[House Report 104-94]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     104-94
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                 FAMILY PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 1995

                                _______


 March 29, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1271]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
    The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 1271) to provide protection for 
family privacy, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.
                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................3
 II. Legislative Hearings and Committee Actions.......................7
III. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony.........................7
 IV. Explanation of the Bill..........................................9
  V. Compliance with Rule XI.........................................13
 VI. Budget Analysis and Projections.................................13
VII. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office................13
VIII.
     Inflationary Impact Statement...................................13
 IX. Changes in Existing Law.........................................14
  X. Committee Recommendation........................................14
 XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1..............14
XII. Appendix........................................................15

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Family Privacy Protection Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. FAMILY PRIVACY PROTECTION.

    (a) Restriction on Seeking Information From Minors.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to section 6, in 
conducting a program or activity funded in whole or in part by the 
Federal Government a person may not, without the consent of at least 
one parent or guardian of a minor or, in the case of an emancipated 
minor, the prior consent of the minor, require or otherwise seek the 
response of the minor to a survey or questionnaire intended to elicit 
information concerning any of the following:
          (1) Parental political affiliations or beliefs.
          (2) Mental or psychological problems.
          (3) Sexual behavior or attitudes.
          (4) Illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating behavior.
          (5) Appraisals of other individuals with whom the minor has a 
        familial relationship.
          (6) Relationships that are legally recognized as privileged, 
        including those with lawyers, physicians, and members of the 
        clergy.
          (7) Religious affiliations or beliefs.
    (b) General Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any of 
the following:
          (1) The seeking of information for the purpose of a criminal 
        investigation or adjudication.
          (2) Any inquiry made pursuant to a good faith concern for the 
        health, safety, or welfare of an individual minor.
          (3) Administration of the immigration, internal revenue, or 
        customs laws of the United States.
          (4) The seeking of any information required by law to 
        determine eligibility for participation in a program or for 
        receiving financial assistance.
    (c) Exclusion of Academic Performance Tests From Restrictions.--Any 
restriction under any provision of Federal law on the seeking of 
information from minors through surveys, questionnaires, analyses, or 
evaluations shall not apply to any test intended to measure academic 
performance.

SEC. 3. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

    The head of any Federal department or agency which provides funds 
for any program or activity involving the seeking of any response from 
a minor to any survey or questionnaire shall establish procedures by 
which the department, agency, or its grantees shall notify minors and 
their parents of protections provided under this Act. The procedures 
shall also provide for advance public availability of each 
questionnaire or survey to which a response from a minor is sought.

SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE.

    The head of each Federal department or agency shall establish such 
procedures as are necessary to ensure compliance with this Act and the 
privacy of information obtained pursuant to this Act by the department 
or agency and its grantees. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
foreclose any individual from obtaining judicial relief if requested 
monetary damages are not in excess of $500.

SEC. 5. MINOR DEFINED.

    In this Act, the terms ``minor'' and ``emancipated minor'' will be 
defined under the laws of the State in which the individual resides.

SEC. 6. APPLICATION.

    This Act does not apply to any program or activity which is subject 
to the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.).

SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                      short summary of legislation

    H.R. 1271, The Family Privacy Protection Act, establishes a 
consent requirement for those conducting a survey or 
questionnaire funded in whole or part by the Federal 
Government. Those seeking responses of minors on surveys or 
questionnaires must obtain parental/guardian consent before 
asking seven types of sensitive questions. The bill also 
provides five types of common sense exceptions from this 
requirement.
    Areas of concern for which parental consent is required for 
minors are questions related to: parental political affiliation 
or beliefs; mental or psychological problems; sexual behavior 
or attitudes; illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating 
behavior; appraisals of other individuals with whom the minor 
has a familial relationship; relationships that are legally 
recognized as privileged, including those with lawyers, 
physicians, and members of the clergy; and religious 
affiliations and beliefs.
    The areas of exception are: the seeking of information for 
the purpose of a criminal investigation or adjudication; any 
inquiry made pursuant to a good faith concern for the health, 
safety, or welfare of an individual minor; administration of 
the immigration, internal revenue or customs laws of the United 
States; the seeking of any information required by law to 
determine eligibility for participation in a program or for 
receiving financial assistance; and seeking information to 
conduct tests intended to measure academic performance.
    The legislation requires that Federal agencies provide 
implementation procedures and ensure full compliance with the 
legislation. The procedures shall provide for advance 
availability of each survey or questionnaire for which a 
response from a minor is sought. The Family Privacy Protection 
Act does not apply to the Department of Education, because a 
similar provision is already contained in the General Education 
Provisions Act pertaining to that department. The Act would 
become effective 90 days after enactment.

               i. background and need for the legislation

    The Contract With America includes a commitment to protect 
and strengthen the rights of families. As part of this 
commitment, H.R. 1271, ``The Family Privacy Protection Act of 
1995,'' provides for parents/guardians' rights to supervise and 
choose their children's participation in any Federally funded 
survey or questionnaire that involves intrusive questioning on 
sensitive issues. H.R. 1271 is an outgrowth of the original 
legislation provided for the Title IV of H.R. 11, The Family 
Reinforcement Act, which is included as part of the Contract 
With America.
    The American family is critical to the very core of our 
civilization. It is through the family that values such as 
responsibility, commitment, and faith are learned. Today it 
appears that the values of families are under siege and being 
undermined. The Family Privacy Protection Act is intended to 
help correct this. The Act strikes a delicate balance between 
the legitimate interest of those engaging in Federally funded 
research to obtain information, and the interests of parents in 
protecting family privacy and children.
    The legislation responds to the concerns of many parents/
guardians that certain Federally funded surveys or 
questionnaires have inappropriately delved into matters which 
should be left to families themselves. Also, children should 
not be subjected to improper questions. In some cases, survey 
questions have been phrased in a manner that suggests 
neutrality, or even tacit approval for behavior or attitudes 
which may be contrary to the values held by parents/guardians. 
This legislation addresses this unintended result.

A. Constitutional rights of parents

    In recognizing the right of parents/guardians to supervise 
the upbringing of their children, this legislation logically 
dovetails with Supreme Court precedents. A landmark Supreme 
Court case in the protection of this right is Meyer v. 
Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). The State of Nebraska had 
enacted a statute which prohibited all school teachers from 
teaching children in foreign languages. The purpose of the 
statute was to encourage immigrants to adapt to American life 
by forcing them to learn, speak, and think in English. Meyer, a 
parochial school teacher, was convicted for teaching in German 
to a ten year-old child, and he appealed his conviction to the 
Supreme Court. The Court struck down the Nebraska statute as 
violating the Fourteenth Amendment, in that it prohibited 
parents from employing teachers to teach their children in a 
manner that the parents thought best.
    A few years after Meyer, the Supreme Court extended the 
primacy of parents in the upbringing of the children in Pierce 
v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). In Pierce, the 
State of Oregon enacted legislation which largely foreclosed 
private schooling by requiring public school attendance through 
eighth grade. Citing its ruling in Meyer, the Court struck down 
the Oregon statute as violative of parents' Fourteenth 
Amendment liberty interest in directing the upbringing of their 
children.
    Only a few years after Pierce, the Court, in Farrington v. 
Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284 (1927), struck down a statute of the 
then Territory of Hawaii which severely curtailed the 
activities of private foreign language schools, most of which 
had Japanese curricula. In striking down the statute, the 
Supreme Court stated ``[t]he Japanese parent has the right to 
direct the education of his own child without unreasonable 
restrictions; the Constitution protects him as well as those 
who speak another tongue.'' Farrington at 298.
    The right of parents to supervise the upbringing of their 
children was reaffirmed in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 
(1972). In Yoder Amish parents had been convicted under 
Wisconsin's compulsory attendance law which required all 
children under age 16 to attend some form of public or private 
school. In the view of Wisconsin authorities, the Amish had not 
satisfactorily complied with this law because the Amish had 
alternative preparation for their children. The Amish parents 
in Yoder refused to allow their children to participate in 
public education after the eighth grade, relying instead on 
training that prepared them for the distinctive Amish way of 
life.
    The Supreme Court struck down Wisconsin's compulsory 
attendance law, as it applied to the Amish, holding that 
Wisconsin's interest in compelling an additional two years of 
public schooling was outweighed by the parents' First and 
Fourteenth Amendment interest in maintaining their own system 
of preparing their children for Amish life. The Court's words 
in striking down the Wisconsin law as it applied to the Amish 
are of great significance. The Court noted:

          The history and culture of Western civilization 
        reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the 
        nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary 
        role for parents in the upbringing of their children is 
        now established beyond debate as an enduring American 
        tradition. Yoder at 232.

    The Family Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 1271) recognizes 
the right of parents/guardians to a primary role in the 
upbringing of their children. The Act allows parents/guardians 
to shield their children from certain intrusions by public 
institutions into matters of family privacy. The legislation is 
firmly grounded in established precedents of the Supreme Court.

B. Legislative history

    Legislation protecting the privacy of minors from Federally 
sponsored questioning traces its origins to the General 
Education Provisions Act (GEPA) (Public Law 90-247, January 2, 
1968, as amended).
    The GEPA, originally enacted as Title IV of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967 (P.L. 90-247), 
brought together in one document statutory provisions enacted 
during the previous 100 years that applied to Federal education 
programs. Since 1970, most major acts extending Federal 
education programs' authorization for appropriations, have 
amended GEPA in some significant way. Three of those changes 
have greatly affected the section of GEPA on ``Protection of 
Pupils'': (1) the ``Kemp amendment'' of 1974; (2) the ``Hatch 
amendment'' of 1978; and (3) the ``Grassley amendment'' of 
1994.
    1. The Kemp amendment (P.L. 93-380, August 21, 1974) 
required that parents of pupils participating in Federally 
assisted educational ``research or experimentation program[s] 
or project[s]'' be provided access to the instructional 
materials used therein. A ``research or experimentation program 
or project'' was defined as an instructional activity using 
``new or unproven teaching methods or techniques.''
    2. The Hatch amendment (P.L. 95-561, November 1, 1978) 
enhanced pupil protection by inserting several provisions of 
the Privacy Act of 1974 to apply specifically in cases covered 
by the Kemp amendment. The provision prohibited requiring 
pupils to participate in certain forms of testing as part of a 
Federally assisted education program, without the prior consent 
of the pupil (if an adult or emancipated minor) or the pupil's 
parent/guardian. The requirement was specific in referring to 
``psychiatric'' or ``psychological'' tests or treatments that 
gather information on: political affiliations; ``potentially 
embarrassing'' mental or psychological problems; sexual 
behavior or attitudes; illegal, antisocial, or ``demeaning'' 
behavior; ``critical appraisals'' of family members; privileged 
relationships, such as those with lawyers, physicians, or 
ministers; or income (except where necessary to determine 
eligibility for financial aid).
    3. The Grassley amendment (P.L. 103-227, General Education 
Provisions Act, March 31, 1994) sought to restore parents/
guardians' rights and powers in obtaining the redress of family 
privacy violations resulting from intrusive questions or 
improper procedures. The provision was no longer limited to 
only research or experimentation programs or projects and 
psychiatric or psychological tests. It expanded consent 
requirements to ``any survey, analysis, or evaluation'' that 
was Federally assisted. The Grassley amendment also contained a 
lower threshold for triggering the consent requirement. 
Questions that happen to reveal private information trigger the 
prior-consent requirement, not just questions with a primary 
purpose of revealing private information. According to a 
Congressional Research Service memorandum, the Department of 
Education had yet to modify its regulations in order to reflect 
any of the Grassley amendment provisions as of March 1995.

C. Need for the legislation

    Because the Grassley amendment impacts only the Department 
of Education, not all intrusions on family privacy by Federally 
sponsored questionnaires or surveys are being addressed. New 
legislation is necessary to expand the scope of parental 
consent requirements to cover surveys or questionnaires funded 
by agencies other than the Department of Education.
    Some of the Federal Nationwide surveys, not now covered by 
the Grassley amendment, that might be affected by the Family 
Privacy Protection Act include: Head Start and other child 
development programs, as well as potentially health or welfare 
related surveys of the Department of Health and Human Services; 
child nutrition programs of the Department of Agriculture; 
education and related programs of the National Science 
Foundation and National Endowments for the Arts and the 
Humanities; and national surveys done by the Department of 
Commerce's Bureau of the Census, either as part of its own 
decennial population updates or as contract work for other 
Federal departments and agencies.
    The Department of Health and Human Services and the Bureau 
of the Census regularly conduct and update a number of large-
scale nationwide surveys that include minors among the 
respondents. None of these surveys, as currently conducted 
(except where noted otherwise), require all parents/guardians 
of participating minors to provide verbal or written consent. 
To the extent that any of H.R. 1271's seven categories of 
private information might be revealed in the course of 
surveying, the proposed legislation would significantly affect 
the conduct of these surveys.
    National Crime Victimization Survey: Conducted by the 
Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 
the Department of Justice, the survey contacts 10,000 
households per month. About two-thirds of the respondents are 
contacted by telephone and the balance are surveyed in person. 
Minors as young as 12 years old are asked questions addressing 
a range of crimes. A number of questions specifically focused 
on date rape and sexual assault. Respondents aged 12 and 13 are 
not surveyed, unless prior verbal parental consent is obtained.
    National Health Interview Survey: Conducted by the Bureau 
of the Census on behalf of the Department of Health and Human 
Services, and HHH's constituents agencies, Public Health 
Service, Centers for Disease Control, and the National Center 
for Health Statistics. About 1400 households per week are 
contacted in person. Questions are asked of respondents 17 
years and older and address health categories including diet, 
tobacco use, alcohol and/or drug use, and sexual behavior. No 
parental consent is obtained when surveying minors.
    Youth Risk Behavior Survey: Conducted by the National 
Center for Health Statistics of the Department of Health and 
Human Services. The Center's biannual survey is administered to 
high school students. Consent is required only if the state and 
local school district administering the survey requests it.

             II. LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS AND COMMITTEE ACTIONS

    H.R. 11, Title IV was referred to the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight. The Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information, and Technology held a hearing on March 
16, 1995. The bill was marked-up in the Government Management, 
Information, and Technology Subcommittee on March 22, 1995, 
where Subcommittee Chairman Horn presented an amendment in the 
form of a substitute to H.R. 11, Title IV. This amendment was 
introduced as H.R. 1271 on March 21, 1995.
    Two amendments were considered and adopted without 
objection. The first, offered by Rep. Maloney, Subcommittee 
Ranking Minority Member, required that agency rules and 
regulations promulgated pursuant to the legislation provide for 
protection of the confidentiality of survey data. The other 
amendment, offered by Rep. Tate, provided for advance public 
availability of proposed surveys and questionnaires. The 
legislation passed the Subcommittee unanimously by voice vote.
    The Government Reform and Oversight Committee met on March 
23, 1995, to consider H.R. 1271. Chairman Clinger presented an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1271 reflecting 
the two Subcommittee amendments. The bill, as amended, was 
favorably reported to the House unanimously by voice vote and 
without further amendment by the full Committee.

             III. COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY

    On Thursday, March 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information, and Technology, of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, met pursuant to notice. The 
purpose of the hearing was to solicit comments from interested 
parties on Title IV of H.R. 11, the Family Reinforcement Act.
    Subcommittee Chairman Horn stated at the opening of the 
hearing that the Subcommittee would strike a delicate balance 
and produce a bill that would not endanger minors' health and 
safety nor handicap law enforcement operations. At the same 
time, the bill would provide necessary and needed safeguards to 
ensure the primacy of parents/guardians' authority. He noted 
that the legislation attempted to tip the balance back to the 
rights of families. Ranking Member Maloney questioned whether 
requiring written permission to ask questions of minors would 
have a deleterious impact on agencies questioning children. She 
also expressed concern about the confidentiality of the 
information obtained. Rep. Maloney advocated excluding from 
parental consent requirements interviews of young children who 
had experienced, or who were suspected of having been subjected 
to, some sort of parental abuse. Similarly, she indicated that 
exceptions should apply to police, teachers, and counselors.
    Senator Grassley, in testimony before the Subcommittee, 
welcomed expansion of the privacy protection afforded families 
in his 1994 amendment to the General Education Provisions Act 
of 1968. The Senator stated that the terms ``survey, analysis 
or evaluation'' in his amendment and in the proposed 
legislation, had been deliberately chosen to be broad in scope. 
He approved of applying the parental consent requirement to all 
Federally funded programs because many of the surveys regarded 
as offensive had not been covered by his 1994 amendment.
    Dr. Lloyd Johnston, Program Director, Survey Research 
Center, University of Michigan, testified that the legislation, 
as proposed, might hamper social science research because 
conducting surveys involving minors would be made more 
difficult. According to Dr. Johnston, introducing a prior 
written consent requirement would unduly hamper social science 
research as presently conducted among minors in a school 
setting. The normal response rate to a request for written 
consent was estimated at 55 percent. With follow-up, it could 
be increased to between 96 percent and 99 percent. Without 
follow-up, a 55 percent response rate could diminish the value 
of research.
    Dr. Matthew Hilton, a member of the Utah Bar and an 
authority on family privacy issues, cited the difficulties 
parents/guardians faced in getting redress when children were 
required to answer surveys against their parents/guardians' 
wishes. He welcomed efforts to protect family autonomy and 
privacy and advocated a private enforcement mechanism. Dr. 
Hilton alleged that courts sometimes ignored the plain language 
of statutes for privacy protection. Protections afforded to 
individuals might be of limited value unless the individuals 
had the opportunity to challenge such actions in court.
    Ms. Sally Katzen, Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, and Dr. William T. Butz, Associate Director, 
Demographic Programs, Bureau of the Census, testified on behalf 
of the Administration. The Department of Health and Human 
Services was invited to send a representative but declined to 
provide one.
    Ms. Katzen testified that in most social science research, 
it is current standard practice to require some form of 
parental consent before interviewing minors. In addition, the 
Privacy Act bars Federal agencies from inquiring about 
political affiliations or religious beliefs without consent. 
However, written consent is not generally required; verbal or 
implied consent is sufficient. She noted consent is often 
regarded as implicit when a parent neglects to return a mailed 
consent slip.
    Ms. Katzen claimed that a policy shift from passive implied 
consent to active written consent would burden individual 
parents, school staff, and those engaged in the research. 
Response rates would suffer because parents who felt bothered 
might withhold consent and schools might decide not to 
participate because of the extra work required to secure 
written parental consent. She testified that a written consent 
requirement would reduce response rates, lessen the reliability 
of results, and significantly raise the cost of proceeding with 
surveys.
    Dr. Butz described three surveys conducted by his agency: 
the National Crime Victimization Survey; the Youth Behavior 
Survey; and the Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey. 
Parental consent is required for all three of these, but it 
need not be in writing. His testimony cited the additional cost 
of getting written consent.
    The Department of Justice and the Office of Health 
Legislation of the Department of Health and Human Services also 
sent written comments. Both Departments suggested the proposed 
language could compromise child protection intervention. They 
noted that survey participation was always voluntary on the 
part of the minor.

                      iv. explanation of the bill

A. Overview

    The existing administrative framework for the collection of 
information with Federal funds is provided by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.\1\ Pursuant to that Act, the Office of 
Management and Budget reviews the collection of data by all 
government agencies and has established implementing rules and 
regulations.
    \1\ The Act consists of the Paperwork Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-511, 94 
Stat. 2812) as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1986 (section 
101 (m) [Title VIII, Part A]) of P.L. 99-500 and P.L. 99-591, 100 Stat. 
1783-335, 3341-335. The Act is codified at Chapter 35 of Title 44 of 
the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Paperwork Reduction Act contains no special provision 
for minors or the consent of their parent/guardian for privacy-
related questions. The Paperwork Reduction Act covers 
``information collection,'' which as defined, covers a broader 
range of activities. These include the obtaining or soliciting 
of facts or opinions by an agency through the use of 
applications, computerized or written forms, questionnaires, 
reporting or recordkeeping requirements, schedules, or other 
similar methods calling for answers to identical questions.
    The comparable terms used in the Family Privacy Protection 
Act, ``survey or questionnaire,'' are more restricted. The 
Paperwork Reduction Act specifically exempts certain agencies, 
whereas the Family Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 1271) covers 
all agencies not subject to the General Education Provisions 
Act of 1968, as amended.
    For the sake of economy and efficiency, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) should draft general rules and 
regulations that each agency could adopt. Similarly, OMB could 
change its existing procedures for the collection of 
information to include the Family Privacy Protection Act 
requirements. The requirements of the Family Privacy Protection 
Act (H.R. 1271) take effect 90 days after enactment and would 
apply to current grantees of department and agencies, not just 
future recipients of funds. Therefore, time will be of the 
essence in providing those conducting surveys and 
questionnaires with necessary guidance through implementing 
rules and regulations. By incorporating the requirements of the 
Family Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 1271) into these existing 
administrative processes, OMB can assure expeditious 
implementation.
B. Section by section analysis

            Section 1. Short title
    Section 1 provides the bill's short title, the ``Family 
Privacy Protection Act of 1995.''
            Sec. 2(a). Family privacy protection
    Section 2(a) establishes the requirement that the 
administrators of Federally funded surveys and questionnaires 
obtain parental consent before asking seven kinds of sensitive 
or inappropriate questions.
    The provision covers Federally funded programs or 
activities. The intent is to include ``surveys or 
questionnaires'' which the Federal government either performs, 
or else contracts for, or provides funding through its programs 
or activities. Also covered would be programs, grants, or 
contracts in which it would be anticipated that a survey or 
questionnaire would be essential to fulfill the requirements. 
The Federal funds standard is similar to the one used under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.
    The provision requires active consent from a parent/
guardian. The consent can be handled in various ways, including 
in writing. However, mere notice of a survey is not enough to 
satisfy the consent requirement. Essentially there is a two 
tier test necessary for consent:
    First, the parent/guardian needs to have disclosure about 
the survey or questionnaire. This means that the method used to 
communicate with the parent/guardian must have a very high 
degree of likelihood of reaching the parent/guardian along with 
a description of the survey and the purpose for which it is 
being used. Also, the notice given should include enough 
information about the ``privacy'' content of the survey or 
questionnaire that the parent/guardian can make an informed 
decision whether or not to provide consent. This requirement 
would necessitate obtaining a separate consent for each survey 
or questionnaire.
    Second, the parent/guardian must have an opportunity to 
decline. It should be clear to the parent/guardian that, if 
they so choose, they can decline to have their minor children 
participate in the survey. Furthermore, the notification must 
provide for a readily accessible method for the parent/guardian 
to exercise the option to decline. Neither the parent/guardians 
nor their children should be exposed to any additional pressure 
to participate or be subject to public identification as having 
exercised their option not to participate.
    A parent/guardian's failure to respond to notification by 
itself does not constitute implied consent. Consent must 
involve both disclosure and the opportunity to decline.
    The language ``require, or otherwise seek the response'' 
reflects the fact that the prohibition applies to the program 
or agency conducting a survey, and does not change the ability 
of minors to exercise their free speech rights. We note that 
surveys and questionnaires do not provide for self-selection or 
self-initiation by participants. Those conducting research 
initiate contact with potential survey participants. 
Consequently when the parent/guardian's consent for a minor is 
lacking, the minor involved shall not participate.
    The seven categories of privacy questions covered by the 
Family Privacy Protection Act are:
          1. Parental political affiliations or beliefs;
          2. Mental or psychological problems;
          3. Sexual behavior or attitudes;
          4. Illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating 
        behavior;
          5. Appraisals of other individuals with whom the 
        minor has a familial relationship;
          6. Relationships that are legally recognized as 
        privileged, including those with lawyers, physicians, 
        and members of the clergy; and with whom the minor has 
        a familial relationship;
          7. Religious affiliations and beliefs.
    With regard to the ``privilege'' privacy category, the law 
of the State in which the minor resides should be used to 
determine whether a relationship should be considered 
privileged.
            Sec. 2(b). General exceptions
    This section establishes four out of five exceptions under 
which privacy impact questions may be asked of a minor without 
the consent of a parent or guardian. These common sense 
exceptions reflect circumstances in which other societal 
interests or the interests of the minor are overriding.
    The four general exceptions are:
          1. The seeking of information for the purpose of a 
        criminal investigation or adjudication;
          2. Any inquiry made pursuant to a good faith concern 
        for the health, safety, or welfare of an individual 
        minor;
          3. Administration of the immigration, internal 
        revenue, or customs laws of the United States; and
          4. The seeking of any information required by law to 
        determine eligibility for participation in a program or 
        for receiving financial assistance.
    Each of these four exceptions involves specific, individual 
circumstances in order to be triggered. The criminal 
investigation or adjudication requires a specific investigation 
or adjudication.
    An inquiry can be made pursuant to a reasonable concern for 
the health, safety, or welfare of an individual. The essential 
requirement is a reasonable belief that an individual minor is 
at risk and evidence to show that such an inquiry is 
appropriate. Using the ``health, safety, or welfare'' exception 
to circumvent parental consent on prohibited topics is not 
acceptable, e.g., a survey on sexual behavior or attitudes 
would not be covered by this exception.
    The Committee's intent with regard to Sec. 2(b)(2) is 
narrow. It guards against possible misinterpretation of the Act 
in cases in which an inquiry, without prior parental approval, 
is clearly appropriate. For example, it might, under some 
circumstances, be suitable for a teacher to ask questions of a 
student who shows signs of physical abuse. It might be proper 
for a health care provider to ask an apparently malnourished 
child about his or her meals at home. This is a common-sense 
approach to problem situations. It cannot be used as an excuse 
or rationale for administering a survey or questionnaire 
without the consent of a parent/guardian.
    The ``administrative'' exception of Sec. 2(b)(3) applies to 
surveys or questionnaires used during the course of routine 
administrative interactions with individual citizens. Examples 
of this include customs or immigration forms given to a minor 
who may be traveling without a parent/guardian. This provision 
does not establish a blanket exception permitting the affected 
agencies to conduct surveys or questionnaires that do not 
comply with the parental consent requirements.
            Sec. 2(c). Exclusion of academic tests
    Tests intended to measure academic performance are excluded 
from the parental consent requirements. The exclusion applies 
only to tests whose sole purpose is to measure academic 
performance. A survey or questionnaire which reaches beyond 
that goal would not fall under the exclusion.
            Sec. 3. Notification procedures
    This provision requires Federal departments and agencies to 
establish notification procedures under the Act. The procedures 
shall provide for advance public availability of each survey or 
questionnaire to which a response from a minor is sought.
    The procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act already 
provide for public involvement in the OMB's review of agency 
requests for the collection of information. Once an agency 
files a proposed collection of information with OMB for 
approval, all materials are a matter of public record. Agencies 
requesting OMB approval must concurrently notify the public 
through the Federal Register. The procedures further provide 
that any person may participate in the OMB review by furnishing 
comments.
    Agencies should consider accelerating public notification 
by involving interested individuals and groups prior to 
submission to OMB. The hope is that those planning a 
prospective survey or questionnaire have the opportunity to 
incorporate the concerns of interested parties into the 
development of their data requests, surveys, and 
questionnaires. Both agencies and OMB should consider the use 
of creative technological means to encourage public access to 
the process, for example, through the use of the Internet or 
Fax-on-demand.
            Sec. 4. Compliance
    This section requires that the head of each Federal 
department or agency shall establish such procedures as are 
necessary to ensure compliance with the Act. As discussed 
above, the existing review process for ``information 
collection'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act could provide a 
framework for this, and thereby assure an expeditious 
implementation of this Act.
    The section also provides that the Act should not be 
construed to foreclose any individual from obtaining judicial 
relief if requested monetary damages are not in excess of $500.
            Sec. 5. Minor and emancipated minor defined
    The terms ``minor'' and ``emancipated minor'' will be 
defined under the laws of the State in which the individual to 
be surveyed resides. No single Federal law covers these 
provisions, and State laws vary; therefore, these definitions 
will be provided by State law.
            Sec. 6. Application
    This section excludes the Act from applying to any program 
or activity subject to the General Education Provisions Act of 
1968, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.). This essentially 
removes the Department of Education from the Family Privacy 
Protection Act. As discussed above, the General Education 
Provisions Act, as amended, contained the Grassley amendment 
which provided similar family privacy protection provisions. 
Those requirements, therefore, are not affected by this Act.
            Sec. 7. Effective date
    The Act shall take effect 90 days after its enactment. Upon 
effect it will apply to current grantees of department and 
agencies, not just future recipients.

                       v. compliance with rule xi

    Pursuant to rule XI, 2(l)(3)(A), of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, under the authority of rule X, clause 
2(b)(1) and clause 3(f), the results and findings from those 
oversight activities are incorporated in the recommendations 
found in the bill and amended in this report.

                  vi. budget analysis and projections

    This Act provides for no new authorization or budget 
authority or tax expenditures. Consequently, the provisions of 
section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act are not 
applicable.

         vii. cost estimate of the congressional budget office

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, March 28, 1995.
Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 1271, the Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995, 
as ordered reported by the House Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight on March 23, 1995. The bill would require that 
parental consent be obtained before minors would be surveyed on 
certain topics, such as parental political affiliations or 
beliefs, sexual behavior, and illegal activities.
    CBO estimates that enactment of H.R. 1271 would not 
significantly affect the Federal budget. Staff at the Census 
Bureau and Public Health Service--two of the agencies for whom 
H.R. 1271 would potentially have the most impact--indicate that 
the bill would have little or no effect on the activities of 
these agencies, because current consent practices would cover 
the requirements of H.R. 1271. Pay-as-you-go procedures would 
not apply because the bill would not affect direct spending or 
receipts.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are John Webb 
for the effects of the Census Bureau and Connie Takata for the 
impact on the Public Health Service.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
                  viii. inflationary impact statement

    In accordance with rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, this legislation is assessed to 
have no inflationary effect on prices and costs in the 
operation of the national economy.

                      ix. changes in existing law

    Clause 3 of the rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that any change in existing law made 
by the bill, as reported, be shown with the existing law 
proposed to be omitted enclosed in black brackets, new matter 
printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is 
proposed shown in roman. This provision is inapplicable for the 
reported bill, which makes no change in existing law. Instead, 
it provides new authority for the parents or guardians to 
decide whether to consent to the participation of their minor 
children in Federally funded surveys or questionnaires.

                      x. committee recommendation

    On March 23, 1995, a quorum being present, the Committee 
ordered the bill favorably reported.

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight--104th Congress Rollcall

    Date: March 23, 1995.
    Amendment No. 1.
    Description: Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
(Showing the Amendments Adopted by the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information and Technology on March 22, 
1995)
    Offered By: Mr. Clinger.
    Voice Vote: Ayes.
    Date: March 23, 1995.
    Final Passage of H.R. 1271.
    Offered By: Mr. Horn.
    Voice Vote: Ayes.

    xi. congressional accountability act; public law 104-1; section 
                               102(b)(3)

    This provision is inapplicable to the legislative branch 
because it does not relate to any terms or conditions of 
employment or access to public services or accommodations.
                             XII. APPENDIX

                              ----------                              

                          Committee on Economic and
                                 Educational Opportunities,
                                    Washington, DC, March 21, 1995.
Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Rayburn House 
        Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Clinger: Thank you for working with me in 
developing changes to provisions contained in H.R. 11, the 
Family Reinforcement Act, specifically those changes effecting 
Title IV, Family Privacy Protection. I understand that you 
intend to adopt and report these provisions through a bill you 
introduced last evening, H.R. 1271, the Family Privacy 
Protection Act of 1995. As you know, similar provisions are 
contained in the General Provisions Act (GEPA) governing the 
Department of Education; the provisions of GEPA are within the 
sole jurisdiction of the Economic and Educational Opportunities 
Committee.
    Based on our agreed changes and our joint desire to 
expedite the legislative process and since H.R. 1271 are 
essential components of the ``Contract with America'', the 
Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee has no desire 
to delay the House's consideration of this important measure. 
Therefore, I do not intend to seek sequential referral of your 
reported bill. However, the Committee does hold an interest in 
preserving its future jurisdiction with respect to issues 
raised in Title IV of H.R. 11 and H.R. 1271 and its 
jurisdictional prerogatives should the provisions of this bill 
or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a conference 
with the Senate.
    Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the 
amendments to H.R. 11 and look forward to working with you on 
these issues in the future.
            Sincerely,
                                           Bill Goodling, Chairman.