macy of federal law. E. g., Wash. Rev. Code § 74.04.055 (Supp. 1970) (if more than one construction possible, favor that "most likely to satisfy federal laws"); Wash. Rev. Code § 74.23.005 (Supp. 1970) ("The legislature hereby expresses its intention to comply with the requirements under the federal social security act, as amended, creating a work incentive program" for mothers receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children); Wash. Rev. Code § 74.23.900 (Supp. 1970) (if any part of the chapter conflicts with federal law it is to that extent inoperative). The record in this case is not clear as to which types of public assistance petitioner is receiving. Prior to the temporary unsuccessful attempt to remove her children from her custody she was receiving AFDC benefits. From the references in the briefs to eligibility for the AFDC Work Incentive Program it would appear that she is now again receiving AFDC benefits.

When federal funds are used, then standards are to be shaped and tested federally. Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619; Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275, 295; Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 427 (concurring opinion).

If meanwhile she was denied a fair hearing under state law, an important question of procedural due process is raised under the Fourteenth Amendment. For petitioner's right to continued assistance-an important property interest-cannot be reduced or terminated without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Cf. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337.

If petitioner was at the time receiving federal assistance then under HEW Regulations, she was entitled to a fair hearing.

The Department's regulations require that provision be made for granting a fair hearing:

"to any individual requesting a hearing because his claim for financial or medical assistance is de

nied, or is not acted upon with reasonable promptness, or because he is aggrieved by any other agency action affecting receipt, suspension, reduction, or termination of such assistance or by agency policy as it affects his situation." 45 CFR § 205.10 (a)(3), eff. April 14, 1971 (emphasis added). 36 Fed. Reg. 3034.

As the Solicitor General says in his brief, filed at our request:

"One may say, quite simply, that the report which petitioner challenges threatens receipt of AFDC payments by threatening to deprive petitioner of her children, on which her receipt of AFDC benefits depends. One of the federal requirements for a state plan for AFDC is that it must:

"(16) provide that where the State agency has reason to believe that the home in which a relative and child receiving aid reside is unsuitable for the child because of the neglect, abuse, or exploitation of such child it shall bring such condition to the attention of the appropriate court or law enforcement agencies in the State, providing such data with respect to the situation it may have [42 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) 602 (a)(16)].

"If any question were now to arise as to the suitability of the home for the children, the prior report might well have an effect on referral of the case to the courts and action by the courts, notwithstanding the 1967 decision of the Juvenile Court. Thus, the report retains a constant potential effect on petitioner's custody of her children and thereby on her receipt of assistance."

We cannot be sure of the exact posture of this case;

but whether or not the claim at the time was federally funded, a question of national importance is presented. Accordingly, I would grant the petition for certiorari.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EXCERPTS CONTAINING REMARKS ON PRIVACY BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

[From the Congressional Record, Senate, June 11, 1974]

NOTICE OF JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS ON PRIVACY AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, hearings on bills relating to privacy and Government information systems will be held before an ad hoc subcommittee of the Senate Government Operations Committee and the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights on June 18, 19, and 20. The joint hearings will be held in room 3302 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

The legislation before the Government Operations Committee is S. 3418, which I have cosponsored with Senators Percy and Muskie, to establish an administrative structure to oversee rules for the gathering and disclosure of information concerning individuals, and to provide management systems in Federal agencies, State and local governments and other organizations concerning such information, and for other purposes.

Bills pending before the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee of which I am also chairman, are: S. 2810, introduced by Senator Goldwater, to protect the constitutional right of privacy of individuals concerning whom identifying numbers or identifiable information is recorded by enacting principles of information practice in furtherance of amendments I, III, IV, V, IX, X, and XIV of the U.S. Constitution;

S. 2542, introduced by Senator Bayh to protect the constitutional right of privacy of those individuals concerning whom certain records are maintained; and

S. 3116, introduced by Senator Hatfield, to protect the individual's right to privacy by prohibiting the sale or distribution of certain information.

With these legislative hearings, the Government Operations Committee will continue its oversight of the development and uses of automatic data processing in the Federal Government. The intergovernmental nature of nationwide systems involving electronic and manual transmission, sharing and distribution of data about citizens has significant implications for our federal system. In its attempt to respond to citizens' demands for quality and quantity in services, government and the private sector have turned to the large data banks, computerized information systems and management techniques which will help them get the job done. Where these practices and systems neglect the administrative and technical concern for privacy, due process, and surveillance over the individual, they are taking a toll, which is yet unmeasured, on constitutional principles of accountability, responsibility and limited government. The cost to the taxpayer in dollars and cents concerns every American, for in the interest of promoting efficient government, the taxpayer may also be paying for loss of his privacy. That may be the price of insufficient monitoring by the public and Congress of the haphazard, ad hoc, ways modern government has found to meet its information needs, and which public officials use to meet their political needs.

Two Subcommittees of the Government Operations Committee are presently conducting oversight into major aspects of this problem. For instance, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Jackson, is presently conducting an inquiry into surveillance practices in and out of government, including government wiretapping, eavesdropping, recording, industrial espionage and bugging of labor negotiations, and other monitoring practices. The Intergovernment Relations Subcommittee chaired by Senator Muskie, who is also a sponsor of the pending bill, is considering legislation concerning electronic surveillance and the need to reorganize departments and agencies

37-583-74-pt. 2—19

engaging in such practices. That subcommittee is also studying a major aspect of Federal administration which affects individual privacy; this is the classification of Federal records and the laws and rules governing access, release and withholding of information which government collects about people.

The sponsors have introduced S. 3418 for purposes of discussion on the issues of what standards Congress should set for the protection of privacy in the development and management of Federal information systems, especially those which have been computerized with capacity for the sharing of records among departments and governments and across State boundaries. I expect hearings to produce expert advice not only on the standards to be set, but on the scope of the bill and how far the law should affect State, local, and private data banks. The hearings will also help us determine what kind of Federal structure should be established to enforce or advise on standards.

Congress is now considering a number of legislative proposals directed to specific problem areas of the law governing the privacy of the individual such as criminal justice data banks, military surveillance of civilian politics, wiretapping and eavesdropping, private credit data banks, employee privacy, behavior modification, lie detectors, and computer technology. These are some of the techniques and governmental programs which have concerned Congress and the public.

In contrast to such special legislation, the proposals considered in the June hearings represent general legislation to protect the privacy of all citizens and to build into the structure and practices of government a strengthened respect for the privacy and other freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

S. 3418 is similar, but not identical, to omnibus legislation introduced by Representatives Edward Koch and Barry Goldwater, Jr., which is being considered by the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information chaired by Representative William Moorhead. Their joint efforts are contributing greatly to the chances for enactment of major privacy protections this year. Individually, many Members of the House of Representatives have for a number of years sponsored bills reflecting sections of this proposal relating to mailing lists, a Federal privacy board, Federal questionnaires, and changes in the freedom of information law.

Portions of S. 3418 are similar to the measures pending before the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. Another portion is comparable to my bill S. 1791 of the 91st Congress, which was to limit the threats to privacy from burdensome, overly personal questionnaires by which Government agencies sought statistical information through coercive collection techniques.

S. 3418 and the related bills deal with requirements to reveal one's social security number to government and private organizations, with personal statistical questionnaires, mailing lists, and remedies for official information programs which may pass constitutional boundaries.

In addition to the thousands of complaints which people have sent to Congress, we now have for guidance on this subject the investigative hearings, reports, and findings of a number of congressional committees, private organizations and Government departments. One of these studies, "Records, Computers and Rights of Citizens," was ordered by the former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Elliot Richardson, who will testify on June 18 on the findings of his study and the need for congressional and administrative action.

Another influential and comprehensive report entitled "Privacy and Freedom" by the Assocition of the Bar of the City of New York was directed by Prof. Alan F. Westin of Columbia University. Recently, Dr. Westin conducted another study with Michael F. Baker for the National Academy of Sciences entitled "Databanks in a Free Society." I am pleased to announce that in addition to presenting testimony on the pending legislation, Dr. Westin has agreed to serve as a consultant to our our hearings and to give us the benefits of his considerable research and analysis in this area of the law.

With the establishment of the new Domestic Council Committee on Right to Privacy chaired by the Vice President, Congress now has additional resources and assistance in its efforts to protect privacy, and we look forward to their cooperation in our studies.

Vice President Ford has accepted an invitation to present a statement on June 19 which will be delivered by the committee's Executive Director, Mr. Philip Buchan.

Other witnesses with special knowledge in this area of the law and administration will include Members of Congress who have sponsored privacy legislation, representatives of the National Governors Conference, the National Legislative