[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9526-S9527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. CLINTON:
  S. 2827. A bill to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to create an 
explicit privilege to preserve medical privacy, to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Patients' 
Privacy Protection Act, legislation that will close a loophole in the 
Federal Rules of Evidence and ensure that every American's medical 
records remain confidential. I want to acknowledge my friend 
Congressman Nadler who is introducing the House companion to this bill 
today as well as Senators Corzine, Wyden, Lautenberg, Boxer, Jeffords, 
and Mikulski who join me as original cosponsors of this critical 
measure.
  I began exploring this issue when I learned that Attorney General 
John Ashcroft had subpoenaed the confidential medical records from 
thousands of women around the country to defend the first-ever Federal 
abortion ban in Federal court. The fact that the women in question were 
not a party to the lawsuits did not deter him.
  Such a deliberate intrusion into people's medical privacy record is 
deeply disturbing. Americans deserve full confidence that the 
government is not looking into their medical records. Without such an 
assurance, how will Americans trust their doctors? What procedures, 
discussions, and diagnoses will they avoid for fear that these records 
could shame them or adversely impact their future if unearthed?
  At issue in this bill is what a reasonable person should expect when 
they walk into a doctor's office. That person expects that what they 
say to her doctor stays with her doctor. Only because of that 
confidence are people able to be honest. And only through that honesty 
are people able to obtain the healthcare they need.
  The right to private medical records is an issue that, in rhetoric at 
least, has broad support on both sides of the partisan divide. In fact, 
it was President Bush himself who, as recently as 2001 during a 
statement on the Medical Privacy Rule said, ``I believe that we must 
protect both vital health care services and the right of every American 
to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain 
private.''
  Even Attorney General Ashcroft has made strong statements in support 
of the privacy of medical records. Back in 1998, in a press release put 
out by his Senate office in which he is referred to as a ``consistent 
champion of privacy rights,'' then-Senator Ashcroft says ``We should 
guarantee that the federal government does not undermine an 
individual's fundamental right to privacy . . . Without privacy 
protections in place, people may be discouraged from seeking help or 
taking advantage of the access to health care.''
  I agree. But unlike Attorney General Ashcroft, I believe preserving 
patient privacy entails more than issuing a press release. Patient 
privacy doesn't end when it conflicts with a political agenda, no 
matter how deeply felt that conviction.
  Throughout this Administration, we have seen Attorney General 
Ashcroft disregard civil liberties in the name of preventing terrorism. 
But through this action, we see him disregarding civil rights in the 
name of outlawing abortion. This is a very slippery slope that, if 
unchecked, could affect not just women seeking reproductive healthcare, 
but all Americans. Over the past few months, the Department of Justice 
has asserted that federal law does not recognize the doctor-patient 
privilege, and that individuals no longer have a reasonable expectation 
of medical privacy. These are alarming statements.
  Thankfully, Attorney General Ashcroft is not being allowed to run 
roughshod over our right to privacy and medical confidentiality. On 
March 5, 2004, a San Francisco court ruled that the Department of 
Justice has no right to view the records in question in the Planned 
Parenthood Federation of America lawsuit against the abortion ban. The 
decision issued by Judge Phyllis Hamilton soundly affirmed women's 
right to privacy. She said, ``There is no question that the patient is 
entitled to privacy and protection. 
. . . Women are entitled to not have the government looking at their 
records.''
  Nevertheless, we cannot take a chance that once again, when it suits 
the political or ideological interests of this Administration or 
Administrations to come, the federal government will intrude upon the 
most personal of information. That is why I stand before you today.
  The Patient Privacy Protection Act of 2004 is very simple. It states 
that a patient's medical records and any communication about their 
medical history are confidential unless a judge determines that the 
public interest in those records being made public significantly 
outweighs the patient's privilege. In the cases where a judge orders 
the records to be disclosed, the court shall, to the extent 
practicable, eliminate any and all personally identifiably information.
  I am pleased to be introducing this simple, straightforward, common-
sense piece of legislation. I do not believe there is a Member of 
either Chamber of Congress who in good faith could oppose this measure, 
and I look forward to working with my colleagues, Representative Nadler 
and others to see it enacted into law expediently.

[[Page S9527]]

                                 ______