With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 514 U.S. 779, 821, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995)). It logically follows that if Congress values the privacy interests acknowledged in the Congressional record, and authorizes the DOE to enforce those privacy interests, it must also contemplate that the DOE experiences the irreparable harm suffered by those students whose privacy interests are violated. See generally United States v. City and County of San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29-31, 60 S.Ct. 749, 84 L.Ed. 1050 (1940) (interpreting a statute that allowed the United States to enjoin San Francisco, presumably for the benefit of the City’s citizens, without requiring the United States to show irreparable harm); see also Board of Comm’rs of Jackson County v. United States, 308 U.S. 343, 349, 60 S.Ct. 285, 84 L.Ed. 313 (1939) (<HOLDING>). Viewing this conclusion in conjunction with

A: recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions 
B: recognizing the united statess authority to enforce a treaty and in so doing sue on behalf of a native american who had been improperly taxed by jackson county kansas
C: holding that the county attorney had de facto authority and noting that the objection to the county attorneys authority was first made on appeal
D: holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county
B.