July 27, 1976
Page 24000
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, this amendment involves a few word changes on pages 789 and 790 of the tax bill before us. I offer the amendment on behalf of myself and Senators GOLDWATER, MUSKIE, and RIBICOFF. It amends section 1211 of the bill to correct what I believe was an inadvertent repeal of all of section 7(a) of Public Law 93-579, the Privacy Act. Nearly 2 years ago the Congress took an historical step toward the protection of the right of privacy of American citizens when it adopted the Privacy Act of 1974.
Mr. President, I might say that this is one of the last great acts of Senator Sam Ervin. It epitomized everything that he believed in with respect to the right of privacy. He did not want to see us become a society that was militarized and regimented to the point where we invade the privacy of individuals, and he strongly supported the particular provision we might now inadvertently be invading.
One of the more important amendments to the Privacy Act, adopted by both the House and Senate, was a limitation on the future right of local, State, and Federal Government agencies to compel disclosure of the social security number unless specifically provided for by law.
That amendment was offered in the Senate by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Senator GOLDWATER, and myself, and was cosponsored by Senators RIBICOFF and MAGNUSON.
The amendment was a direct response to the widespread expansion of the use of the social security number as a universal identifier by Government agencies at all levels. The Senate Government Operations Committee in its report on the privacy legislation states:
If the SSN is to be stopped from becoming a defacto standard universal identifier, the individual must have the option not to disclose his number unless required to do so by the Federal Government for legitimate Federal program purposes, and there must be legal authority for his refusal.
Since adoption of this amendment, officials from several State tax agencies have expressed concern about the limitation the Privacy Act placed on the need for enforcement of State tax laws and to correlate State tax forms with Federal tax returns.
Accordingly, the Privacy Protection Study Commission, created by the Privacy Act to study critical questions of individual privacy, recommended that Congress provide by statute that a State taxing authority may require a State taxpayer to disclose his SSN to that authority, provided, however, that the statute prohibits the use of disclosure of that SSN for purposes other than State tax administration.
Section 1211 of H.R. 10612 represents an effort to respond to the need of the tax administrators, but I believe it goes too far when it would repeal all of the protections against widespread use of the social security number which was the focus of section 7(a) of the Privacy Act.
Our amendment follows the recommendations of the State tax officials who came to the Government Operations Committee and the suggestions of the Privacy Protection Study Commission.
Subject to other provisions of existing law, it is the intention of this amendment to limit the right to compel the disclosure of the social security number to Federal, State, and local government agencies responsible for tax administration or enforcement for the sole purpose of determining, validating or enforcing a taxpayer's liability under a general revenue law of their respective jurisdictions. The provisions of existing law that this amendment is subject to are those provided under the Privacy Act, which allows social security numbers to be used if they were being used pursuant to law or regulation adopted prior to January 1, 1975, plus the specific exceptions provided for certain federally administered programs.
Mr. President, the Committee on Government Operations and the Committee on the Judiciary labored for several years to produce the Privacy Act of 1974. The sections dealing with limitations on expanded use of the social security number were the object of considerable study by those committees and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
I believe the amendment I offer today with Senators GOLDWATER, MUSKIE, and RIBICOFF will restore the protection and sense of confidentiality to the use of this number which is the key to so many sensitive records about each one of us.
Certainly, Mr. President, we hear concerns about anti-Washington sentiment and about big brother. Let us alleviate those concerns by not having people feel that in a great big government and great big country like this, all they are is a number, identifiable and accessible every which way.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment to section 1211 of the Tax Reform Act introduced by Senator PERCY.
In passing the Privacy Act of 1974, the Congress enacted a limitation on new uses of the social security number as an identification device. Section 7 of the act states that it is unlawful for a Federal, State or local governmental unit to deny any right, benefit or privilege provided by law to an individual because of an individual's refusal to disclose his social security number. It does not apply to those uses of the social security number which were in existence by statute or regulation before January 1, 1975, or to disclosures required by Federal law.
This limitation in the Privacy Act on the use of the social security number arose from a concern that American citizens were losing their personal identities and were being reduced to a mere number in some bureaucratic file. Through extensive use of the social security number it was feared that an individual could be easily "tracked" through his various contacts with the Federal Government. The consolidation of information about individuals has long been feared by those who cherish our democratic principles of government. The Privacy Act's limitation on the further uses of the social security number as a standard universal identifier was a step in the direction of preserving the privacy of individuals in a complex and technological society.
Section 1211 as now written would modify the Privacy Act by allowing the social security number to be used in the administration of any State or local law or program. I believe that a general authorization for the States and localities to use the social security number will bring about the possibility of combining a variety of information about an individual citizen at the State and local level that was feared when we passed the Privacy Act. Senator PERCY'S amendment narrows the scope of section 1211 by allowing States — or political subdivisions thereof — to use the social security number for the purposes of tax administration only. And I strongly support the amendment.
It is evident that State governments need access to the social security number for tax administration. State tax administration depends upon coordination between the States and the Internal Revenue Service to assure that information in Federal returns filed by individuals conforms with information filed in State returns. In addition, there is need to cross check between Federal and State returns to assure that individuals file with both jurisdictions. If political subdivisions of the State utilize the number for tax administration, the amendment allows them to do so. However, the intent of the amendment is not to encourage this practice, but to permit those certain localities with special circumstances to continue such use.
The adoption of this amendment to section 1211 will provide such taxing authorities the proper authority to use the social security number. Access for purposes of tax administration was of major concern to the members of the Finance Committee in our consideration of section 1211 of H.R. 10612.
The Privacy Protection Study Commission has referred to this problem of the widespread use of the social security number in its recently issued report entitled, "Federal Tax Return Confidentiality." In that report the Commission concludes that the use of the social security number to facilitate the matching of Federal tax records with State tax records should be permissible, provided that the purpose is for determining, validating, or enforcing a taxpayer's liability under a general revenue law of the State. The Commission emphasized, however, that any authorization for the use of the social security number, "should be permitted only when the merits of the information exchange which the social security number is used to facilitate have been carefully examined."
A further concern of the Finance Committee in consideration of section 1211 of H.R. 10612 was to assure that the Parent Locator Service would have authority to compel the disclosure of social security numbers in its effort to locate and enforce child support responsibilities upon absent parents. To provide for maximum efficiency of this program, the Finance Committee proposed that a broad authority be given to all State administrative agencies to use the social security number for identification purposes.
The legislation creating the Parent Locator Service, part of Public Law 93-647, provides express authorization for this Service to utilize and demand disclosure of social security numbers. Section 402 of that legislation (42 U.S.C. 602) provides as one of the conditions of receiving assistance under the program of aid to families for dependent children that each applicant or recipient must furnish to the agency his or her social security number.
Further, in section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653), the Parent Locator Service is given access to all information regarding an absent parent which is in the files of any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States. This section provides for the disclosure of information for these purposes "notwithstanding any other provision of law." The Privacy Act of 1974, therefore, does not stand in the way of the Parent Locator Service, and there is no need for section 1211 of H.R. 10612 to provide additional authorization to that Service.
Senator PERCY'S amendment to section 1211 of H.R. 10612 satisfies the concerns of the Finance Committee. It preserves the principles of the Privacy Act of 1974,which respect to the expansion of the social security number. I wish to lend my support to this amendment.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. PERCY. I would like to yield first, if the manager of the bill will concur, to my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER), who has really been the spirit behind this whole effort.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank my friend from Illinois.
Mr. President, once again I join with the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. PERCY, and others, in proposing an amendment to halt the spread of the social security number as a universal population identifier.
Mr. President, I am shocked that there is a provision in the pending tax reform bill to repeal much of the Percy-Goldwater law which now puts a halt to new uses of the social security number. That law was enacted as a part of the Privacy Statute of 1974. The same law establishes a Privacy Commission which is currently studying the need for controlling the use of social security numbers by private business — as well as by public institutions.
It is amazing to me, that at the same time we have asked the Privacy Protection Commission to examine whether further curbs should be put on the number, a committee of Congress is proposing that we undo the restrictions we have just imposed.
Mr. President, I do not see any reason for reversing our earlier decision. In 1974, we put a halt to Federal, State, or local governments forcing anyone to disclose his social security number for any reason that was not already a part of State or Federal law. Now, the Finance Committee wants to change this. It would allow State and local governments to use the number for almost any reason under the sun.
Mr. President, this is wrong.
There is too much government already.
There is too much probing and too much pestering by government.
State and local governments are not any more immune from the disease of bureaucratic arrogance than the Federal Government is. While I would far rather see greater power put in the hands of local authorities, instead of having those same decisions being made by the central Government, I believe individuals have to be protected against invasion of their privacy by government at every level.
Mr. President, all persons that I have talked to about this subject resent being required to reveal their social security number. They do not want to be reduced to a number. They want to remain special human beings.
The do not want to be marked by a digit locked away in some bureaucratic file where everything about their lives and habits can be collected.
Mr. President, once we allow government to identify citizens by the same numbers for all purposes, we are giving government power to collect a file about everything persons do. Their travels, their magazine subscriptions, their health history, their bank transactions, the kinds of jobs they have held — everything can be assembled in one place.
This makes it easier for government to manipulate people. To condition people. And potentially to coerce people.
Mr. President, I urge that we halt the spread of the social security number. I urge that we put the privacy of individual citizens above the mere administrative convenience of government.
I thank my friend from Illinois.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PERCY. I am happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from Maine, the cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered today by the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY).
It was my privilege to be associated with the Senator from Illinois as one of the original cosponsors of the Privacy Act of 1974, along with the distinguished chairman of the Government Operations Committee, Senator RIBICOFF, and his predecessor, Sam Ervin, whose dedication to the cause of individual liberties provided the essential impetus for adoption of that important legislation.
I supported the amendment by the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER) to limit the right of the Federal, State, or local governments to compel disclosure of the social security number when the Privacy Act was before the Senate in 1974, and I again join in this effort to help assure that this important identification will be used in a manner consistent with specific congressional policy. It does this by authorizing a limited expansion of its use by those States which did not have laws providing for its use in State tax administration prior to adoption of the Privacy Act.
It was the policy of that act that the social security number should not become a universal identifier. Rather if a future need was demonstrated for expanding the authority to use it — such as for the administration of State tax laws — Congress should take specific action to address that need.
Congress should not go on record to authorize the widespread, indiscriminate use of this important number by a blanket repeal of the protections contained in the Privacy Act.
Prior to adoption of the Privacy Act, Americans witnessed a steady acceleration in the number of ways the social security number was being used by all levels of government and the private sector. The ability of one business or agency to obtain information about a citizen is multiplied many fold by the unfettered expansion of the number's use.
Mr. President, one of the factors which contributes to the public wariness of government is the repeated intrusions which are made into the lives of our citizens. Americans recognize that a certain amount of record keeping is essential to recording the services of government, but we must be vigilant in our efforts to keep this to a minimum. The continued expansion of the use of the social security number at all levels of government tends to erode a sense of well being which government should reinforce.
That is why Congress acted to limit governmental use of the number, and why I strongly support this amendment to uphold that congressional policy unless the Congress is presented with substantial evidence to merit an exception.
In summary, I simply emphasize, briefly, my complete support for the amendment which has been offered by the Senator from Illinois and which has been so eloquently supported by the Senator from Arizona. The reasons that I would state have already been adequately stated by them.
This was a key feature of the Privacy Act. It came under the leadership of Senator Sam Ervin and with regard to this important feature by the committee as well as by the Senate that the social security number not be established as a uniform identifier for all citizens for the reasons that so used it could become an instrument for the intrusion upon the privacy of every American citizen.
I think that, if the social security number is to be used, it be for specific purposes, and those specific purposes are to be stated by Congress. That, as I understand it, is the amendment of the Senator from Illinois; and I support it wholeheartedly with his objective.
Mr. PERCY. I thank my distinguished colleague.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I have neither seen this amendment nor had a chance to discuss this matter with the cosponsor of this amendment. I regret that we have not had a chance to hold a hearing on this.
We did discuss the matter in the committee in open session, but we have not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the Senator, and I hope that the sponsors of this amendment would not try to impede our efforts to do certain things that we are satisfied we have a duty to do under law.
Let me give some examples.
We try to find a father who is able to contribute to the support of his children but prefers not to do so. Sometimes he may be making $20,000 a year.
When that man departs from the jurisdiction where he is and we try to locate him to make him contribute something to the support of his children, is the Federal Government to be denied information to find that out?
Or where we have a situation where a person is drawing unemployment benefits while he has a good job and is not entitled to draw unemployment benefits, are we to be denied the information that we would have to know that that man is cheating because we are denied the right to know what his social security number is?
We had a situation in the State of Louisiana some time back that other States might know something about. It even happened that at Miami, one of the Louisiana delegates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention was on the welfare rolls under more names than one. And we had a situation that was brought out at that time that one person was on the welfare rolls under 18 different names.
I have heard people say that they did not think a mother would have a child for the purpose of getting herself on welfare. But if she could get on the welfare rolls under 18 different names, she might be tempted to consider that.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. STONE. Is there not also the case where one welfare agency needs to check with another welfare agency in order to be able to qualify people on their rolls? I know in the State of Florida some of the medicaid people have been after my office on a casework basis to be able to check out through social security so they can qualify some of the people on their rolls. It is not a question only of double-dipping or cheating, but it is also a question of being able to qualify people.
Mr. LONG. Yes, oftentimes that is the case.
I am curious to know how the sponsors of this amendment would handle that problem.
If there is a person on the welfare rolls under 18 different names, is the State agency to be denied the right to know the name of that person? Or here is a father making $25,000 a year, leaving the taxpayers stuck with the duty of supporting, let us say, three little children, with the mother pleading for help and support for that family after they have been abandoned. Are we to be denied to know that man's social security number so that we can find that man somewhere, wherever he may be, and seek to require that that man do his duty under law?
I think that would not be the intention of the sponsors of the amendment. Do they really have that type of thing in mind?
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I am very happy to respond to the distinguished Senator. I, and I believe Senator GOLDWATER, Senator MUSKIE, Senator RIBICOFF, and other sponsors of the amendment, and certainly Senator WEICKER, who strongly supports it, have heard such arguments. We are not at all unsympathetic with, say, the parent locator program. That is a Federal program. There is nothing at all that prevents them from going out in that program and in those States that have such laws getting that information.
The Senator said that he did not have a chance to study the amendment, as if it is a new idea.
I shall put it just the other way around.
What this particular provision on page 789 of the tax law does is amend existing law. The existing law was put in after a full set of hearings in the Committee on Government Operations. Senator Sam Ervin had spent years of his life carefully looking into this matter. At that particular time we took this position, and it is now law.
There were, of course, those who said we should make an absolute prohibition, and at the time we decided, no, we would grandfather in, so there would be no extra expense in changing record systems. We did not do away with the use of the social security system number in all of those States that used it.
What we did do is say we do not want this to proliferate. As we become a computerized society, we do not want to have access to this number available for anything, everything, and every program that anyone in any State might wish to design. But we certainly are not interfering or in any way hindering the objective and the purpose of the parent locator program.
At no time has HEW or anyone else come to us with the kind of problems that the Senator from Louisiana is now presenting.
Yet I think we could also say this very clearly: The social security number is not an infallible identifier any more than a passport is. We saw on "60 Minutes" a few weeks ago how easy it is to get all kinds of identification and get it in triplicate and quadruplicate copies whenever one wants to do so.
A person who is willing to apply for benefits to which he or she is not entitled would probably not be reluctant at all to obtain a multiple social security number to avoid detection.
This is a Federal misdemeanor, but wrongful receipt of benefits is also a crime. So it is not an infallible system. Once again, I say, it is the Committee on Finance that is changing the existing law. With the exception for the administration of the tax laws, we are trying to preserve existing law. The amendment was presented last night and discussed with the distinguished Senator's staff, so it is not a new idea at all.
The House of Representatives and the Senate overwhelmingly adopted the Privacy Act. I simply do not see, without any further testimony, that the system is not now working or that what we have done to protect the privacy of the individuals is somehow impeding law enforcement or the enforcement of the parent locator program with which it certainly does not interfere.
The Senator from Illinois has been very concerned about the same objective and purpose, but is also concerned about private rights.
I am very happy to yield to my colleague, the Senator from Maine.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, if the Senator will permit me, I discussed this matter with Senator Sam Ervin while he was here and while we were trying to wrestle with the problem that confronts us. I read a newspaper editorial indicating that Senator Sam Ervin would undoubtedly oppose what we were trying to do in the Committee on Finance at that time, to try to identify fathers who escape their duty to help support their children.
I discussed the matter with Senator Ervin. Even though some had predicted that he would oppose it, he told me that he understood what our problem was, that he understood that we have to find a way to locate those fathers, and we would not have any opposition from him if that was what we were trying to do.
I hope the Senator will be willing to withhold this amendment for a day, long enough for us to at least discuss this matter and see what we think we have to have as a minimum in order to do our duty under law — that is, to keep the people from stealing a billion dollars or more from this Government, to help mothers to obtain support for their little children, and to keep people from violating the laws by wrongful use of somebody else's social security number, just to mention some of the problems about which I do not think we should be differing. After we talk it over, perhaps we can get together so that both sides can agree on what meets our minimal needs.
From our point of view, with these welfare and unemployment fraud cases and these runaway father cases, we have a great need to identify people. When people seek benefits from Government, we need to identify them. When a man is escaping his duty and is putting a great burden on Government, when he does not support his children, we need to identify him. When people seek benefits from Government, they should be willing to answer the question, "Who are you?"
John Smith is a very common name. I thought the name of Russell Long was not a usual name. When I was in the Navy, I found that there were about six other Russell B. Longs who were naval officers.
When people seek a benefit from the Government, or when a State has the same problem, we should know who they are.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad there are not six other Members of the Senate with that name. One is enough. [Laughter.]
I wish to make this point about the provision of the Privacy Act in which I was involved. In the first place, the prohibitions of section 7(a) of the Privacy Act as we approved it in 1974 do not apply to those uses of the social security number which were in existence either by statute or regulation before January 1,1975. So that to the extent that its use was valuable to the Government for the purposes that the Senator has described, the 1974 act did not touch it.
Second, the 1974 act enacted a limitation on new uses — those that had not been in effect prior to 1975 — the idea being that if a new use were to be proposed, it must be justified on its merits.
There is no objection to that. I believe it is a very reasonable and flexible approach to the problem.
As I understand the Percy amendment, all it does is to permit State and local authorities to use the social security number for tax administration purposes only. In other words, it would broaden the uses to which State and local authorities could put the social security number. The Percy amendment, instead of giving State and local authorities discretion to use it, would limit their discretion to tax administration only. It seems to me that that is a reasonable approach.
If there are some new uses that are needed in connection with the problems the Senator from Louisiana has mentioned, I am sure all of us would want to look at those problems on their merits; but I suspect that those uses probably were in effect prior to January 1, 1975, and if they were, they are not touched by the Percy amendment this afternoon.
Mr. LONG. I say to the Senator that there is one committee which I am sure in complete good faith sponsored this privacy law. I know how busy Senators are. Those of us on another committee are not looking at that law, and the law goes into effect.
At another time, the Senator from Louisiana is pressing to try to make these fathers do their duty toward their children. We find that there is a State government trying to do exactly what we had in mind under law, and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is requested to provide the social security number of this person so that they can know where the person is.
We finally made the Internal Revenue Service, under law, tell where the man is.
But let us say that the name is not the most strange name on Earth. There are a lot of people by that name in this country of some 215 million people. We have put in the law what the Internal Revenue Service must tell as to where a person is, if we know and we think they know. But in order to find that out, we need to find out what the social security number is. So that request has been made of the Social Security Administration.
We got into a dispute with the Secretary of HEW, he did not think they can provide that number. There are people in their department who contended that, although it does not violate the letter of the privacy law, it violates the spirit of it, so they could not give the State the social security number.
We quarreled back and forth about the matter and finally got to the point that I took the attitude that we were not going to confirm the nomination of anybody for a position in that department until we got this matter to a conclusion one way or the other. Eventually, we received an answer.
They cleared it through the White House and other places, and they said that they were finally convinced that they could provide States with the number for that purpose. The States can at least find that out, which would make it possible to find out the whereabouts of a person.
What we should do before we go further with this amendment is to check and look at it from the point of view of what the various problems are, to see to what extent we can agree and to what extent we cannot agree. I hope we can agree on this. I do not think the Senator wants to impede the Government from its duty and helping citizens and protecting the Government against law violators.
We do not seek needlessly to invade someone's privacy, but I am sure the Senator realizes that the problem is not simply one of protecting the right of privacy. It is also a matter of needing to know who somebody is; and if we have the information, where he is.
I suggest to the Senator that he withhold the amendment for the time being, let us talk about it overnight, and see if we can come to terms on this matter.
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Illinois certainly wishes to cooperate with the floor manager of the bill in every way he can, but the problem we face is that we are on this section. The staff of the Senator from Illinois has been talking to the staff of the floor manager of the bill. We just seem basically to disagree.
The interpretation of the Senator from Illinois is that the parent locator program would not be disturbed at all. It is a Federal program, and there would not be any disturbance in it.
As the distinguished Senator from Maine indicated, there was a cutoff date. We grandfathered in all programs with respect to the usage of the social security number. What we are simply concerned with is a proliferation with respect to new programs. We do not want this to continue to mushroom, expand, and grow.
The Senator from Louisiana has been talking about tax laws and the enforcement of tax laws. The amendment specifically provides a substitution of the words "tax law" for "law or program."
It is just all these other programs that any State can design or devise, where they simply want to hang on and tap onto the use of the social security number that our amendment goes to. I do not see that any of the arguments raised by the Senator from Louisiana are not fully answered or that the programs, which the Senator from Illinois concurs with, would be invalidated.
Mr. LONG. The Senator made the statement, and I am sure it must be correct, that the staff members have discussed it. It seems to me we would be well advised for the Senators to discuss this amendment before it is voted on. I do not think the best place to discuss it is out here on the floor. I think the best place to discuss it is in a meeting with other Senators interested in the matter, when we can sit down together, go over this, raise and discuss the individual questions. I hope the Senator will agree to hold it over until tomorrow, to give us a chance to discuss it, to see to what extent we agree and to what extent we disagree.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. PERCY. I should appreciate a comment from my distinguished colleague from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand it, the legislation dealing with the parent locator system was enacted by the Senate 2 days after the enactment of the Privacy Act of 1974 and specific provision was made at that time to amend the Privacy Act of 1974. If Secretary Mathews is having difficulty with those limitations, then, for heaven's sake, why does he not say so? Why does he not present the problem to us?
The question the Senator has raised was specifically considered within a time frame of 2 days of the two bills that were considered and enacted by the Senate in1974. Now, without the benefit of any hearings or testimony, to lay out a problem that was not adequately provided for in those two pieces of legislation comes as something of a new development to this Senator. If there is a problem, I think it was implicit in the Privacy Act of 1974 that we consider it specifically and if we need to amend the Privacy Act to take care of the legitimate need of theGovernment for information, surely, Congress can do that.
The amendment in the committee bill just opens it up beyond the specific purpose that the Senator from Louisiana has been discussing this afternoon.
Mr. LONG. I say to the Senator, as he so well stated, here were two bills that were passed at about the same time. They were passed within a week of one another. The point is that they were not passed with reference to one another.
Mr. MUSKIE. But they were, that is my point. As I understand it, the parent locator legislation specifically amended the Privacy Act.
Mr. LONG. All I am saying is that the Committee on Finance sponsored and enacted the parent locator service. It was the Committee on Government Operations that handled the Privacy Act, which the Senator from Maine says was specifically amended.
It is about time that the Senators serving on the two committees should sit together and discuss the matter enough that they can see, really, to what extent they really disagree and to what extent one can accommodate the other. We ought to do it, I say to the Senator from Maine, privately, rather than out here on the floor, so we can see the extent to which we agree and the extent to which we disagree. For all I know, we might be able to agree, but I should like to have a chance to discuss it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no objection to that, I say to the Senator, but as long as the issue has been raised, it seems to me that the record should be as complete as possible. On that point, it is maybe a strange coincidence that the two pieces of legislation were related to each other at that time. It may be that the needs of the parent locator program are broader than whatever the Senate thought they were at that time. If they are, I think it is a reasonable request that we look at it to try to amend the policy to provide for it. I have no objection to that, none at all.
Mr. LONG. I should appreciate it. I think, if we can talk it over some time tomorrow morning and analyze what the problem of both is and take it piece by piece and see what the relative needs of the two sides are, perhaps we can agree. I hope we can.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no objection to that at all. I do not know about my good friend from Illinois.
Mr. PERCY. I have subsequently talked to our distinguished colleague from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER). Certainly, in the interest of exchanging views directly, I should be happy to defer it so we can talk about it. I would like to say that the Senator from Illinois has, on many occasions, spoken with the Secretary of HEW, this morning for several hours with the Assistant Secretary for Health of HEW, certainly with the Secretary himself, Social Security Administrator and I feel that, if they had any problem with the Privacy Act, they would have mentioned it. The Senator from Illinois is certainly in favor of the objective of the parent locator program, but he simply does not interpret this as in any way interfering with that.
I shall certainly be willing to discuss it and withdraw the amendment now, with the understanding that I may call it up again later.
Mr. LONG. I would appreciate that and certainly I shall protect the Senator's rights.
Mr. PERCY. That is with the understanding that we can bring it up tomorrow again.
Would the Senator be willing to set a time that will be convenient for his schedule, inasmuch as we are all on the floor right now?
Mr. LONG. As far as I am concerned, we can meet at 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock, or 11 o'clock.
Mr. PERCY. Nine o'clock would be all right with me.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senators, I shall be floor manager on the clean air bill, but I think the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Arizona are fully capable of handling the issue under discussion. I shall be happy to go along with whatever they find reasonable.
Mr. LONG. That will be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withdraw his amendment?
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Illinois, then, with the understanding that we shall meet at about 9 o'clock tomorrow, in the Capitol in Senator LONG's office, asks unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right. The amendment is withdrawn.