[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE NOMINATION OF DR. HENRY FOSTER

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to urge the 
Senate to consider the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon 
General, to consider that nomination ultimately on the Senate floor. I 
urge that this be done for two reasons: First, out of basic fairness to 
Dr. Foster and, second, as an important sign that men and women can 
place themselves up for nomination for important positions without fear 
of being, in effect, railroaded out of town without having an 
opportunity for their positions and their cases and their records to be 
heard.
  This morning, Dr. Foster testified before the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources and the preliminary reports are that Dr. Foster has 
been an impressive witness on his own behalf. After Dr. Foster's name 
was submitted for the position of Surgeon General, I met with him 
extensively to discuss his record, after having reviewed his 
educational record, his record as a practicing physician, the work that 
he had done against teenage pregnancy, the work he had done for poor 
people, and the work he had done in a community context.
  Let us strip away the facade, Mr. President. What has really occurred 
on Dr. Foster's nomination is an objection to his having performed 
abortions, and it seems to me that when Dr. Foster has performed 
abortions, however many, a medical procedure permitted by the U.S. 
Constitution, that ought not to be a reason for his disqualification.
  Before any other consideration had arisen as to issues about 
performing hysterectomies or an issue about syphilis in studies of 
African-Americans or the question about how many abortions he had 
performed, there was an immediate cry that Dr. Foster was disqualified 
because he had performed abortions.
  I think that is totally inappropriate, that is just wrong, to 
disqualify a nominee for Surgeon General because that person has 
performed a medical procedure which is permitted by the U.S. 
Constitution.
  With respect to the issue of how many abortions he had performed and 
what information had come from the White House--and it appears at one 
point the White House made a representation of only one abortion; that 
was not what Dr. Foster had represented--that ought not to be held 
against him and ought not to be a smokescreen or a red herring for 
saying that he is disqualified. Whatever Dr. Foster has said about the 
number of abortions, that ought to be a question for the full Senate to 
consider. And whatever the contentions are about the performance of 
hysterectomies or about the syphilis testing on African Americans, that 
again is a question for consideration by the full Senate.
  Now, I know, Mr. President, there have been statements by some that 
they are going to filibuster the nomination. Well, if they choose to 
filibuster the nomination, so be it. Let us have it out on the Senate 
floor. And there are some who say that if the nomination is voted out 
by committee, and it is not brought to the floor, they are going to tie 
up the Senate. I do not think we need those kinds of threats for the 
Senate to consider its business and decide whether Dr. Henry Foster is 
qualified to be Surgeon General.
  It is my hope that the committee will report Dr. Foster to the floor 
for consideration by the Senate, and that can be done in a variety of 
ways. It can be done on an affirmative vote by a majority saying he is 
qualified, it could be done on a vote by the committee saying that he 
ought to be considered without recommendation, or it can even be done 
if the committee votes Dr. Foster down, as we have had with nominees. 
Judge Bork was voted down by the committee but it was voted to the 
Senate floor. Or Judge Thomas, later Justice Thomas, was a tie vote in 
the committee and was voted to the Senate floor.
  It seems to me, in fairness to Dr. Foster, he ought to be considered 
by the full Senate, and in fairness to the system where we are asking 
people to come to Washington under very difficult circumstances as a 
matter of precedent somebody ought not to be, in effect, railroaded out 
of town without having the Senate consider his nomination.
  So as this matter is being considered today by the committee, I 
wanted to make these comments because the core question here, Mr. 
President, stripped away from all the subterfuge, stripped away from 
all the smoke, stripped away from all the red herrings is whether Dr. 
Foster ought to be disqualified for performing abortions, however many, 
a medical procedure authorized by the U.S. Constitution. I think the 
Senate ought to face up to that squarely. If the balance of the 
testimony shows qualification, as I think it will, based upon my 
examination of the record and my detailed conversations with Dr. Foster 
in questioning of him, then I think he ought to be confirmed.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


  

                          ____________________