Vote May End Fight on Surgeon General

The Senate is once again mired in a confirmation squabble over one of President Clinton’s appointments, this time involving a nominee whose selection once appeared a sure thing.

In September, Clinton seemed to have finessed a lingering problem--filling the long-vacant and often-controversial surgeon general post--when he tapped Dr. David Satcher for the job.

Satcher, a highly respected physician and educator who until recently headed the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was regarded as a solid and noncontroversial choice.

Administration officials had taken pains to consult with congressional leaders before submitting Satcher’s name; White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, reflecting a widely held view at the time, said: “We are expecting a very enthusiastic and favorable response.”

That turned out to be wishful thinking, although Satcher’s supporters, who include several Republicans, hope the surprise fight over him will end Tuesday. That is when the Senate is scheduled to vote on ending a filibuster led by an ardent abortion-rights foe that has held up the confirmation.

Satcher, 56, is the latest in a series of presidential nominees snared in a philosophical or political clash between Clinton and his GOP adversaries on Capitol Hill.

One of the most recent cases involved Los Angeles lawyer Bill Lann Lee, whose appointment to head the Justice Department’s civil rights division was blocked by GOP senators disturbed by his support for affirmative-action programs. Clinton responded by giving Lee the job on an acting basis.

But even before the furor over Lee, Clinton was complaining that Republicans have intentionally dragged their feet in approving his selections to the federal judiciary.

The surgeon general job, the nation’s most visible public health position, has been vacant since 1994, when the flamboyant Dr. Joycelyn Elders was fired for making what many considered inappropriate public remarks about masturbation and other topics.

Clinton initially sought to replace Elders with Dr. Henry W. Foster Jr., a former obstetrician. But that nomination foundered after questions arose over the number of abortions Foster had performed.

Satcher, who also would serve as assistant secretary for health, won easy approval from the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.

And he is expected to be confirmed if his name can be brought to the full Senate for a vote.

But such a vote has been stalled by Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.), who has strongly criticized Satcher for his opposition to a ban on certain late-term abortions.

Ashcroft, who is openly courting the GOP presidential nomination in 2000, also has objected to Satcher’s support of a Third World AIDS treatment study, in which some infected subjects were given a placebo. Satcher has defended the study as necessary to find less-expensive alternatives to current drug therapies.

Ashcroft has termed Satcher’s nomination “flawed by controversy, ethical questions and views that are out of touch with mainstream American values.”

Democrats, fed up with GOP tactics on presidential personnel choices in general, have dismissed Ashcroft’s filibuster as a blatant attempt to woo conservative support for his presidential quest.

“Another good man has been smeared,” said one Democratic Senate aide. “It’s shameless, but it’s not going to work. We are going to get this man confirmed.”

Some of Satcher’s GOP allies have joined in assailing Ashcroft.

Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a physician who came to know Satcher well when Satcher was president of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, has dismissed much of the opposition to the nominee as “straight politics, nothing beyond that.”

A GOP Senate aide added: “What’s going on has very little to do with Dr. Satcher; it’s just an excuse to fly the flag on the abortion issue.”

Other Republicans supporting Satcher include Sens. James M. Jeffords of Vermont, John W. Warner of Virginia and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.

Even Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has said he would join the move to finally cut off debate on the nomination (60 votes in the 100-member Senate are needed to accomplish that).

Although Lott has not revealed how he will vote on the nomination itself, he said, “There is strong [bipartisan] support for [Satcher]. . . and there is legitimate concern” about the delay in acting upon his selection.

The GOP aide tried to put some perspective on the dispute, saying: “The nomination process has never been a pretty one. Historically, there have been sins on both sides of the aisle.

“The sad thing about it, though, is that it really does discourage good people from performing public service.”