[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2666-S2667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     THE SURGEON GENERAL NOMINATION

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, I 
have generally held the view that a President is entitled to the 
nominees of his choice, and the Senate's constitutional role of advice 
and consent is an inherently limited one.
  At least until the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert Bork, it 
seemed to me that matters of ideology and politics should not figure 
prominently into the Senate's calculation when it reviewed a 
President's nominees. That standard may have been irrevocably 
transformed by the still-painful memories of the Bork nomination, but I 
think it still applies to less consequential presidential nominations.
  Now that the White House is embroiled in yet another embarrassing 
battle over one of its nominees, it is attempting to raise the specter 
of unfair, ideologically driven opposition. Caught in a self-made web 
of contradictory statements and blatant falsehoods, the administration 
is now asserting that concerns about Dr. Henry Foster, its nominee for 
Surgeon General of the United States, are motivated entirely by moral 
conservatism, all engineered by the ``religious right.''
  This smokescreen is an insult to the intelligence of every Member of 
this body.
  Since when are ACT-UP and the National Organization for Women 
considered rightwing zealots? Yet both these organizations have serious 
reservations about Dr. Foster's record. I imagine that the Democratic 
Senators who have expressed misgivings about this botched nomination 
would be amused to hear themselves described as hard-line 
conservatives--agents of the religious right, no less. Yet that is what 
the White House wants us to believe.
  Perhaps a little history is in order to set the record straight.
  Ever since the President's nomination of Dr. Foster as Surgeon 
General, we have been subjected to yet another round of White House 
credibility bingo. When Senator Kassebaum first asked about Dr. 
Foster's abortion practices, the White House responded that he had 
performed only one. Then Dr. Foster announced that the number was 
``under a dozen.'' Then 55 and 700 abortions popped up in public 
accounts of Dr. Foster's research on abortion-related procedures. Now, 
Dr. Foster has called bingo at 39.
  One doesn't have to be against abortion to find it troubling that a 
nominee can't get his story straight about how many of them he has 
performed. After all, we're not talking about how many M&M's the man 
has eaten in his lifetime.
  But the White House credibility game gets worse. Last weekend, it was 
disclosed that Dr. Foster also performed experimental sterilizations on 
severely retarded women. Leaving aside the serious issues of privacy 
rights and medical ethics which these incident raise, it is again 
troubling that neither the White House nor its nominee found them 
significant enough to mention at the outset. Perhaps they hoped no one 
would find out.
  Mr. President, more is at issue here than one nominee. Because of 
this administration, we are struggling to salvage the public respect 
and dignity of the position of Surgeon General. Over the last 2 years, 
our Nation has been forced to sit and watch as this once-
respected office was made an object of ridicule by the actions and 
remarks of the previous appointee. We cannot allow that to happen 
again--before or after a nominee is confirmed.
  The White House just can't figure out that the business of the 
Surgeon General is public health--not politics. It is about fighting 
serious diseases and health risks, not promoting some leftwing, 
politically correct agenda. After the embarrassing controversies and 
ultimate removal of Dr. Joycelyn Elders, one would think the White 
House had finally learned its lesson.
  But this is one administration that never quite seems to get it.The 
Nation's advocate for public health does not have a large staff at his 
or her disposal, or a large budget. Instead, the primary asset which a 
Surgeon General must use in protecting the public's health is the 
public's trust. If a Surgeon General is regarded as untrustworthy or 
ill-equipped by the public, that Surgeon General will be unable to 
perform his or her job in any meaningful way.
  That is why the issue of credibility is so fundamental to this 
particular nomination. And on the question of credibility, this nominee 
has a serious problem--one which has been compounded by severe 
incompetence at the White House. As stated in a February 10 editorial 
in the New York Times:

       Misleading statements by candidates for high position 
     simply cannot be condoned * * *. [T]he Administration put out 
     false information on the number of abortions performed by Dr. 
     Foster * * *. [B]oth he and the Administration made it look 
     as if their accounts were unreliable or designed to mask a 
     more troubling history.

  Rather than admit the plain facts, the administration now wants to 
turn this nomination into a holy war over abortion. That is a gross 
distortion of reality and an evasion of the White House's 
responsibility for its negligent handling of this nomination.
  [[Page S2667]] A number of Senators, newspapers, and outside interest 
groups--all of whom could be fairly characterized as pro-choice--have 
expressed deep concerns regarding this nomination, because of the 
credibility issue. In fact, I think it is fair to say that this 
nominee's problems have no more to do with abortion than Zoe Baird's 
problems had to do with antitrust policy.
  We have had a number of controversial Surgeons General, some of whom 
I have disagreed with vehemently. But I have never seen, at least not 
since this administration, a Surgeon General who--by their own actions 
and statements--utterly squandered the public trust that is so 
essential to this job.
  As I said at the outset, it is generally my approach to give the 
President wide latitude in appointing the various members of his 
administration. But with the facts that have come tumbling out about 
this nominee--many of them in direct conflict with each other--and 
given the excruciating history of the last Clinton administration 
official to hold this job, I must regrettably join with my colleagues 
who have called on the White House to withdraw the nomination 
immediately.
  Every day that goes by will simply do more damage to a nominee who 
is, by all accounts, a decent and accomplished individual. What is 
more, every new report of withheld and false information will only 
serve to further erode the credibility of the office of Surgeon 
General, at a time when public esteem for the position is at an all-
time low.
  I think everyone in this body is ready to work with the President to 
find a new candidate for Surgeon General who would command the public's 
trust at the very outset. I may not agree with that new nominee on some 
issues, or even on most issues. But the point is to restore the 
integrity and dignity of the office, and that will require a nominee 
who comes untarnished by lapses in candor or allegiance to an extreme 
political agenda.
  Playing the abortion card--as the White House is now doing so 
extravagantly--is merely a convenient dodge. The real issue is 
credibility: the credibility of the nominee, and the credibility of 
this administration.


                          ____________________