From jwarren@well.sf.ca.us Wed Sep 21 01:44:32 1994 Received: from well.sf.ca.us (jwarren@well.sf.ca.us [198.93.4.10]) by eff.org (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA26269; Wed, 21 Sep 1994 01:44:29 -0400 Received: (from jwarren@localhost) by well.sf.ca.us (8.6.9/8.6.9) id UAA10004; Tue, 20 Sep 1994 20:56:17 -0700 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 20:56:17 -0700 From: Jim Warren Message-Id: <199409210356.UAA10004@well.sf.ca.us> To: jwarren@well.sf.ca.us Subject: GovAccess.059: Fax act; Comm bill vote; Lobbyist gifts; Health privacy Status: RO INCLUDE *FAX* NUMBERS WHEN SOLICITING ONLINE SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION Citizen activists who are utilizing the nets to solicit support (or opposition) for legislation can *greatly* increase the floodettes of furious flames to legislators if they include the *fax* numbers for the target legislators. Increasingly, netvolks are also faxvolks. --jim &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& *SENATE VOTE NEXT WEEK!* -- SENATE REPORT ON COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1994 >From fins@access.digex.net Mon Sep 19 13:11:31 1994 From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS FINS SPECIAL REPORT September 19, 1994 Substitute Legislation Approved Washington, DC, September 19, 1994--U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation released today its Report No. 367, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., (Sept 14, 1994), including a substitute bill for the "Communications Act of 1994." Staff of the Committee informed FINS this afternoon it is anticipated that the measure will reach the floor of the Senate sometime next week. A summary of major provisions included in the official report (excluding section citations) follows. ... &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& BAN ON CONGRESSIONAL LOBBYIST "GIFTS" NEEDS *IMMEDIATE* SUPPORT >From d.wiesner@genie.geis.com Sun Sep 18 20:01:17 1994 X-Genie-Id: 1196170 X-Genie-From: D.WIESNER BAN BRIBERY NOW! September 19, 1994 ============================================== Supporting S.1935, the Lobbyist Gift Ban Bill EDITORIAL Congress says they can't be bought. But has anyone asked them if they can be rented? This newsletter has been in hibernation for awhile, but only because Congress was in a dither over health care and unlikely to take action on the gift ban. We decided not to waste your time while Congress was running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Now that they have failed at health care, and now that we might not have to destroy Haiti to save it, one thing is clear. Congress doesn't have much to run on this November. This is our window of opportunity to get a strong bill pushed through. Congress wasn't too busy to appoint a independent prosecutor to investigate Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. Apparently he accepted gifts of food and travel from companies regulated by his department. Congress banned gifts of any size in the Meat Inspection Act of 1907, so it was no secret this was illegal. But Mr. Espy couldn't break the habits he had established as a Member of Congress. Bribery in the Executive Branch is called a "friendly gift" in Congress. Lobbyists will buy anyone who has the power to grant favorable regulations for their clients. Thanks to our efforts, the Senate bill puts Congress off limits in this one crucial area. We didn't start our efforts until the House bill was written, so it has some very weak spots. House and Senate negotiators are stuck on a couple of key points: 1) Baseball may be on strike, but the game of influence never stops. The House bill includes a "designated payer" rule, which says that any employee of the lobbyist's client company that eats with them can pay the bill. The Senate bill bans ALL gifts of meals by lobbyists and others. "NO FREE LUNCH FROM ANYONE." 2) This whole effort started because of seeing Senators and lobbyists skiing together at a weekend charity event. The House bill preserves free travel to charity events. The Senate bill bans paid travel to charity events. "WE PAY YOU TO GOVERN, NOT RAISE MONEY FOR CHARITY. PAY YOUR OWN WAY WHEN YOU HAVE A VACATION." Can we do it? Can we get the Ban Bribery shock troops mobilized for this last push? Can we Ban Bribery Now? One key player in any fight is House Speaker Tom Foley. The House conferees are following his wishes in trying to gut the gift ban. Normally, you and I couldn't do anything to influence him, but Ban Bribery Now has discovered a pressure point. Mr. Foley sued and overturned Washington State's popular term limit law, passed by initiative. In response, some residents of his 5th Congressional District formed a PAC, with the rallying cry of "De-Foley-ate Congress in '94," DF8 for short. Please write Thomas Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. Explain that you support Senate bill 1935, banning all gifts to Members of Congress -- no free travel, no free meals. Tell him that if a strong gift ban like S.1935 isn't passed within three weeks, that you will hold him personally responsible. You will donate money to the PAC opposing him and tell all your friends. This is one way for people who don't live in one of the conferees' districts to have a strong influence. DF8 has been getting nationwide coverage and is collecting a fair amount of money, which they will use in radio and television advertisements against Speaker Foley. The threat this poses just may sway him to give in on the gift ban. Let's do it this week. If we lose the gift ban, then we can go after Foley! The address is: Reform Congress 94 De-Foley-ate (DF8) PO Box 11481 Spokane, WA 99211-1481 Please also send a post card to S.1935 sponsor and chief Senate negotiator Sen. Carl Levin, saying, "California (or your state) wants you to get going and hang tough on 1935." U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For those of you who are represented by one of these conferees or leaders, please phone them or write a postcard telling them to get with it and pass a strong gift ban. All area codes are (202). You can also call their local offices. Rep. Bryant 225-2231, Rep. Synar 225-2701, Rep. Glickman 225-6216 Rep. Fish 225-5441, Rep. Gekas 225-4315, Rep. Gephardt 225-2671 Rep. Fazio 225-5716, Rep. Bonior 225-2106, Rep. Hoyer 225-4131 Sen. Levin 224-6221, Sen. Glenn 224-3353, Sen. Akaka 224-6361 Sen. Cohen 224-2523, Sen. Stevens 224-3004 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& DIGITAL HEALTH RECORDS THREATEN PATIENT PRIVACY >From cpsr@access.digex.net Tue Sep 20 06:55:48 1994 From: David Banisar Fwd from the Coalition for Patient Rights (CPRMA@aol.com) ... The ACLU appears on a list of endorsers of the Wofford/Dodd amendment which amends one of the Senate health care reform bills. Major portions of W/D would have a severely adverse impact on the confidentiality of medical records. Although W/D has been rendered partly obsolete as newer health care reform bills are advanced under new names and new coalitions, many of its principal features remain intact in the new bills. It has become a reference point. It is for this reason that the signature of the ACLU on a list of endorsers of W/D (on a document entitled "Wofford/Dodd Fact Sheet") is so troubling and so damaging. The amendment creates federal standards for the disclosure of personally identifiable health care information and establishes a framework for a national health care data network. On the surface, the goals seem good. Who wouldn't be for establishing strict federal guidelines to ensure privacy where none existed before? For that matter, why not support a data network that would allow a treating physician to have immediate access to all pertinent medical information? Clearly we have to look beyond the advertisement and into the details of the bills for the answers to these questions. For example, in Sec. 508(a) of Mitchell 3 (the bill offered by the Senate majority leader), the "health information network service" is made the agent of the provider. This means that once a third party bureaucratic agency receives the information electronically, it is deemed the same as the health care provider in making decisions about the release of the information. Sensitive medical information, including intimate psychological information, would be available electronically to an increasing number of people legally--not to mention the well-documented risks of illegal access. Among those with enhanced access would be law enforcement officials and government agencies. Even researchers could access personally identifiable health information, if an institutional review board holds that the project is "of sufficient importance to outweigh the intrusion into the privacy of the person who is the subject of the information." The patient has no right to refuse such disclosure even though it includes his or her name. There are many examples of person-identified medical information, including sensitive personal information, that have been shared with health care providers with the expectation of privacy that would now be legally accessible to many third parties. The argument is made that this kind of access already exists, so why not codify it. The logic is faulty. It is true we already have serious problems protecting the privacy of medical records in this country. Legally sanctioning medical access to an ever enlarging list of third parties is not the solution. It will only compound an already serious problem. A compelling argument has been made that the establishment of a national health care data network that requires all providers to disclose information about every patient contact would violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable searches and seizures" of the person. Many organizations have raised serious concerns about Wofford/Dodd, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, Coalition for Patient Rights, National Organization of Women, and the AIDS Action Council. We hope that the ACLU joins us in support of genuine privacy legislation. We hope that there was an error when it appeared on a short list of supporters of Wofford/Dodd (June 10, 1994) Call your state chapter of the ACLU. It is listed as Civil Liberties Union of (your state) in the white pages. Let them know of your concern.If possible, also fax Laura Murphy Lee at the ACLU in Washington (202-546-0738) and let her know your concern regarding the position of the ACLU in supporting W/D. This alert is provided by the Coalition for Patient Rights, Massachusetts (617, 433-0114). &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& A closed mouth gathereth no foot. --anon [via gam@lll-crg.llnl.gov (George A. Michael)] Mo' as it Is. --jim GovAccess is a series of postings and a distribution-list maintained by Jim Warren, columnist for MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814 jwarren@well.com -or- jwarren@autodesk.com >> Permission herewith granted for unlimited reposting and recirculation.<< >> Past postings are at ftp.cpsr.org:/cpsr/states/california/govaccess << >> To add or drop the GovAccess list, email to jwarren@well.com . <<