U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

89–010 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2018

115–424 

Calendar No. 727 

CIVIL RIGHTS COLD CASE RECORDS 

COLLECTION ACT OF 2018 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 3191 

TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPEDITIOUS DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS 

RELATED TO CIVIL RIGHTS COLD CASES, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

DECEMBER 10, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

JON KYL, Arizona 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

DOUG JONES, Alabama 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

PATRICK J. BAILEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

CHARLES A. MOSKOWITZ, Minority Senior Legislative Counsel 

KATHERINE C. SYBENGA, Minority Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
Calendar No. 727 

115TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 2d Session 115–424 

CIVIL RIGHTS COLD CASE RECORDS COLLECTION ACT OF 

2018 

DECEMBER 10, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 3191] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 3191) to provide for the expeditious disclosure of records related to civil rights cold cases, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 1 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 3 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 4 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 7 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 7 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 9 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

S. 3191, the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 

2018, establishes a records collection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA) to ensure the physical integrity 

and eventual public availability of records related to civil rights 

cold cases. 

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

On October 26, 1992, recognizing the historical significance of the 

law enforcement records related to the assassination of President 

John F. Kennedy, President George H.W. Bush signed into law the 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

1Presidential Statement on Signing the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records 

Collection Act of 1992, (Oct. 26, 1992), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PPP-1992- 

book2/pdf/PPP-1992-book2-doc-pg2004-2.pdf. 2 ‘‘President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102– 

526, 106 Stat. 3443 (1992). 3 Id. 

4Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Oct 12, 2017, 5:53 AM), available at: https:// 

twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/921716470140325889. 5With JFK files open, students say open civil rights killings files, too, Clarion Ledger (Oct. 26, 

2017), https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/journeytojustice/2017/10/26/jfk-files-openstudents-say-open-civil-rights-killings-files-too/802665001/. 6 Id. 

7 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2018). 

8 Id. 

9 Id. at § 552(b)(7). 

President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 

1992 (Kennedy Collection Act).1 It established a special collection 

at NARA for records related to President Kennedy’s assassination, 

a process for Federal agencies to transfer records to NARA, and a 

review board to determine how and when to make records public.2

The bill also established a process for the President to delay the 

release of records as appropriate.3

On October 21, 2017, President Donald J. Trump announced via 

Twitter that ‘‘[s]ubject to the receipt of further information, I will 

be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK 

FILES to be opened.’’ 4

On October 26, 2017, Advanced Placement U.S. Government students at Hightstown High School in New Jersey called for the release of not only the Kennedy records, but also records related to 

civil rights cold cases from 1940 to 1979.5 The students created 

draft legislation modeled after the process established in the Kennedy Collection Act.6

Records related to civil rights cold cases are valuable for researchers, journalists, historians, and those interested in solving 

these unsolved crimes. Under the current process, citizens can request files from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other agencies through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).7 While a valuable tool for the release of Federal records to the public, FOIA has 

exemptions for the release of records that make it less useful for 

requesting records from a law enforcement agency.8 Specifically, 

FOIA exemption 7 prevents the disclosure of ‘‘records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent 

that the production of such law enforcement records or information 

(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings [. . .]’’ 9 Because civil rights cold cases are by their very 

definition unsolved crimes, public disclosure of records related to 

these cases could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings.The incompatibility of FOIA with records inherently linked to open criminal cases shows the necessity of a special process for the release of civil rights cases that are 39 to 78 

years old. 

The older these unsolved cases become, the less likely they are 

to be solved by DOJ, and, in fact, public disclosure of information 

may actually increase the likelihood of enforcement by 

crowdsourcing the materials. Illustrating this point, author and 

journalist Stanley Nelson stated with regard to withheld and redacted DOJ civil rights records that ‘‘[i]f the FBI doesn’t want to 

do the work, share the unredacted files with journalists—we’ll do 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

10With JFK files open, students say open civil rights killings files, too, Clarion Ledger (Oct. 

26, 2017), https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/journeytojustice/2017/10/26/jfk-filesopen-students-say-open-civil-rights-killings-files-too/802665001/. 11 Jason Parham, Emmett Till’s Murder: What Really Happened That Day in the Store?, The 

New York Times (Jan. 27, 2017), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/books/review/ 

blood-of-emmett-till-timothy-b-tyson.html?module=inline. 12 Jason Parham, Emmett Till’s Murder: What Really Happened That Day in the Store?, The 

New York Times (Jan. 27, 2017), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/books/review/ 

blood-of-emmett-till-timothy-b-tyson.html?module=inline. 

it.’’ 10 Another example is the case of Emmet Till, a 14-year-old African American who was abducted and brutally murdered in 1955 

after he allegedly flirted with a white woman named Carolyn Bryant, and grabbed her either by the hand or waist.11 In 2007, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) released recovered court 

transcripts that were later used by author Timothy B. Tyson as the 

basis of his interview of Bryant who recanted, telling Tyson regarding her court testimony about Till’s alleged sexual aggression toward her that ‘‘[y]ou tell these stories for so long that they seem 

true, but that part is not true.’’ 12

Recognizing the potential sensitivity of the information contained 

in civil rights cold case records, the Civil Rights Cold Case Collection Act of 2018 establishes a process nearly identical to the Kennedy Collection Act, which also dealt with extremely sensitive and 

classified information. The Civil Rights Cold Case Collection Act of 

2018 establishes a special collection at NARA for civil rights cold 

cases and requires Federal agencies with records related to civil 

rights cold cases to transmit them to NARA. Civil rights cold cases 

are defined as those occurring between 1940 and 1979 and include 

cases related to conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights 

under color of law, cases related to federally protected activities, 

peonage and involuntary servitude, violations of the Fair Housing 

Act, and those cases related to Federal laws that would be enforced 

by the DOJ Civil Rights Division. 

The legislation allows Federal agencies to transmit records separately for a protected collection that will be reviewed periodically 

for public disclosure. It also establishes a review board to make determinations about the public disclosure of records. The review 

board terminates four years after enactment. Any record that is not 

disclosed will be automatically disclosed 25 years after the date of 

enactment of the legislation unless the head of the agency that 

transmitted the record requests additional postponement. 

The bill lays out specific grounds for the postponement of public 

disclosure of records. For example, the release can be postponed if 

it would harm national security, reveal classified information, or 

reveal the name or identity of a living individual who provided confidential information to the United States where it would put that 

informant at risk of physical harm. It also prevents the release of 

information that could endanger the life or physical safety of any 

person or interfere with ongoing law enforcement proceedings. Finally, the legislation exempts records that contain personnel and 

medical files. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Doug Jones (D–AL) introduced S. 3191, the Civil Rights 

Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018, on July 10, 2018, with 

Senators Claire McCaskill (D–MO) and Kamala Harris (D–CA). On 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
4 

July 26, 2018, Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX) was added a cosponsor. 

The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs. 

The Committee considered S. 3191 at a business meeting on September 26, 2018. During the business meeting, a modified substitute amendment was offered by Senator Jones and accepted by 

unanimous consent. The amendment addressed feedback from 

NARA and the DOJ. The bill, as amended, was ordered reported 

favorably en bloc by voice vote. Senators Johnson, Portman, 

Lankford, Enzi, Hoeven, McCaskill, Carper, Heitkamp, Peters, 

Hassan, Harris, and Jones were present. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

This section establishes the short title of the bill as the Civil 

Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018. 

Section 2. Definitions 

This section defines terms necessary to the legislation, including 

archivist, civil rights cold case, civil rights cold case record, collection, executive agency, review board, and other terms. 

Section 3. Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection at the National 

Archives and Record Administration 

This section establishes a Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection at the National Archives and requires NARA to prepare a subject guidebook and index to the collection and to establish criteria 

for agencies to use when transmitting records. 

It also requires that the collection include a copy of each civil 

rights cold case record which has not previously been provided to 

NARA, but will be under this legislation, as well as civil rights cold 

cases already in NARA’s custody. 

This section requires that all civil rights cold case records transmitted to the collection for public disclosure be available to the 

public within 60 days and be prioritized for digitization. It also authorizes NARA to require fees for copying documents. This section 

discusses the composition of the collection’s contents.These include 

a copy of each civil rights cold case record, a disclosure of records, 

fees for copying, and transmission to the national archives. Furthermore, it specifies the periodic review of postponed civil rights 

cold case records and the digitization of records. NARA is also required to keep secure those records submitted for the collection for 

which public disclosure has been postponed. 

Subsection (e) requires any Federal agency in possession of a 

civil rights cold case record to transmit that record within two 

years for the collection without any redactions. Separately, for 

records that the review board established under section 5 has determined postponement from public disclosure is warranted, shall 

be submitted to the protected Collection not available to the public. 

This subsection also establishes a process for the Attorney General 

to withhold records related to cases that the Attorney General reasonably believes will be reopened within two years. 

Subsection (f) establishes a process by which civil rights cold 

cases whose public disclosure has been postponed be re-evaluated 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
5 

for disclosure on an annual basis. Additionally, following the termination of the review board four years after enactment, this subsection requires that all postponed records be released after 25 

years unless the head of the agency that provided the record requests additional postponement. 

Finally, section (3) contains a Congressional finding that the public release may significantly affect victims of crimes and their next 

of kin and requires that to the greatest extent possible, they be notified 7 days in advance of any public release. 

Section 4. Grounds for postponement of public disclosure of records 

This section specifies the grounds which would prevent records 

from being made public. Subsection (1) allows postponement where 

disclosure would damage national security, military defense, law 

enforcement, intelligence operations, or the conduct of foreign relations; or reveal classified information. 

Subsection (2) allows postponement where disclosure would reveal the name or identity of a living individual provided confidential information to the U.S. where it would pose a substantial risk 

of harm. 

Subsection (3) allows postponement where disclosure would pose 

an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

Subsection (4) allows postponement where disclosure would compromise an understanding of confidentiality between the government and a cooperating informant, where the harm to that understanding outweighs the public interest in the records. 

Subsection (5) allows postponement where disclosure would endanger an individual’s life or physical safety. 

Subsection (6) allows postponement where disclosure would 

interfere with ongoing law enforcement proceedings. 

Section 5. Establishment and powers of the Civil Rights Cold Case 

Records Review Board 

This section establishes the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board. Subsection (b) delineates the appointment process for 

five individuals to serve on the review board, timelines for appointments, groups qualified to recommend appointments, and the qualifications required for members of the review board. 

Subsection (c) requires that all members be processed for the 

necessary security clearances in an expedited manner. 

Subsection (d) requires that vacancies be filled in the same manner as initial appointments. Subsection (e) requires that the board 

vote to elect a chairperson and subsection (f) delineates the process 

for the removal of board members. Subsection (g) sets compensation for board members at level IV of the Executive Schedule and 

allows for travel expenses. 

Subsection (h) requires the review board to consider and render 

decisions about Federal agencies’ requests to postpone public disclosure of civil rights cold case records. Subsection (i) gives the review board power to obtain access to civil rights cold case records, 

direct agencies to make available additional information, records, 

or testimony which the review board believes is required to make 

determinations. It also gives the review board the right to subpoena records and testimony, require agencies to account in writing 

for the destruction of records, receive information from the public 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
6 

about the existence of certain records, and to hold hearing and administer oaths. 

This section requires the review board to cooperate with the 

oversight functions of Congress, provide support staff and services 

from the General Services Administration, allows it to issue regulations, and provides for the termination of the review board. 

Section 6. Review board personnel 

This section outlines the process for the appointment and removal of a chief of staff of the review board, including the qualifications, duties, and required security clearances for the position. It 

also describes the process for the hiring of support staff and grants 

the board authority to create advisory committees. 

Section 7. Review of records by the review board 

This section outlines the requirements for the retention of 

records by Federal agencies related to the work of the review board 

and the process and timeline for the review board to begin reviewing civil rights cold case records.This section also requires public 

disclosure, through NARA, of all records it determines are civil 

rights cold case records unless postponement of disclosure is warranted. 

If postponement of a civil rights cold case records is warranted, 

the review board is required to determine if any portion of the 

record can be segregated and released or if a summary of the 

record could be provided in its place. 

This section also requires the review board to report to the 

NARA with information about the records that warrant postponement and to the originating agency if it intends to make a record 

public. 

Section 7 also sets out a process for the President to assert authority to withhold documents cleared for release by the board, and 

requires a periodic review to determine if the President still wishes 

to assert that authority. 

Finally, this section requires that the review board report annually to Congress about its activities. 

Section 8. Disclosure of other information and additional study 

This section gives the review board the authority to ask the Attorney General to petition courts to unseal grand jury information 

or other records under seal of court.The Attorney General has discretion whether to make the petition, but must respond to the review board within 45 days. 

Section 8 also contains a Sense of Congress that the Attorney 

General should assist the review board in good faith to unseal relevant records, as well as a Sense of Congress that all Federal agencies should cooperate with the review board to seek the disclosure 

of all information relevant to civil rights cold cases. 

Section 9. Rules of construction 

This section establishes that the requirements of the bill supersede all other laws, except section 6103 of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986, and any personnel and medical files exempted by the 

Privacy Act. It also clarifies that nothing in the legislation should 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
7 

be construed to limit the right of individuals to request information 

under the Freedom of Information Act. 

Section 10. Authorization of appropriations 

This section authorizes appropriations of such sums as are necessary for the review board. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and determined that the bill will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rules. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, December 3, 2018. 

Hon. RON JOHNSON, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 3191, the Civil Rights Cold 

Case Records Collection Act of 2018. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 3191—Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018 

Summary: S. 3191 would make federal information about investigations of unsolved civil rights cases more readily available to the 

public. The bill would authorize the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) to create a collection of unsolved civil 

rights cases. In addition, the legislation would establish a Civil 

Rights Cold Case Review Board (Review Board) to determine which 

records can be released to the public. 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 3191 would cost $10 million 

over the 2019–2023 period; such spending would be subject to the 

availability of appropriated funds. 

Enacting S. 3191 could affect direct spending by agencies that 

are authorized to use receipts from the sale of goods, fees, and 

other collections to cover operating costs; therefore, pay-as-you-go 

procedures apply. Because most agencies can adjust the amounts 

collected as operating costs change, CBO estimates that any net 

changes in direct spending by those agencies would be negligible. 

In addition, NARA can charge and spend fees to cover some or all 

of its costs to process certain requests. CBO estimates, however, 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
8 

that any net increase in fees collected under the bill would be negligible. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 3191 would not significantly increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 

consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029. 

S. 3191 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of S. 3191 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of the legislation primarily fall within all budget functions 750 (administration of justice) and 800 (general government). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2019– 

2023 

INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level .......................................... 1 3 2 2 2 10 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 1 3 2 2 2 10 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 3191 

will be enacted near the end of 2018. Estimated outlays are based 

on historical spending patterns for similar activities. 

S. 3191 would require NARA to establish a collection of federal 

records about unsolved civil rights cases that occurred between 

1940 and 1979. The collection would be made available to the public. The bill also would establish a Civil Rights Cold Case Records 

Review Board. Five members would be appointed by the President 

with the advice and consent of the Senate. The board would facilitate the review, transmission to NARA, and public disclosure of 

government records related to the unsolved cases. It would terminate five years after enactment. 

Information from the Department of Justice (DOJ) Cold Case Initiative indicates that there are about 115 unsolved civil rights 

cases that the department is aware of. Using information from 

NARA, CBO expects that the cost of implementing this bill would 

be similar to the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review 

Board. That board re-examined records related to the assassination 

investigation that federal agencies considered too sensitive to release to the public to consider which records should be released to 

the public; CBO expects that the board established under S. 3191 

would be similar. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would 

cost about $2 million annually and $10 million over the 2019–2023 

period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Those 

amounts would cover personnel and other administrative costs to 

evaluate which documents could be released publicly. If more cold 

cases are reopened following the enactment of S. 3191 there would 

be additional costs in future years to evaluate those additional 

records. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. S. 3191 could 

affect direct spending by agencies that are not funded through annual appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

CBO estimates, however, that any changes in direct spending 

would be negligible. In addition, NARA can charge and spend fees 

to cover some or all of the costs to process certain requests. CBO 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
9 

estimates, however, that any net increase in fees collected under 

the bill would be negligible. The bill would not affect revenues. 

Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO estimates that enacting S. 3191 would not increase net direct spending 

or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods 

beginning in 2029. 

Mandates: S. 3191 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Matthew Pickford; Mandates: Andrew Laughlin. 

Estimate reviewed by: Kim P. Cawley, Unit Chief, Natural Resources Cost Estimate Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Because this legislation would not repeal or amend any provision 

of current law, it would make no changes in existing law within the 

meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS