John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak out in opposition to the nomination of Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We have heard in recent weeks about the so-called vacancy crisis in Federal courts and that the Senate needs to move more quickly in putting the Clinton nominees on the bench. Well, I for one am more concerned about the quality of nominees than I am about the quantity of nominees. And I am quite sure that we should not respond to a perceived vacancy crisis by giving a lifetime appointment to Frederica Massiah-Jackson. Before putting this nomination into the context of judges in Washington, and the battles over judges, it is worth emphasizing the remarkably strong and unified opposition of local law enforcement to this nomination. I have not had a long history of appointments and confirmations here in the Senate--3 years. We have confirmed scores of judges over the course of 3 years. When I was Governor, I had the opportunity to appoint a couple of hundred judges. I appointed all seven members of the supreme court of the State of Missouri. It was a privilege for which I was deeply grateful and I took it very seriously. I thought it very important that we appoint individuals of high quality. Never in my experience with judicial appointees here in the U.S. Senate or in my time as a Governor, when I appointed several hundred judges in my home State, did I ever see a community of prosecutors step forward and say, ``Don't do this.'' Never before have officers of the court--and prosecutors are officers of the court--felt the necessity to stand up and say, whatever you do, don't confirm this one. Don't appoint this individual. At noon today I participated in a press conference with national and local law enforcement officials. Other participants included John Morganelli, the district attorney from Northampton County in Pennsylvania, and Ralph Germak, the district attorney in Juniata County of Pennsylvania, and Richard Costello, the president of the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police. I thank them for their willingness to come forward. They came to the news conference to express their opposition to Judge Massiah-Jackson. Interestingly enough, these are not individuals that you would normally expect to publicly express their opposition. District Attorney Morganelli is a Democrat. The nomination of this Democrat judge from Philadelphia was made by a Democrat President. It takes courage to put one's country and the judicial system above one's party. But District Attorney Morganelli chose to do so. Not only did District Attorney Morganelli come forward, but he also made us aware of District Attorney Lynne Abraham, a Democrat district attorney for Philadelphia. At great political cost to her, Ms. Abraham said this nominee is simply unacceptable. She wrote in a letter addressed to Senator Arlen Specter on January 8 of this year, referring to Judge Massiah-Jackson: This nominee's judicial service is replete with instances of demonstrated leniency toward criminals, an adversarial attitude toward police, and a disrespect toward prosecutors unmatched by any other present or former jurist with whom I am familiar. The severity of that statement is matched only by its candor and its courage. It is not easy for a district attorney who has the responsibility of sending prosecutors into that courtroom to come forward with that kind of testimony about a nominee. Most of us would not want to tell the truth about a judge that we were going to have to face over and over and over again. When District Attorney Morganelli and District Attorney Lynne Abraham come forward, speaking at great personal risk, I do not take that lightly. When Richard Costello spoke, as the president of the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, he mentioned casually a fact that sent a chill down my spine. He said, ``I have been shot twice.'' And then he related the story of how Judge Massiah-Jackson had ordered undercover policemen to stand up and be recognized in court so that any drug dealers that were there would recognize them if they saw them on the streets. You can imagine what happens to an undercover policeman who is trying to make a drug buy in a case and the drug dealer recognizes the policeman. It could well be that that individual's life would not be worth that much. I think these individuals who have come forward have a unique blend of personal experience and an unparalleled amount of courage to provide this important information to the U.S. Senate. Nomination fights are difficult. I wish we didn't have all these fights stacked at once. But there is a level of quality that we must expect from individuals who are appointed for life to the Federal bench. If that level of quality does not exist, we must find it elsewhere. I do not believe that the talent pool of individuals available to be Federal judges in America is shallow. I do not believe that we cannot find moral people who are decent, who have an ability to stay in the middle of a controversy instead of joining one side or the other. I do not believe that the number of trained, skilled lawyers in the Philadelphia, PA community is so low that we have to accept individuals who, according to the district attorney, have an adversarial attitude toward police and disrespect prosecutors. The prosecutors are a part of the court and judicial system. They are entitled to respect. But this nominee is so far below the minimum quality we should expect from a Federal judge that it is tragic. The local law enforcement community is horrified. They are about to be saddled with a judge that they say is the worst. There is a principle, I think they call it ``the Peter Principle,'' where they kick people upstairs. They keep promoting them because they want to get rid of them. These officials who came forward in this case are not even willing to do that. They understand that this would be a mistake of unparalleled proportions. Washington may seem willing to rubberstamp nominees no matter how unqualified, but these courageous individuals from Philadelphia--and, I might add, the prosecutors association from the State of Pennsylvania, which voted unanimously against this nominee--are not. I began a minute ago to address the idea of the talent pool, the idea that there are people talented enough and capable enough, and who have the requisite integrity to do a good job. I am firmly convinced of that. What really troubles me is that the Senate here, now, is talking about maybe we can try and allow this individual to have another hearing, in spite of the fact that the written responses were inadequate, in spite of the fact that the oral responses of this judge, when heard previously, were inadequate, that somehow we could explain away everything. It is as if there is no other option. I do not think we should try to find a way to make the worst nominee that these folks have ever seen somehow marginally acceptable. We should not be seeking the lowest quality possible in the Federal judiciary. We should be seeking the highest quality possible. Let me go through some of the objections that the local officials outlined. These happen to be the basis for my own opposition. They are fourfold. This nominee has shown disrespect for the court by using the English language's most offensive profanity in open court. This is not a subject of debate. This is the subject of court records. You see, there were certain times when this judge's personal court reporter wasn't there to take down the testimony and so a reporter unaccustomed to the language of this judge just filed the report with the offensive language in it, instead of scrubbing the report. I think for us to say that a judge who uses the crudest profanity that we know in America in a way that demeans the prosecutor in a courtroom is someone that we should not reward by elevating to a lifetime appointment as a Federal judge. It is just that simple. There are some who said there have been apologies and it did not happen very often. I know that there are several cases in court records which show the kind of language that was used. They don't happen to occur in records that were kept by the regular reporter. But, in my judgment, when we have a deep talent pool, why should we say to those who are both in the system and hoping someday to be made Federal judges, or otherwise, that ``it doesn't matter what kind of language you use. You just can come up and say you are not going to do it anymore and next time make sure that the reporter scrubs it out of the record.'' We really need to make a statement that people who disrespect the participants in the judicial system do not belong as Federal judges with lifetime appointments, accountable to no one. Second, I already mentioned the eloquent testimony of Richard Costello, the president of the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, and how this judge so favoring dope dealers asked undercover police officers to stand up and be identified in court. You know any dope dealer in the court wouldn't have been identified to the police officers, only the police officers to the dope dealers. Here is a judge who recklessly and without regard to the lives of police officials, puts those lives at risk. Officer Costello indicated that he attended the funerals of seven police officers who had been killed in the line of duty, and he didn't appreciate in the least a judge jeopardizing his fellow officers and his own ability to survive. Third, this judge demonstrated hostility to prosecutors by suppressing evidence and dismissing charges against criminals. I think the statement by the chairman of the committee with regard to the young man who was raped and the assailant who was captured, identified crawling out of the bushes, was eloquent and powerful. We need judges who will be fair and impartial. Last but not least, this judge has shown leniency to criminals in sentencing violent criminals to probation only, even when they have been involved in violent crimes on a repeated basis. The judge has used a technique to get to a place for lower sentences. When a person would be charged with a crime and the evidence would come in and show unequivocally that they are guilty of the crime, the judge would find guilt of a lesser included offense so that she could avoid having to impose the minimum sentence and could give a lesser sentence. There has been a great deal of talk about how there have not been very many appeals. Some have asked, ``How many times has she been reversed on appeals?'' Let me say this, if you are a criminal you are not going to appeal when the judge turns you loose. You are not going to appeal when the sentence is low. It's very difficult for the prosecutor to appeal. The Senate cannot confirm this nominee in the face of the strong opposition of the local law enforcement community and on the basis of these four fundamental facts, which are established clearly in the record and which require no additional committee meetings to examine. This judge has been a profane judge, disrespecting prosecutors in the courtroom by referring to them with the lowest level of profanity known in the English language. This judge has recklessly risked the lives of law enforcement officers by making undercover agents reveal who they are to the drug-running community. This judge has demonstrated a hostility toward prosecutors by suppressing evidence unnecessarily and improperly on a repeated basis. And this judge has shown leniency toward criminals by sentencing violent criminals only to probation when the record clearly shows that not only are they violent criminals, but they are violent repeat offenders. For us to confirm this nominee of this President would be to betray our oath of office to provide advice and consent. For us to confirm this nominee would be the height of arrogance and another example of ``Washington knows best,'' when the folks at the local level know what is right and they have come forward with great courage and inordinate candor to share with the Senate their sentiments about this nominee. As I mentioned earlier, never in my experiences with the appointment of hundreds of judges have I ever heard from prosecutors like we have in this matter. I've never seen so many stand up, be willing to call a news conference and say, ``This kind of candidate is totally unacceptable.'' We have heard a great deal in recent weeks about the vacancy crisis in the Federal courts, and we heard it said that Republicans are delaying for the sake of delay. In the case of Massiah-Jackson, I have asked that we debate this issue for the sake of the country and for its courts. I must confess that this issue is here in the U.S. Senate because of me, because at the close of the last session, I was contacted by no less than a half a dozen different Senators who urged me to let this nomination go through in the dark of night as a matter of unanimous consent. They said, ``Let's get it over with; let's just get this done.'' Well, that would have been an unfortunate mistake. It would not have allowed these prosecutors and local officials to assemble their briefs. It would not have allowed us to hear the evidence. It would not have allowed us to make good decisions as Members of the U.S. Senate. I resisted those efforts because I felt the nomination raised serious questions, it had serious defects that needed to be examined in the light of day. When the President comes and asks us to work hard to make sure we do a good job on nominees, I think that is a sincere request, but we should take him at face value. I think these nominees are important enough for us to debate, I think they are important enough for us to decide, and I think we should debate them and decide them in the light of day. There is no need for us to rush this particular item back into a committee room somewhere so something can be done absent the light of day and the scrutiny of the public. It is time for the U.S. Senate to stand up and to say that there are times when the President simply sends us individuals who are unacceptable. I placed a hold on this nomination and refused to lift it, despite the insistence of a number of Senators, including Senator Specter. Some would point to this as unnecessary delay, but we will create an actual crisis, not an imagined one, if we send individuals of this caliber into America's courtrooms. The Senate has a constitutional obligation to give its advice to the President with respect to judicial nominees, and, in this case, I think we should withhold our consent. I think that the President should have withdrawn this nominee. I can't imagine the President understands the character and nature of this nominee's conduct and wants the Senate to ratify that conduct by sending this nominee into a lifetime appointment. Surely the President is familiar with the litany of disrespect assembled by this nominee in her prior service. One has to wonder about the vetting process that raises no objections to a nominee like this one. You wonder what kind of job the American Bar Association did. They purport to be the ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.'' I maybe ought to apologize to Good Housekeeping for saying that, because never has a product with the ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval'' fallen so short of its advertised billing. The truth of the matter is this: The Constitution does not give the American Bar Association or the Justice Department or the White House counsel's office the screening responsibility for Federal judges. The responsibility to screen Federal judges is resident in the U.S. Senate. Some have said, ``Well, we ought to have another committee hearing; we ought to have this; we ought to have that.'' The U.S. Senate acts as a committee of the whole. When the nomination comes, we are each eligible to evaluate the evidence. We are each charged with the responsibility, duty and opportunity to help make sure that the judicial branch of this country is properly staffed. The President should withdraw this nomination. The American people deserve better. This nomination sends the wrong message to criminals, suggesting that you can find a friendly judge whose predisposition is adversarial to the prosecutors. That is not my conclusion, that is the conclusion of the prosecution community in Pennsylvania. It sends the wrong message to young people that it doesn't matter what kind of language or respect you accord to the judicial system, you can still be moving up the ladder. Finally, this nomination sends the wrong message to law enforcement that the U.S. Senate doesn't mind promoting someone who puts the lives of law enforcement officials in jeopardy. I call on the President to withdraw this nomination. If the President refuses to withdraw this nominee, the Senate should vote to reject the nominee now. There is no need for additional proceedings. The President himself says we should have up-or-down votes. He says that there is a backlog. Well, if there is a backlog, why slow the system down with a reexamination of an individual who is unqualified to serve, who will not take this responsibility of the American judiciary to its highest and best, but who, unfortunately, will be found as reinforcing it at its lowest and least? Nothing will be gained by further delay or sending the nominee back to committee. We know more than enough now, and we know more than enough about the talent pool of lawyers in Philadelphia, PA, to know at least there are some lawyers there that could have a far superior propensity for public service than this nominee who has already soiled a reputation while serving in a public position of responsibility. We are constantly being told that if there are problems with nominees, we should bring them up and vote them down. Now is the time to dispose of this nomination. Now is the time to say America deserves better. We deserve better than someone who would profanely abuse the courtroom and the participants in the judicial system. We deserve someone who would do better than to jeopardize the lives of law enforcement officials. We deserve a judge who would be fairer than to arbitrarily dismiss evidence so that criminals could go loose unjustifiably. We deserve someone who knows better than to avoid tough sentences when there are repeat violent offenders against the people of our cities and States. I believe we have the votes, and after a debate in which people can see the kind of nominees that the President is sending to the Senate, we should vote this nominee down. I thank the Chair. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am aware of the record of Judge Massiah-Jackson. It was clearly stated by the chairman of the committee.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President,----

Mr. ASHCROFT. I have the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to say to the U.S. Senate that this responsibility which we are considering today is a very important responsibility. The Nation's doctor is a very important position. We should be very careful about doing those things which can and need to be done in making sure we confirm appropriately or deny confirmation appropriately to someone nominated for that responsibility. It is in that regard that I have sought to raise issues that are, I think, fundamental to the values of the American people and ask serious questions about them. I want to review those at this time. The first thing I mention is that Dr. Satcher transmitted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a report favorably saying that substantial Federal funds should be committed both to providing needle exchange services and to expanding research into these programs. Both recommendations, according to the CDC's comment, are reasonable and appropriate. That transmission saying that needle exchanges should have substantial funding was made in a report under Dr. Satcher's signature going to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It is pretty clear to me that one of the leadership responsibilities of the Surgeon General is the responsibility to inform the President or the Secretary of Health and Human Services of policies that ought to be adopted. This nominee has said that needle exchange programs ought to have substantial Federal funding and they ought to be studied carefully. Now, in my view, it doesn't make sense to give dope addicts needles with which to conduct their poisonous activity and with which to propagate bad habits of intravenous drug use. What are we saying to young people if the junkie comes along and says, ``Don't worry about this, we have clean needles. The Government approves it. They give us the needles to use.'' What are we saying to the families when the needles from the junkies are left by the hundreds around the neighborhoods so that young children will find them? As soon as you provide free needles--a town that tried this found 300 discarded needles by junkies in one week. No. 2, this nominee for Surgeon General conducted studies on individuals in Africa when the studies would have been unethical in the United States. The regulations provide that you are not allowed to do to other people what you won't and can't do to yourself. The New England Journal of Medicine made clear the absence of ethics in this situation. No. 3, David Satcher persisted in conducting blind HIV studies of newborns in the United States, ignoring the need to identify the blood samples and notify parents of HIV infections in children, even after therapies were developed which could help those children in those settings. When the Congress got upset about it and decided to discontinue the program altogether, Dr. Satcher said, ``No, we want to continue it without telling parents and without identifying which of the children is HIV infected,'' and came and lobbied the Congress in that respect. I don't think that calls us to our highest and best. I think that accommodates America at something far less. So you have this pattern. In addition, we have tried to get information from the Centers for Disease Control and Dr. Satcher. They have given us partial bits of information. The report in which the CDC commended the idea of Federal funding for needle exchange was sent to us but it didn't have Dr. Satcher's cover letter on it--conveniently didn't. The denial of needle exchange support by Dr. Satcher conveniently didn't indicate that Federal funds, provided through the CDC, had the sole purpose of promoting needle exchange programs. When we asked about the ethics of the African trials we simply didn't get all the information from the CDC. We were not given memos internal to the agency which we have received from other sources that have raised the very ethical issues in CDC by medical personnel there that we have been raising on this floor. Now if trust is a fundamental component of the relationship between the doctor of a nation and the people of the Nation, there has been in some substantial measure a breach of the necessary trust in the absence of candor and the absence of providing information in this setting. Last but not least, let me say that Dr. Satcher has said that he supports the President's position on partial-birth abortion. The President's position has been that he is going to continue to make it available in this country and refuse to have a reasonable law which would prevent it. In my judgment, it is time for us to say that we expect the leadership on health in this country to comport with the understanding of the health community that partial-birth abortions are not indicated, they are not necessary, and that to endorse the political agenda of the President rather than the health agenda of America is inappropriate. This is about whether someone who is indifferent to infanticide can care for our children.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, the CDC also cosponsored with the Atlanta Harm Reduction Coalition, which is one of the groups who believe that reducing the harm of IV drug use through needle exchanges is an appropriate way for us to begin to accept drug use as a fact of life and a way of life in the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the agenda of the Atlanta Harm Reduction Coalition Conference, cosponsored by the CDC, also be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I guess I will have an opportunity to respond, but my point is that it may be appropriate to do blind studies when there is no known therapy, but when a therapy is discovered, like it was in 1994, a year after I left the Governor's office, then it would be incumbent upon one seeking to protect the health of the children to identify the children and provide the information to those children. So I look forward to the opportunity and I look forward to seeing the documents that you would present purporting to bear my signature approving those studies. I would be interested to see those documents. I ask that you please provide them.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask the Senator if developments in the technology which make treatment available at some time subsequent to the commencement of the study and subsequent to my time as Governor might change whether or not you should continue with the study, which would remain a blind study when treatment becomes available. My question is: Is it possible that a study that is based on epidemiological and statistical value would have that value and be appropriate until such time as maintenance of a blind study would be in a position to deprive individuals of care which had recently been developed.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator from Missouri had the privilege of being Governor for a period of time that spanned 8 years, and during that time there were substantial changes made in terms of the known treatments for AIDS. Since that time there have been substantial changes made, not the least of which is the O76 regimen for AZT treatment of newborns and expectant mothers. Do you know whether or not at the time of this alleged signature by the then Governor of Missouri that treatment was known and had been proven and had been developed?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Do you know what date it was in which that study was commenced?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Does the Senator have a copy of that?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Does the Senator purport to know when those papers were signed and what the condition of AIDS research was at the time? I think the Senator indicated that the Governor of Missouri had signed papers, I take it, personally signed papers in this respect; is that correct?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, let me say, to the extent the time is expended in favor of the nomination, that I ask unanimous consent that it be taken from the time allotted to the side favoring the nomination.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. President, the nomination of David Satcher for U.S. Surgeon General has been a matter of significant discussion over the last several days. I would like to indicate that I rise to oppose this nomination. There are a number of very important reasons why I believe we should not confirm this nominee. During the last several days of discussion here on the Senate floor, we have gone through a number of topics, none of which reveals a record that would recommend Dr. Satcher to be the Surgeon General of the United States of America, none of which would say that this individual ought to be America's family doctor. We looked at the Third World AIDS studies that have been conducted and that are ongoing under Dr. Satcher's supervision at the Centers for Disease Control. You will remember that those Third World AIDS studies were the subject of an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, which has simply said that those studies are not being ethically conducted, that as a matter of fact, the studies were unethical. In short, the New England Journal of Medicine says that to give people sugar pills, or placebos, when there is a clearly understood and accepted therapy that is available, pharmaceutically or otherwise, is unethical, and that has been the position of the CDC in this situation. They have simply persisted with the administration of placebos, or sugar pills, for individuals, in spite of the fact that there is proven therapy available that should be or could be given to those individuals. It has been clear, even in the words, I believe, of Dr. Satcher himself, that these are studies that could not be conducted in the United States. It is simply that we don't treat human beings as laboratory subjects--to give them a placebo when there is a known therapy in this country. So the first thing we discussed pretty substantially last week were the Third World AIDS studies. In these studies the activities of the CDC, under Dr. Satcher, had been labeled conclusively, in my judgment, and at least very strongly by the New England Journal of Medicine, as unethical. They were called unethical because, in the face of known therapy, individuals were just given sugar pills, even though we know that an infection or a virus like HIV is often considered a fatal virus. The second item of concern related to the way in which Dr. Satcher has conducted himself as the head of the CDC has related to domestic newborn AIDS studies. In the eighties, there was a program to test the blood of newborn infants. It was a test that was conducted after identifying marks were taken off the blood samples so that researchers just found out what percentage of the samples were HIV-infected. Researchers kept that for epidemiological reasons or for statistical purposes, in order to find out in a particular community what percentage of the newborns were being born with HIV. Now, since that study began, and during the pendency of Dr. Satcher's tenure at Centers for Disease Control, new therapies have been developed that could maybe make a difference for some of these children. But Dr. Satcher persisted in doing the tests after the markings were taken off the blood samples, so that no one would be able to know which babies had the HIV and which didn't. We just continued to assemble the statistical data in the blind newborn studies. There are individuals who have raised very serious questions about this. Those individuals have been very prominent in the AIDS research community and in the medical community. These individuals say it's one thing to maintain a statistical basis if there is no known therapy, if there is nothing you can do, but it is another thing after a therapy is found to continue forward in a situation where you don't take the identifying characteristics for the blood and you just persist and then you don't notify--so you don't have any information to give to parents because you have taken the names and the identifying characteristics away from the blood. That was irresponsible. As you well know, there was quite a controversy in the Congress about that. And that whole program has been shut down. But my view is that the leading doctor for American families should have a view toward how to help families understand how to improve their health standing. When there is a therapy that becomes available, one should not persist in the maintenance of nameless statistical records and epidemiological data. One should try quickly to get that data to the people so that they can arrest the development of the disease in their children, so they can take remedial steps. And not only did Dr. Satcher preside over a continuity in the program that ignored the potential therapies, but also when the Congress came in to shut down a program designed for statistics which ignored the potential for helping individuals, Dr. Satcher sought to stop the Congress and lobbied the Congress to allow it to continue. I have discussed these two issues: The HIV studies in Africa and the HIV studies on newborns in the United States with the epidemiological data and statistics about how many in each town were HIV infected. I think it is important for us to understand that both of these studies place too much emphasis on the data and upon the research aspects without enough emphasis on the actual health of individuals. In each of those cases, very serious questions have been raised about the ethics and the conduct of those kinds of experiments. There is, though, another area of concern which I hope to be involved in more fully today during the debate, and that is the concept of needle exchanges for dope addicts. Most Americans do not want their tax dollars to support programs which provide drug paraphernalia, needles or other things, to drug addicts. There are some of those in the public community who think that we can preserve the health of drug addicts if we will provide them with good paraphernalia, if we can just provide them with the right kind of needles we can help them lead healthy lifestyles. We could help armed robbers have greater health in the conduct of their robberies if we would provide them with bulletproof vests. But I don't think we want to do that. As a culture, we are not in the business of supporting the administration of illegal drugs. I will spend substantial time later in the day talking about the commitment of Dr. Satcher in promoting needle exchange programs and using public resources to help promote needle exchange programs. There has been substantial debate over this. Frankly, there has been some confusion in the Senate about this, and I think it results from the fact that the CDC and Dr. Satcher have not been forthcoming. It is very clear to me that they have not been complete in their disclosure of what they have been doing and what they have been supporting. We have asked for document after document and, as previous discussion in this debate revealed, the CDC has been loath to send us information and documents. But all the trickle of information reveals a greater and greater commitment, on the part of this nominee to be Surgeon General of the United States, to support needle exchange programs which would provide those who are breaking the law with the capacity to do so, perhaps at less disease risk. But I question whether or not most Americans want to be spending their tax resources to provide needles for dope addicts instead of improving the education of their children or pursuing a variety of other objectives which might be undertaken. A fourth, very important item that relates to my reservations about Dr. Satcher is that the Centers for Disease Control, instead of focusing its energy on diseases and the eradication of diseases, has in some cases diverted its attention to areas far afield from the area of disease control or prevention, or even the development of therapies for diseases. Here is one example of another area they have moved into--the area of accidents. The CDC has decided that significant studies related to gun ownership are the equivalent of the examination of diseases. As Larry Craig, the Senator from Idaho, has eloquently argued on this floor, the second amendment to the Constitution--the right to bear arms--is not an epidemic. The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not a disease. We really do not intend for the Centers for Disease Control to be involved in some debate about the politically correct response to this set or the other about gun ownership. The Centers for Disease Control should focus its energy and deploy its resources in a way that will help American families have greater health and will help them maintain freedom from disease and the threats that real health problems can bring to them. Those are an array of issues which I think will be discussed again today, and have been discussed in this debate at some level. But I would like to focus my remarks on one additional matter for the next few minutes in this debate. It is simply this: That a Surgeon General who sanctions partial-birth abortions is unfit to serve the people of the United States of America. A Surgeon General who acquiesces in partial-birth abortions is unfit to serve as the family doctor for the people of this country. Dr. Satcher, in a letter of October 28th, 1997, to Senator Frist, said the following: I have no intention of using the positions of Assistant Secretary for Health and Surgeon General to promote issues related to abortion. I want to use the power of these positions to focus on issues that unite Americans, not divide them. Satcher goes on in his letter: As a family physician, medical educator, and public health leader, I have devoted my entire career to mainstream consensus building efforts to improve the health of the American people. Yet, Dr. Satcher has stated that he supports the President's position regarding partial-birth abortion. On October 21, 1997, in a response written to Senator Coats of Indiana, Dr. Satcher stated that he supports the President's position on partial-birth abortion. Mr. President, is that a mainstream consensus building position shared by America? Is the position of President Clinton mainstream? Is that position supported by most Americans? Does it build consensus? Thankfully not. This is pretty clear. A recent CNN-Times poll reveals that fully 3 out of every 4 Americans believe that partial-birth abortion is wrong. Nonetheless, President Clinton, Dr. Satcher, and their allies on Capitol Hill persist. The suggestion that Dr. Satcher is only going to do things that are mainstream to build consensus is immediately belied by his performance on this issue. Lest there be any confusion, we are talking about an abortion procedure that allows a child to be partially born from a mother's womb only to have its skull crushed by a doctor who pledged to ``do no harm.'' Most Americans by now understand the horrors of partial-birth abortion. They understand that this is a late-term abortion. They understand that these abortions are conducted in a way that results in the child being born 80 to 90 percent, and while just a small portion of the child remains in the mother's body, the child is then killed. This procedure occurs at a time in the pregnancy when the child could survive outside the mother's womb. One of the things that really strikes me is that partial-birth abortion is revealed on a continuing basis by science to be less and less acceptable in the American culture, because there are so many things known today that weren't known a few years ago. We held hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Constitution Subcommittee on Abortion, and we solicited the testimony of Jean A. Wright, medical doctor and master of business administration. She is an individual who is board certified in pediatrics, anesthesia, and in both sub-boards of critical care medicine. What she pointed out was very important; that is, that these children who are subject to partial-birth abortion have an increased sensitivity to pain. So much of the argument surrounding abortion has alleged that these children can feel no pain, that it is not a person, that this is just a group of cells, and this is not anything to be concerned about. As technology progresses, science reveals that indeed these young, preborn children are very sensitive to pain. I just wanted to point out that in our hearings Dr. Wright made a very, very compelling presentation about the nature of this pain. The way they found out about pain in preborn infants comes from techniques that have been developed for doing surgery on preborn infants. When these surgeries are performed they sometimes measure things like blood pressure and the level of hormones and other substances in the blood. And when a person is undergoing pain, his blood pressure goes up. When a person is undergoing pain, that person's blood composition changes in response to pain. Medical personnel have noticed, both when they are doing surgeries on preborn infants inside the mother and when they withdraw the child from the mother for later placing it back in the womb to do surgery, that the elevation in the pain levels of these preborn infants is very substantial, at least as seen in the indicators that are associated with pain. So that the child's blood pressure goes up very substantially and the blood's hormonal content goes up. As a matter of fact, it is not a suggestion that preborn infants feel pain less than full-term infants and newborns. It looks as if prior to being born the sensitivity to pain is higher than it is once one is born. That would make sense because the preborn infant is not accustomed to being knocked around, or invaded, or cut on, or otherwise injured. So the child's sensitivity is very high. With that in mind, I think this knowledge just dramatizes the whole issue of partial-birth abortion--this issue of taking a late-term child, withdrawing that child substantially from the mother, and then destroying that child, which otherwise could survive with the kind of medical help that is frequently attendant to premature births. Dr. Satcher says that he has a mainstream approach and that he is going to pursue consensus, but he indicates that he favors these kinds of abortions. I just do not think that is a very unifying approach. I don't think it is the kind of view that is reflected in the mainstream of America. But not only is Dr. Satcher's view outside the mainstream of America, Dr. Satcher's view on this issue is also outside the mainstream of America's medical community. It is not just that the American people broadly defined don't accept his views. Dr. Satcher departs also from thousands of his colleagues in the medical profession who have declared emphatically that there are no health reasons or health justifications for performing partial-birth abortions. The American Medical Association opposes the procedure. I have to leave it to the AMA, in the face of their opposition to this procedure which Dr. Satcher is willing to embrace, to explain why they would support Dr. Satcher, and I would leave it to them to explain the inconsistency which I believe that particular position reveals. The group called the Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth is a nationwide coalition of doctors now numbering over 600 members. This organization has insisted there is no medical need or justification for the partial birth abortion procedure and that it should be banned. So we have a clear indication that not only is partial-birth abortion in the mind of the public improper--three out of four people do not support it--but groups as diverse as the American Medical Association and the Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth say there is no reason for it and reject it. Of course, as I indicated, testimony from Jean Wright of Emory University about pain in preborn infants provides another basis for the American people to say this isn't the kind of thing we want to support. Dr. Roy C. Stringfellow, of Colorado, wrote: President Clinton's medical reasoning for his stance on partial-birth abortion has been clearly shown to be flawed and not in any way in touch with reality. I am sure Dr. Satcher understands this, and I am sure he is aware of the fact that the AMA as well as many other medical groups and medical experts have recognized President Clinton's flawed reasoning. It concerns me greatly that Dr. Satcher does not have the courage to take an appropriate stance in regard to this issue. If he cannot be trusted to take the side of medical reality versus political expediency in this case, how can we trust him to fulfill the office of Surgeon General? We haven't had a Surgeon General for 3 years. We did not have a Surgeon General for 3 years because the last Surgeon General was so irresponsible, so outspoken as to literally wage an assault on the good judgment and values of the American people and on the values of the medical community. But I do not think we need a Surgeon General so badly that we will have to embrace a Surgeon General who will be politically instead of medically correct. And I don't think anyone who supports widely-opposed medical issues that are as clear, convincing, and consensus oriented as partial-birth abortion, or who will just defer to what political bosses dictate in that respect, should be elevated to such a position of high trust and respect as Surgeon General. I have just a few exemplary letters that I will be reading. They are by individuals from all across the country, from Massachusetts, Colorado and Montana to Florida and Louisiana. Dr. Helen T. Jackson of Brookline, MA, shares a concern: As a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist, I hereby state that there is no place in medicine for partial-birth abortion. This is a barbaric procedure which should not be accepted in any civilized society. No Surgeon General should be a rubber stamp for the President's position. This is not just a question here about partial-birth abortion. This becomes a larger question. If a Surgeon General is willing to go against the best of medicine in order to cave in to political demands from the President on an issue so important as the life and death of unborn children by partial-birth abortion, I think we have to ask ourselves, will we get the kind of advice and help from the Surgeon General that we need and want? Dr. Douglas B. Boyette wrote: Please let it be clearly understood that I would oppose the appointment of Dr. David Satcher in his quest to become Surgeon General. He supports President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Obviously, this physician lacks clear judgment and, therefore, would be an inappropriate candidate for such an important position. Let me read a letter from yet another doctor. Dr. John I. Lane of Great Falls, MT, writes: I strongly urge you and your colleagues in the Senate to let the President know that this Nation deserves a physician of the highest caliber, not a politician, to serve as Surgeon General of the United States. I think Dr. Lane would reflect the concerns of a lot of people in this country. Sure, we would be glad to respond to someone as our America's family doctor, as our leader in terms of health concerns, but there is nothing more important between the doctor and the patient than the responsibility of trust. You would hate to think you were going to your doctor and, instead of getting good medical advice, were getting political advice. The American people want a doctor to lead us to better health, not to parrot politics. I agree with the letter of Dr. John Lane of Great Falls, MT, when it says, ``The Nation deserves a physician of the highest caliber, not a politician, to serve as the Surgeon General of the United States.'' I think it is pretty clear that we owe a duty of responsibility to the American people in this confirmation deliberation to make sure that we do not confirm someone who is going to advance a political agenda rather than a health agenda. Too often I think a lot of people realize this. They feel there are going to be political health agendas instead of the real health agendas. People have had real reservations about the way the research funds of the United States have been allocated. They have had real reservations about what has been done in terms of trying to conquer various diseases. It seems to them that some diseases are more politically popular and get a lot of support and research dollars, in spite of the fact that the same number of dollars might really save far more lives somewhere else or might be devoted to developing a promising therapy which is on the verge of complete development and discovery. But, instead, politicians take the resources and redirect them toward political objectives or to political constituencies instead of having the resources directed in the areas of real medical assistance. In a setting like this, we should find out whether an individual is going to be subject to political exigencies or whether the individual is going to take the direction of medicine. I think a real question is raised here when, repudiating the American Medical Association position on partial-birth abortion, repudiating the advice of the overwhelming number of experts that it is never medically indicated, the proposed Surgeon General of the United States decides to embrace a political position of the President rather than to advocate a medical position for the people. That is troublesome. Or consider the letter of Peggy B. James, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Florida College of Medicine: As a physician practicing for the past 17 years, and as a mother of three children, one of whom was delivered very early and was very ill but is doing very well now, I am abhorred that Dr. Satcher's confirmation may take place. Here you have a clinical assistant professor, a mother, a medical doctor, who has had experience--one of her own three children born very ill and very early, but doing very well now--who understands the tangibility of a child that is not born at full and the tangibility of its survival. She is, frankly, shocked that a person might be endowed with the mantle of respect to lead America in health decisions who favors allowing the destruction of such children rather than trying to protect them. ``I am abhorred,'' she says, ``that [the confirmation] may take place.'' One more letter. Finally, W.A. Krotoski, a retired medical director of the U.S. Public Health Service, living in Louisiana, asserted: The position of Surgeon General of the United States is too important to place in the hands of people who are willing to deny their oaths and medical facts. Should Dr. Satcher be selected, he will have enormous influence over the dedicated group of health care professionals who constitute the U.S. Public Health Service. Please don't allow this influence to be that of denied integrity regarding human life. It is not a matter of minor consequence. The opportunity of the Senate in confirmation hearings is a sobering opportunity, and it is not a matter of pleasure to come to the floor to say that we can and ought do better and that we need someone who is a physician above being a politician, someone who will lead us to better health rather than reinforce the politics of an administration. I think that is something we are owed and something for which we ought to aspire. So I read through these letters from Dr. Stringfellow, Dr. Jackson, Dr. Boyette, Dr. Lane, Dr. James, and Dr. Krotoski. These are letters which speak about the mainstream medical community's understanding, and they call us to our highest and best. They diagnose something. The best diagnosis is the diagnosis that is in advance; it doesn't wait until you get the disease. It says, if you persist in a kind of behavior, you will find yourself in a substandard position. This is what we have here. We invite someone to be the health leader for the United States of America whose commitment, when push comes to shove, is to politics over health, or at least who is willing to accommodate the political position of the President on partial-birth abortion, rather than someone who is willing to stand up and say what is true in the hearts and minds of mainstream and what is true in terms of the medical community. I think that kind of diagnosis by these physicians is very helpful. We should heed the warning of these doctors. In a sense it is a health warning. Mr. President, what message would we send by embracing a Surgeon General nominee who would support such barbarism? What does it say about who we are? What does it say about the moral condition of our Nation, when the Surgeon General, in the face of the American Medical Association and in the face of expert medical testimony, would seek to put a political position in place, or would reinforce that political position? He may say, well, I am not going to be there to talk aggressively on this issue. I am not going to be there to make a big thing over abortion. I can assure you that when the debate comes to the floor of the Senate, the Surgeon General's position will be recited. To have it suggested that there would be an opportunity for a person to be Surgeon General and not lead on an issue this important, whose position would be inconsequential on a position this important, would simply be to deny what the responsibility of the job is. The job is to lead. The job is to lead toward better health. And if a person is willing to put politics above better health in situations like this and say we are not going to emphasize it, I do not believe a person really is saying they understand what the nature of the job is. There has been and there will be more talk of what Tuesday's vote signifies. The New York Times suggested that this is a fight about abortion. They put it this way: Conservatives want to block this highly respected nominee because of his mildly stated views on abortion. Well, frankly, this is about partial-birth abortion. This is about whether we are going to cloak an individual with the title, prestige, impact and influence of the Surgeon General of the United States of America who is willing to support partial-birth abortion against the will of the American people and against the wisdom of America's medical community. Now, there are other issues involved here. It is not exclusively about abortion, but it is about abortion. The New York Times is right. It suggests that it is about abortion, and, Mr. President, this is about abortion. It is about partial-birth abortion, a procedure so cruel, a procedure so inhumane, a procedure the barbarism of which is so significant that rational support is hard to generate. I do not believe that reasonable and rational support can be accorded this procedure. The procedure itself defies that kind of support. This nomination is about whether a man who championed this horrific act is fit to serve as the Nation's family doctor. I am a little bit troubled by the phrase in the New York Times editorial, ``mildly stated.'' It has been stated on the Senate floor, I believe by the senior Senator from New York, that this procedure is ``infanticide.'' I wonder if the New York Times believes that if someone just mildly states their support for infanticide that makes infanticide appropriate? I wonder if we had a mild statement in support of genocide, whether that would make genocide acceptable? You know, mild statements sometimes cover over the most serious of circumstances. I remember a Presidential nominee who resolved that abortion should be safe, rare and legal--a pretty mild statement. But it is the same President who has consistently vetoed bans on the barbaric procedure known as partial-birth abortion. If my time as Governor and Senator have taught me anything it is this, that government and its officials teach. Teaching that partial-birth abortion is acceptable is wrong. There is a struggle in the country. There is an idea that our young people do not have the right view of themselves. They do not have the kind of esteem which we would like young people to have. Somehow, our children do not have the kind of self-image, according to a number of individuals, that we would want them to have. Maybe we contribute to the absence of the right kind of esteem and self-image in children when we indicate to them that they can be survivable, and they can be substantially born, but it's still OK and appropriate if someone wants to destroy them at that stage of their existence. If we want to teach children self-esteem, maybe we should begin to esteem children a little more ourselves. In the absence of the right value for children to place on their own lives, maybe we should seek to place a greater value on the lives of children ourselves. I think America deserves better than a Surgeon General who would show a callous disregard for innocent human life, even if it is a mild statement of approving partial-birth abortion. A man who would sanction and support partial-birth abortion cannot provide the moral leadership that the office of Surgeon General so desperately needs. Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity to open this debate. I believe more than anything else, America needs a Surgeon General who will tell the American people the truth; whose efforts in the Surgeon General's office will not be to protect the political agenda of any individual but will be to help the health agenda of the American people. When we are offered individuals who are willing to go in the face of the American Medical Association and the medical community to support partial-birth abortion and support the President rather than the health concerns of the country, I think are shown a clear symptom of a problem which we would rather do without. The best way to avoid that problem is to insist on better for the United States of America. I note the presence of the senior Senator from New Hampshire on the floor. He introduced the legislation to ban partial-birth abortion. He is an individual who has been a great fighter for the rights of the unborn. He tackled the issue of partial-birth abortion in a setting that was very difficult and thereby demonstrated his outstanding courage. I am pleased to yield to the senior Senator from New Hampshire, such time as he may consume in regard to this nomination.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes. I would be finished by 4:30. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico be allowed to speak at 4:30, and that his time be taken--I understand he is supporting the nomination--that his time be taken from the time on the supporting side for the nomination. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that for any quorum call made, time be reduced on the different sides in the debate equally.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you very much. As I said, there was a stream of thought in this country that says, we ought to begin accepting drug use as a way of life. It is known as the ``harm reduction'' school of thought. It is a philosophy that tries to limit some of the harm and to provide as much support as is necessary to drug users in the culture. Now, this is the philosophy behind the needle exchange programs which have gained the favor of the nominee, Dr. Satcher. By giving addicts clean needles, the argument goes, you reduce their chance of becoming infected with HIV, therefore, you improve their quality of life. I, along with a majority of Americans, believe that such policies are nothing more than a subsidy for drug use--providing equipment for drug users to administer illegal drugs to themselves, and hoping somehow that in this safer environment for them and somehow that they have fewer infections. I indicate that that is not the view of most Americans. And I do not think it is the view of many sensible individuals, including Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who is the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. We frequently refer to General McCaffrey as the ``Drug Czar.'' These are the words of General McCaffrey: The problem is not dirty needles, the problem is heroin addiction. . . The focus should be on bringing help to this suffering population--not give them more effective means to continue their addiction. One does not want to facilitate this dreadful scourge on mankind. Well, I couldn't agree more with General McCaffrey. We do not want to facilitate the dreadful scourge of drugs on mankind. We do not want to accept drug use as a way of life. Furthermore, it is crucial that we understand whatever we do in Government--we teach--we send signals to young people. What are young people to think when they encounter a junkie who wants to convince them to use IV drugs, and young people say, ``Oh, I don't know. I've been told that's wrong. And I've been told that's dangerous.'' But the junkie says, ``Oh, don't worry about that. The Government gives us needles. And we can do this without risk or harm. You don't think the Government would provide us with the tools if this was something that's really wrong, do you?'' I think it would be hard, as a young person who was otherwise tempted, to understand that the government would not be endorsing drug use. What does this do to our children? What kind of message does it send to America in terms of that to which we aspire? Does it carry us to our highest and best or does it accommodate us at our lowest and least? Is this harm reduction a means, by saying that we will tolerate this, that we are willing to embrace it, and not only embrace it but to subsidize it? And in so doing, are we willing to corrupt the next generation because we are trying to provide a clean needle? Besides-- there are real questions about whether clean needles reduce drug use or not. Obviously, the Congress has rejected this policy of facilitating, in the words of General McCaffrey, the ``dreadful scourge on mankind.'' In 1988, the U.S. Congress began banning the use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs. The representatives of the people of the United States of America said, ``My taxpayers, the people who send me here, don't want to spend their money buying needles for drug addicts.'' I keep thinking to myself, I will bet you they don't want to buy bulletproof vests for bank robbers either. You could improve the health condition of bank robbers, if you wanted to, and make it safer for them. Under those circumstances, they would less likely die in the commission of a robbery if you would strap a bulletproof vest on them. But I don't think we want to do that because we don't want to participate, with Federal money or State money or any money, in the commission of a crime. It is something we are against doing. I do not think we want to participate in the commission of the drug crimes which spawn the robberies, spawn the assaults in our cities by saying, ``We're going to make this easier for you. We're going to make it less risky for you. We're going to make it cleaner for you. We're going to make it more convenient for you. So any time you need a needle, we can give you one. You won't have to find one or you won't have to try and get one some other way illegally. We'll just make it available to you. That way, you won't ever have to quit taking drugs.'' In 1988, Congress began banning the use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs. Last year, in 1997, Congress included language in the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill that would allow the ban to be lifted if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that needle exchange programs reduce HIV among intravenous drug users and does not encourage drug use. Well, I think it would be a very difficult finding to be able to make. Since it is the function of the Surgeon General to advise the Secretary of HHS on such policies, Dr. Satcher's position on the needle exchange program is crucial in the debate. Here you have it. The law now says that we will not spend tax dollars in this respect unless the Secretary of Health determines that needle exchange programs reduce HIV among intravenous drug users and they do not encourage drug use. So all he would have to do is say, well, I kind of think they probably will reduce--or accept a study that might say that they do, or accept a study that says they don't encourage drug use. And having done that, he is in the position to have the law of the United States go from not supporting needle exchange to supporting needle exchange programs. Dr. Satcher's needle exchange position has been very difficult to determine. It has been difficult to determine in substantial measure because they have not been forthcoming. There has been a set of responses made by the Centers for Disease Control which are incomplete. And the more complete they are, the more troublesome they become. A 1992 study conducted by the University of California moved the harm reduction debate into the mainstream of public debate. Also, this is the most often cited study showing that needle exchange programs reduce HIV in intravenous drug users. In 1993, CDC was asked to ``review'' the California study and give its ``opinions and recommendations for Federal action in response to needle exchange'' programs. In the review, the CDC embraced the study findings that needle exchange programs reduce HIV infection among IV drug users and show no evidence of encouraging drug use. The CDC, led by Dr. Satcher, made its recommendations not only on Federal action but also made recommendations on policy changes to State and local governments. The ban on Federal funding of needle exchange programs should be removed to allow States and communities the option of including needle exchange programs in comprehensive programs [programs that share Federal funding]. In the review, the CDC found the recommendation that State and local governments repeal their drug paraphernalia laws as they ``apply to syringes,'' to be ``reasonable and appropriate.'' So here you have the Centers for Disease Control, under the leadership of Dr. Satcher, saying that we ought to urge States to repeal their drug paraphernalia laws concerning syringes that it is a reasonable and appropriate recommendation. He is sending word up the chain to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that that is what ought to be done. He is also saying the ban on Federal funding of needle exchange programs should be lifted to allow States and communities the option of including needle exchange programs in comprehensive programs. The review also found the California study recommendation that ``substantial Federal funds should be committed both to providing needle exchange services and to expanding research into these programs.'' And they found that recommendations was ``reasonable and appropriate.'' So here is what you have. You have the CDC recognizing and evaluating the California study. And then you have the CDC saying, under Dr. Satcher's direction and leadership, that the recommendations are both reasonable and appropriate. And what are those recommendations? They are to spend substantial Federal funds to provide needle exchange services and to expanding research into such needle exchange programs, and they are to recommend that state and local governments repeal their drug paraphernalia laws as they relate to syringes, and they are to say that the ban on Federal funding of needle exchange programs should be lifted. Here you have a real conflict. You have the people of the United States against providing needles for drug addicts. You have Dr. Satcher running the CDC, evaluating studies and saying that it is reasonable and appropriate to start spending Federal tax dollars. Then he concludes, based on the studies, that there is no increase in HIV transmission or drug use as a result of needle exchange programs. Now, I have to say that this so-called review by CDC has been very controversial. In fact, it was made public only during the past 2 years after a needle exchange advocacy group obtained and disseminated a copy. Prior to that time CDC even denied Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain copies of the review. Here is what you have. You have the CDC on record in favor of needle exchange programs under the direction of Dr. Satcher. You have a refusal of the agency to provide copies of their review of the report. I can understand Dr. Satcher's trying to distance himself from this review. When I asked for a copy of the CDC's review of this report, it was not forthcoming. And when it was forthcoming, it came to me with a critical piece of the operation missing. What was missing from the report was the letter of Dr. Satcher--the cover letter--where he is ``pleased to submit the attached review.'' Now, I have some real reservations about the fact that the CDC would send out the report and not include the cover letter from this nominee. I can understand why this nominee would not want the cover letter to accompany the review because he has sought to lead Members of the Senate and committees of the Senate that he has not endorsed, not participated in programs that would promote needle exchange or clean needles for drug addicts. But I think it is beneath the dignity of the CDC and beneath the integrity of the Senate of the United States to send out the review without having the letter of endorsement on the review that is signed on behalf of David Satcher. In my opinion, for us to make good judgments about individuals who are before the Senate, we have to expect agencies to comply completely with our requests. To provide documents that we ask be provided-- selectively--in ways which favor prior statements of a nominee, and to withhold items which might not be as favorable to the nominee and to provide items that might be more favorable to the nominee reflects poorly on the compliance of the agency. It could reflect on the integrity of the nominee if the nominee himself or herself is in control of the agency. It might be possible to argue that, well, maybe the cover letter does not really apply to the recommendations and maybe the signature on the cover letter, which purports to be a signature for Dr. Satcher, is not one that ought to be considered, but I hope that agencies in providing information to the Senate would allow the Senate to make judgments like that. The Centers for Disease Control has withheld relevant and material information I believe in an effort to mislead this body on Dr. Satcher's position on Federal funding for needle exchange programs. A statement was made on the Senate floor that suggested I was trying to mislead my colleagues by saying that Dr. Satcher supports needle exchange programs. A Senator stated that ``Dr. Satcher has never advocated taxpayer funded needle exchange programs for drug abusers. Dr. Satcher has recommended to Congress that we allow scientific studies to answer the key questions involved with this issue. Dr. Satcher believes we should never do anything to advocate the use of illegal drugs; the intravenous use of illegal drugs is wrong. He has said that he opposes the use of any illegal drugs.'' The key point here is after I indicated Dr. Satcher had promoted and sought to promote illegal drug use, statements were made in the Chamber that he has never advocated taxpayer funded needle exchange programs for drug users. Well, I think you can tell from the report I just quoted, which was sent to us finally, begrudgingly--minus the cover letter from Dr. Satcher--that directly contradicts ``Dr. Satcher has never advocated taxpayer funded needle exchange programs.'' No question about it. Let's look at the record. In addition to this, although it is difficult to find since the CDC consistently has withheld and delayed getting requested information to my office, Dr. Satcher has not been forthright in addressing his view on public funding for needle exchange programs. He has embraced the lawyer speak, Clinton speak that we have all heard too much of in the last 6 years. When asked the question about his position on the Federal funding of needle exchange programs, he talks about quality science or the administration's position. He does not simply answer the question. When my office requested information from the CDC on the ``number of needle exchange programs, education or research conferences sponsored with Centers for Disease Control funds,'' I was told that the CDC did not fund such conferences. The cover letter, transmitted with part of the information that we had requested, stated that the ``CDC has participated in several conferences and other activities designed to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS'' but said categorically there were no CDC funded conferences in this respect. Understanding again the lawyer speak, the CDC only funds conferences ``designed to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS,'' therefore, we had to ask for information on all conferences funded by the CDC that were designed to reduce the spread of HIV and AIDS. We asked for this information 5 days ago and still have not received it. Even though the CDC stated that it did not fund such conferences. Even though we have a great deal of information, including conference brochures, indicating that the CDC does fund such conferences. They found one ``Award of Notice'' relevant to my request, it was a needle exchange conference that the CDC decided not to fund. This was a Harm Reduction Action Coalition conference that was supposed to be funded by the CDC but the funding was terminated because the CDC could not approve the final agenda. The CDC is forthright in giving me information about a needle exchange conference finding--it is relevant to the request when they terminated funding but not when the funding for the conference actually went through. Let me go over it. We asked them if they had ever funded a conference that regarded needle exchange and whether they would fund such a conference and they sent us documentation that said here is a conference which we're going to fund--which happens to be the needle exchange advocacy group we already have talked about today--but the funding was terminated because we could not agree on the final agenda. They understood that they wanted to support Dr. Satcher's representations to Senators and to the members of the committee of the Senate that he does not support needle exchange programs. So we will look at the record. First, he submitted the review I just mentioned recommending the end to the Federal ban. Under Dr. Satcher's leadership the CDC has cosponsored conferences designed to advance the needle exchange agenda. I have mentioned the cover letter that I was sent by the Department of Health and Human Services Legislative Affairs Office, but now I quote: The CDC does not provide funds to support needle exchange programs, nor has the CDC directly funded any educational research conference on needle exchange, although CDC has, of course, participated in several conferences and other activities designed to reduce the spread of AIDS. What you have here is I have asked them if they ever support conferences on needle exchange. They say no. They say we can show you a document of a conference we denied because it had needle exchange in it. And then outside of their own response with documents we get this logo from a conference sponsored by CDC ``Getting the Point.'' I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to know that this is a needle. ``A conference about clean needle programs sponsored by the Chicago Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'' Now, it may be a coincidence that the Centers for Disease Control provided me information about a conference which they were going to fund but then terminated the funding, but when I have asked for information from them about conferences which they did sponsor and they omit those carefully--but I doubt it. It may be a coincidence that they omitted the cover letter which provided Dr. Satcher's direct connection to the assessment of the Centers for Disease Control for Federal funding for clean needles and for the conclusions of the California study--which--incidentally are not based on good science--but I doubt it. It seems like it is all too convenient that this agency--in pursuit of this nomination--selectively has provided to the Senate those things which reinforce the stated position, the public position of the nominee and has then deleted from the record those things which do not comport with the position of the nominee. It not only happened as it related to the cover letter on the evaluation of the California study; it happened when we wanted to know whether we really find ourselves sponsoring clean needle conferences and agendas around the country. And conveniently enough the cover letter was deleted and conveniently enough the conference that was funded was deleted, but the conference which was not funded was included in the evidence. I quote from a letter from the Illinois Drug Education Alliance--who attended this Chicago--``Getting the Point'' Conference which was addressed to Dr. Satcher. Dear Director Satcher. As President of the Illinois Drug Education Alliance, I take strong exception to how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are promoting clean needle programs in the State of Illinois. My understanding is that no Federal money is to be spent on clean needle programs, so I do not understand how the CDC can justify promoting clean needle programs. In Chicago, on June 30, 1997, the Chicago Department of Public Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cosponsored a conference ``Getting The Point'' on clean needle programs. I was one of three IDEA (Illinois Drug Education Alliance) board Members who attended the conference, and I can personally testify that it was totally weighted toward clean needle programs. There were no (in italics ``N-O'') speakers presenting the opposite view. Judy Kreamer, the President of the Illinois Drug Education Alliance, persists to write: We were further alarmed to learn that the CDC is providing technical assistance and financial support for another conference ``HIV Prevention Among Injection Drug Users.'' This Illinois Department of Public Health conference also presents a clearly biased perspective. After a number of telephone calls and cooperation of IDPH, we were able to include a panel, featuring a nationally known expert, to present the opposing view. Critical point. The kind of representations made by Dr. Satcher to Members of the Senate have been that he opposes Federal funding, does not advocate Federal funding for clean needle programs. That was made so convincingly to a number of Members of this body that when I rose to say early in the debate that he advocated clean- needle programs or needle exchange programs, there were those who rose to vociferously contradict it and assure us that that was not the case. I think this evidence speaks for itself. One, he has endorsed the report saying it's reasonable and appropriate to have substantial Federal funding for clean-needle programs. No. 2, he has endorsed a report saying it's reasonable and appropriate to urge that the State laws be changed so that drug paraphernalia laws provide an exception for needles and syringes. Secondly, there is clear evidence, when all the evidence is in--or at least when enough evidence is finally provided--that not only did the Department fail to provide us with notice of the clean-needle programs, there was a selective provision of material requested by the Senate, and that is very, very distressing. The reasoning for not providing the letter was that it was just a transmittal letter, although they did send us, of course, a substantial amount of information. I would like to submit the conference agenda and letter for the Record. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the achievement of Assist International, World Serv, the Hewlett Packard Foundation, and the Erie Area Chamber of Commerce in delivering medical aid to the people of Ethiopia. This group of organizations has worked to provide medical equipment to Ethiopia that can save hundreds of lives. This generous gift, valued at over one million dollars, will bring hope and health to many in Ethiopia. These organizations and the concerned Americans associated with them have demonstrated the true spirit of charity. The group cooperatively has donated a state-of-the-art cardiac heart monitoring unit to the Black Lion Hospital--Ethiopia's leading teaching medical facility. In addition to the cardiac unit, beds, mattresses, and other system support equipment will be provided. World Serv and Assist International have a strong history of providing humanitarian aid to relieve human suffering in needy countries. Assist International donated medical equipment to a site in Mongolia which was then approved by the World Health Organization to perform open heart surgery. The Hewlett Packard Foundation donated the medical equipment in the Black Lion Project in its goal to ease human suffering internationally. Finally, the Chamber of Commerce of Erie, Pennsylvania, has joined together with the other organizations and has raised the funding for transportation, installation, and training costs of this project. Specifically, I commend the Erie Area Chamber of Commerce for this cooperative effort and for holding the third annual ``Aid to Africa'' banquet to raise funds for humanitarian projects. The Black Lion project is an example of the compassion and generosity that other countries appreciate and admire in the United States. It gives me great pleasure as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Africa Subcommittee to know that Americans are finding ways within the private sector to aid other countries in Africa. It is my pleasure to ask the members of the Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the work of the members and staff of Assist International, World Serv, the Hewlett Packard Foundation, and the Erie Area Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the confirmation of the nominee for Surgeon General of the United States, David Satcher, and I allocate myself such time as I may consume in opposition. Mr. President, we have had extended debate on this nomination. It is conceded by individuals from every quarter that the nominee is a person of great talent, of substantial intellectual capacity, and who has made a substantial contribution to the medical community. The reservations which I have expressed in no way are designed to derogate the record of achievement that this medical doctor has assembled. But there are a series of concerns which I have raised, some of which are so serious that I believe they would cause us to refrain from voting to confirm this nominee to lead us as America's family doctor. I would like to just mention four of them, as I conclude my remarks today. As is contained in the unanimous consent order, there will be another hour of debate on this issue tomorrow prior to the vote on cloture, and in the event cloture is invoked, there will be a vote on final passage immediately thereafter. These four points, though, I would like to raise, and I believe each of these would be adequate or sufficient as a basis for denying confirmation here. But certainly the cumulative impact of these particular concerns should weigh heavily on the minds of Senators as we move toward the votes related to the confirmation of this nominee. And in my case they clearly indicate that we should not vote in favor of this confirmation. The first is this. This is a nominee who favors partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion is a procedure that has been demonstrated to be a cruel, inhumane, unnecessary procedure. The American Medical Association opposes it. Three-quarters of the American people oppose it, especially those who understand what it is. And for this nominee to side with the political agenda of the President rather than the health agenda of the United States of America indicates, I think all too clearly, that the agenda will be politics rather than health. We ought to have a Surgeon General who has a health agenda and does not repair to the politics of the President or anyone else. Next, during the time when this nominee presided over the Centers for Disease Control, he and the Centers for Disease Control sponsored studies in Africa regarding the transmission of AIDS from HIV infected mothers to their children. Rather than implement an ethical strategy for that research that was consistent with the ethics in the United States, they conducted the tests by giving half of the individuals in the study sugar pills or placebos, when there was a known, effective treatment. This was such a breach of the ethics of the medical profession in testing that the New England Journal of Medicine, the No. 1 medical journal in the United States of America, very seriously and aggressively cited this ethical lapse and said that these studies were unethical and should be discontinued on that basis. The truth of the matter is, the studies go forward. There are a lot of reasons that have been put forth in this debate about why they have gone forward. Some have talked about informed consent. It is clear the level of informed consent there would never pass muster here. What is clear to me is this nominee views lives differently in Africa than he could be allowed to view them in the United States. This nominee views lives differently before they are born, in the partial- birth abortion arena, than I think the American people do. Next, there were CDC studies on HIV-infected newborns in this country. No identification was made of the newborns. The studies were conducted after the blood samples were de-identified. This may have been an appropriate strategy before we knew that we could help a newborn that tested positive for HIV. But once we developed a potential therapy, to persist with the studies in the absence of identification of the infected newborn and notification to the parent so that remedial action could be taken, it seems to me a tremendous moral lapse, and it was characterized by one of the most notable AIDS researchers in the world as a breach of the ethics not only of the United States, but international ethics. When the Congress got upset about this and sought to ask Dr. Satcher and the CDC to cease these tests where you learned about the fact that there were X number of HIV-infected babies but you couldn't identify them, and therefore, you weren't able to tell the parents, what did Dr. Satcher do? He came to the Hill to lobby Congress that we should keep doing that, in spite of the fact that we had the ability, once we learned about the HIV virus, to be able to curtail it with the therapy, with the administration of drugs and other things. I think that compounds the ethical problems that were identified in the Africa studies, and it compounds the ethical problems that relate to the disregard for human existence that characterizes his embrace of the President's position on partial-birth abortion. The last item which was the subject of significant debate today was the needle exchange program. While Dr. Satcher has indicated that he doesn't support needle exchange programs, the documents that have only recently been released by the Centers for Disease Control find him in endorsement of needle exchange programs, and urging that there be large amounts of Federal money to support needle exchange programs. I don't believe that we need a family doctor for America who says we ought to subsidize the drug culture by providing free needles, by saying to the drug dealers, you can get all the needles you want, and when you want to go and tell our young people that they should get involved in your drug culture, you can have the authority of the Government with you to say it must be OK; surely, the Government wouldn't provide us with these free, clean, sterile needles to use in shooting up drugs if it weren't in your best interest. I think that sends the worst message possible to young people that the Government is a subsidizer of and a promoter of an environment in which drugs can be used with lowered risk. My own sense is that it makes no more sense to provide clean needles to drug dealers than it would be to provide bulletproof vests to bank robbers. We could surely make bank robbing a safer occupation by providing bulletproof vests, but we wouldn't want to do it. Neither should we make intravenous drug use a sort of project of the Government because we might be able to provide some safety to some user. I won't go into the details; we have already done that. We already know that people who don't care enough about themselves to use good needles or clean needles in drug use won't take care of the needles once they have used them. One town found over 300 needles in the course of 1 week after a privately funded clean-needle program was implemented there. I don't think we want our playgrounds and our streets and our cities to be littered with once-used free needles supplied by the Government that could later infect our children. All of these things that relate to a disregard for the right health strategy for America are disqualifying events for this candidate: partial-birth abortion, the African AIDS studies, the domestic blind HIV tests on newborns, where we persisted in this practice even after we discovered an effective therapy for these infants, and last but not least, the clean-needle exchange program, which basically wants to accept drug culture as a way of life instead of calling America to its highest and best and saying that the real problem is heroin, the real problem is drug addiction, the real problem is not the absence of a needle program funded by the taxpayers. The taxpayers do not want us to destroy their neighborhoods by subsidizing drug dealers who will not only use the clean needles, but leave them in places where they can infect the children of America. For those reasons, I believe it would be appropriate for us to reject the nomination of Dr. David Satcher to be Surgeon General. We do need a Surgeon General, but we don't need one so badly that we need to welcome one who doesn't really call us to the highest and best health that America ought to have. Mr. President, I thank you very much for the opportunity to make these concluding remarks. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time on today's debate, reserving, obviously, the time to be a participant in the debate tomorrow on this issue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.