Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Fine. I yielded to you on my time, but if that is how you want to do it, fine. I will say this: There is nothing in this language that says you are leasing a particular type of aircraft. This is the same language that was used which gave the Air Force the ability to get the Gulfstreams. If my friend wants to change the language, that is great, but the language is the same. The Air Force took that language and is buying luxury jets, and besides which the GAO says do not get any more because they do not even know what they have they are so disorganized over there when it comes to the operational airlift.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska for giving me a little bit of time. I began to doubt my own memory, but I am glad that he agreed that I did, in fact, yield to him. Of course, I have tremendous respect for him, but I don't agree with him on this particular issue. I want to address what one of my dearest friends in the Senate, Senator Inouye said. He said: I don't want to see our generals and people who put their lives on the line for their country flying around in a commercial jet. I totally understand that. I didn't disagree with him on that. I say to my friend from Hawaii that I personally don't want the generals traveling around via United or TWA. That is not what this is about. I want to make sure we have the appropriate number of operational support aircraft in the fleet. We know--because the GAO took a long time investigating--that in fact the joint staff has not maintained records documenting its previous requirement reviews, so it is not possible to determine whether some options for reducing requirements were examined. I say to my friend from Hawaii that the issue isn't that we shouldn't have operational support aircraft. Of course, we have to and we must. But why on Earth do we go ahead in this appropriations bill with language identical to that which we saw last year which resulted in the Air Force going out with a proposal for six of the most expensive luxury jets? We now have the same language for nine jets. There is no limit on language that the Navy or the Army can come back with. That is why we are structuring it. We are simply saying it would be fiscally responsible. I am one of the people who, years ago when I was in the House, found--I forget how much it was--I think it was an $11,000 coffeepot, something like that, and the expensive wrenches and spare parts the military was using. Every time I got up on the floor of the House I was truly lectured: You don't know what you are saying. There is no backup for this. Eventually they believed we were right. They weren't going out for competitive bids for these spare parts. I question no one in this Senate in terms of their wanting the best defense we can have. But I don't think we get the best defense when we waste dollars. I am suggesting that the language in this appropriations bill, believe it or not, doesn't have a cap. Am I right on that point? It has no cap. It has no dollar figure. It only caps the number of aircraft to nine. But if they do what the Air Force did--Senator Stevens says they won't, and perhaps they won't--but if they did do what the Air Force said, it would be almost one-half billion dollars. Our amendment says strike that language. Let's have more of a review. Let's not waste money. We weren't born yesterday. We know people love to travel in luxury. There is not one person listening to this debate who wouldn't enjoy kicking back on this type of luxury jet. Let's show a picture of it. That is not the question. But the issue is whether taxpayers have to spend that much money when we don't know what is in the requirements. We don't know what planes are in the Air Force, the Marines, or the Army. We do not have a study. It simply says operational support airlift requirements are not sufficiently justified. We don't know what is in the garage. Let's put it that way. That was the verb I was looking for. We don't know what is in the garage. Let's not go out and willy-nilly allow them to get an additional nine aircraft. These are beautiful aircraft. There is no question they are wonderful. But we were told: Oh, well. Maybe the Senator from Alaska believed that he said he fully expected them to get the Gulfstream. I remember the debate a little differently. The debate was that we were not sure what they were going to wind up getting. They were going to wind up getting these. Just because the Air Force has them doesn't mean we have to have them in the Army. It doesn't mean we have to have them in the Navy. I think Senator Harkin was right. He said he knows airplanes. He knows aircraft. This is about luxury. What the military should be about is mission. What is the mission? What do we need and what do we have? The GAO report clearly is telling us they do not know what they have. I think it is rather embarrassing; they do not know what they have. Yet we are going ahead as if everything was wonderful. No one on our side of the argument--we had over 30 people last time--has ever said that we don't have anything but the greatest respect for our generals and our admirals. But we have respect for the taxpayers. Senators can argue with one another. I don't know what we appropriate for the GAO every year, but they have some very smart investigators. They made an investigation and said: We don't know what they have. Why should we get any more until we really know for sure? Thank you very much.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I believe anyone who listens to us will agree this issue of privacy of medical records is really moving to the forefront of American public discourse. I think we all believe certain things should be private. Certainly our medical records should be private unless we are very willing to discuss them or have them discussed. I am very pleased Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye support this amendment, and having received assurances they will work for it in the conference, I am not going to ask for a recorded vote. But I think it is a breakthrough that the managers have accepted this amendment. I wish to make a point here about privacy of medical records. The Department of Defense is no better or no worse than any other Federal agency because all the Federal agencies have been going by the rules that were set forth in 1974. I do not know how old you were in 1974, Mr. President, but it was a long time ago. That is when we wrote the rules surrounding privacy, the Privacy Act of 1974, that really govern all the rules of privacy surrounding Federal employees, be they in the military or in the nonmilitary. A cursory reading of the Privacy Act of 1974 will make your hair stand on end. It governs the privacy of medical records, but it says that no one can get your record unless you give prior written consent ``unless''--and here is the part you have to hear: Unless the records are disclosed within an agency to a person who needs it in the performance of the job. So anyone can get your record if they decide they want to see it as they do a job performance. Then it says an agency can get your record without your approval if it is for a routine use specified in the Federal Register. They can get your record, and listen to this, give it to the Census Bureau with your name attached: Barbara Boxer, this is her medical record. The Census Bureau needs your record so they can carry out a census survey. Maybe they want to find out which Federal employees had what disease. They can get those records for the census for statistical purposes, but they say the records would not be individually identifiable, so I suppose that is OK. Listen to this. The National Archives can get your record without your permission if your record has a sufficient historical value. So I say to the Presiding Officer, maybe someone in the National Archives is interested in his dad, the great Senator who preceded him, because they feel his records have sufficient historical value. That is absurd; they could get them if the agency released them. Then there is a big loophole: * * * because of a compelling circumstance affecting the health or safety of an individual. Imagine, someone decides there is a compelling circumstance to know any Senator's or any employee's or any clerk's disabilities, what medicines they are on. Oh, they can get it if there is a compelling circumstance. That is not defined. Congress can get your record. Congress has a right to get the record of every clerk sitting here, any person in any Federal agency, without their consent. Talk about Big Brother or Big Sister, as the case may be. They have the right to find out anybody's record, their medical record. What a stunning revelation this is, to read the 1974 Privacy Act. How about this one? The General Accounting Office, the GAO, doing a study--and we know we ask them to do many studies--can, in fact, get the record of any Federal employee with their name attached. A consumer reporting agency can go ahead and get that information. So here we have the Privacy Act of 1974. I have gone through it. Out of the 12 provisions, the exceptions, only 2 of them make sense. They have to do with criminality, but everything else makes no sense. I am very pleased Senators Stevens and Inouye understand this. I say to my friend from Alaska, under the Privacy Act that applies today, it is not just the military; it is all Federal agencies. I am just doing it here because this bill came out first. The DOD is absolutely no worse than any other agency. They are just following the Privacy Act of 1974. It is chilling to see how Congress can get an individual's medical record with their name attached or how the Census Bureau can get an individual's medical record with their name attached, without approval. In our amendment we simply say that, in fact, an individual needs to give permission, unless it is for a national security or law enforcement purpose. Then we say: Fine, you give up your rights in that particular case. Again, I am pleased; we are breaking fine new ground. We should apply what we are doing here to every agency. I will do that, by the way, on every appropriations bill I can because this is absolutely critical. I am delighted we are going to have a voice vote on this. I would like to have it accepted. A voice vote will be fine. This is not a complicated issue. This is a question of people in the military having peace of mind, knowing their records are secure. I will go away very pleased on this one. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call amendment No. 3363.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I do.

Mrs. BOXER. On the medical privacy?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about a little known, but very dark chapter in American history. While many are familiar with the deplorable treatment of Japanese-Americans and others of Japanese ancestry living in the United States during World War II, there is far less discussion and understanding of what Italian- Americans were forced to endure during that period. Italian-Americans refer to what happened at this time as ``Una Storia Segreta,'' or ``A Secret Story.'' Beginning before the war and until after Italy's surrender in 1943, Italian-Americans and those of Italian decent living in the United States were made suspects simply because of their country of origin. Like Japanese-Americans, they were subjected to all manner of civil rights violations including curfews, warrantless searches, summary arrests, exclusions, relocations and even internment. The United States must accept responsibility for its grievous treatment of Italian-Americans during World War II. To this end, Senator Torricelli has introduced S. 1909, the Wartime Violation of Italian-American Civil Liberties Act, a bill to require the Justice Department to make a full accounting of the injustices suffered by Italian-Americans during World War II. After the Justice Department completes its report, the President would formally acknowledge these injustices. I am pleased to cosponsor this overdue legislation. Although it may be painful to revisit and admit to the mistakes made during this time, I hope my colleagues would agree that it is the necessary and right thing to do.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for again putting this issue of prescription drugs into context. I am sure my friend would agree it isn't unusual for political parties to take polls. However, I think what my friend is trying to say--and I hope every American can see this document I am holding in my hand, this poll. This so-called ``research,'' done with the Republicans over on the House side, is a document that says it all. It is the most cynical document I have ever seen since Newt Gingrich had the same thing done when he took over the House, when they told the Republicans what words to use, not what bills to pass, not what would make a good piece of legislation to help the millions of Americans who need help, no, but how to get them reelected and kowtow to their friends in the insurance business, the HMOs, and so on. If the American people could just read this document, things would change around here. I am hoping they will read this document. I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask my friend if he has read the page that says ``Focus group findings.'' Again, focus groups aren't unusual. You bring people together and ask them to respond. I ask my friend about a couple of these points. They say: Upset seniors don't believe politicians, especially Republicans. They don't believe that, especially Republicans, understand how important and concerning this issue of prescription drugs is to them. This pollster, I am sure, made a lot of money to produce this document for my friends on the other side says. The pollster says: Message: I care. That is the message he wants Republicans to make: I care (but say it better than that). I care (but say it better than that). Then he says: It is more important to communicate that you have a plan as it is to communicate what is in the plan. What I want to say to my friend is this. After reading this, I expect they are going to come up with some phony deal that looks like a prescription drug plan. My friend has made a point: If that plan does nothing to make these prescription drugs affordable, what does it do for our people other than turn them off? I say to my friend, he knows people in this country are going to Canada to get prescription drugs. He discussed that. I know some are going on the Internet and trying to get drugs from Mexico, prescription drugs, because they cannot afford them here. The ultimate question, after making my comments, is this. This document goes through the fact that the Democrats are doing really well on these issues. Do you know why? Because the American people know we have a real plan on this. They don't think we are perfect because nobody is perfect, but we have a plan on this. The Republicans know they are going to lose this election unless they get a plan. So they tell their people to use certain expressions. Can my friend share with us some of his expressions? It says: How to talk about this issue. Our friends on the other side are told how to talk about the issue, what expressions to say in addition to ``I care.'' Maybe my friend will share some of that with the people?

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield further?

Mrs. BOXER. The other interesting number here is that the Republicans have found out, much to their chagrin, that Democrats have a 34-percent advantage--in the Republicans' own poll here--on improving the access to affordable health care and a 33-percent advantage on prescription drugs. So they take this information but they don't say, You know what, the Democrats are right on these issues. Let's go over to their side of the aisle. Let's call on President Clinton. He has been talking about protecting Medicare and so has Vice President Gore, and prescription drugs. Let's work together now. They don't do that. They set out a document here that instead of saying: We just found out President Clinton is right; We just found out the Democrats have been right; We have just found out that Al Gore is right when he says we need a Medicare lockbox. So maybe they cross the aisle? Maybe they come over here and visit us, we join hands, and go down the aisle together here and cast some votes for the people for a change? No. That is not the way they see it. They get this information and they basically do what my friend suggested. They are going to use the right words. They are going to attack us, they are going to scare people, and they are going to go home and say they have done something. I hope every American family can see this document today. In a way, I feel badly about it because it will build cynicism, but I will say this: The information in this document could be used to do the right thing. It is quite unfortunate that our friends on the other side of the aisle, instead of taking this information, recognizing they are wrong and joining us and President Clinton and Vice President Gore, they are going to create a sham plan for prescription drugs. They are going to say they are protecting Medicare while doing nothing. Sadly, the American people will lose, unless they make some changes around here. I thank my friend.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator from Alaska, I am asking for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to clarify with my friend from Alaska and my friend from Hawaii that we will have an up-or-down vote on this amendment and not a second degree? We can have a vote up or down.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 3308 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the preventative application of dangerous pesticides in areas owned or managed by the Department of Defense that may be used by children)

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. That is correct. I would love to do much more, I say to my friend, but we are following rule XVI.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, we have been told it is drawn in such a fashion that it simply says no funds may be used for these pesticides and toxins on a regular basis.

Mrs. BOXER. Certainly.