when one realizes that when this information is combined with a social security number it is readily identifiable, when we observe that the development of a comprehensive computer dossier on an individual basis is both technologically feasible and may prove in the future to be logical and economic, we are driven to the conclusion that even the most innocuous beginning to the data center could very easily become the heart of an individualized, computer-based Federal recordkeeping system. Such a system, without safeguards, must just as surely strip away any veil of privacy that we are now able to maintain around our existence. Mr. Chairman, I remain opposed to any national data center in any shape, even in such a proven area as the Census Bureau, in any form, until adequate and reliable safeguards are demonstrated to the Congress.

I might say at this stage of the art, such safeguards do not exist even technically.

I believe that the Congress can provide the balance between the need to have information on the one hand and the right of the individual to be left alone on the other. We should not look at the Federal Government as a giant, evil octopus, but neither should we look upon it as a benevolent and kind father who will protect all his children. We must look upon it as a great double-edged sword, capable of bringing us to enjoyment of our individual lives as members of a society blessed by abundance and freedom, but also able to bring and employ the tactics of a police state never imagined by George Orwell. These hearings today and the concern expressed by this subcommittee and by conscientious and able men like Congressman Betts demonstrate that our system of government is indeed endowed with the ability to guarantee and protect the liberty of 1789 in the face of technology in 1970.

I speak of no nightmare of the future. The problem is present now, and it is time to bring some sense of balance between the technological knowledge that we are acquiring and our laws.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you very much, Congressman Gallagher. I thank you particularly for what I consider to be a most thoughtful and balanced statement on this important subject.

I have no questions at this time. I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie.

Mr. WALDIE. No questions.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scorr. Mr. Gallagher, there are two or three things I would like to ask you about. I would join the chairman in commending you for the information you have brought to our attention.

You speak of a national data center. We have been assured by officials of the executive branch that it is not at this time contemplated, but if the matter should again be brought into focus, based on your background as chairman of this Subcommittee on Privacy, is it possible to have proper safeguards, if the information is available?

Mr. GALLAGHER. At the present time, Mr. Scott, in my opinion, having sat through many hearings and listened to the foremost experts in the country involved not only in this but the security systems of our country, such safeguards are not presently in existence, and it would be impossible to construct such a data center without these safeguards unless we wanted to expend very large sums of money. The ratio of the cost of building safeguards into computer systems starts to rise in proportion from 3 to 1 to 10 to 1, dependent on how safe you wish to construct it. One of the foremost experts in the country, a man whose life is devoted to this sort of thing, working for the Rand Corp. involved with our security systems, said any proposal he has considered or seen, he could tap into within one-half hour. So, I think at this point we should be considering not only technical safeguards, but also legal safeguards. In my opinion, they are not yet in existence. There has been too little thought given to this whole matter.

Mr. SCOTT. You spoke of the "buddy" system in government. I am thinking perhaps if anyone could push a button and learn all about the gentleman from New Jersey, and if there was an administration of the opposite party and the information was available, would there be any safeguard that would assure the gentleman it would never be used in some personal way.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I am not quite sure I understand the question, Mr. Scott.

Mr. SCOTT. My thought is this. I am certainly opposed to a national data bank having social security numbers, and even having all information about our citizens gathered together. To me, the census is for statistical and planning purposes, and it is an impersonal thing. I would think the national data center might result in its being used on an individual and a personal basis. I also have concern as to whether it is possible to make the information available or what assurance we have that it would never be abused.

My question is after the hearings you have had on secrecy-is it possible to build safeguards that would deter some Government official having access to this, if some other Government department called him and said, "Tom, can you give me some information on Congressman Gallagher?" or Congressman Scott or someone else. Can we ever build proper safeguards if that information is available and a Government official has only to push a button or ask that it be pushed?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Scott, this was exactly my concern. The testimony elicited in our hearings demonstrated very conclusively that if you gathered all of the records the Government now has and pegged