Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. So it only seems fair and right we bring her out here and have a vote. If people want to vote one way or the other, that is fine. But it is not fair, 217 days. I will end my comments again by saying the standard bearer of the Republican Party, Governor Bush of Texas, has stated there ought to be a 60-day deadline on judge nominations, in other words 60 days from the day nominated to the time they get a vote in the Senate. I endorse that. Bonnie Campbell has been sitting there 217 days. Let's bring her out for a vote. I will yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am following up on the Presidential debates of the other evening. I was thinking about what Governor Bush was saying about his Medicare plan. He was referring to Vice President Gore and saying: You are engaging in ``Mediscare''--``Mediscare.'' You are trying to scare the seniors. The more I have looked at Governor Bush's Medicare proposal for prescription drugs, I have come to the conclusion that if his plan ever comes into effect, the senior citizens in this country ought to be scared. They ought to be scared about this. Here is the difference between what Vice President Gore wants in terms of prescription drugs and what Governor Bush wants. In my right hand I have a Medicare card. Under the prescription drug policies of Vice President Gore, this is all you need to get your prescription drug. You have a Medicare card, you go to your doctor, he prescribes the drugs, you go to your local pharmacy, and you get your drugs filled. That is all you need--your Medicare card. Under the Bush proposal, which goes out to the States, they have to pass legislation, and if you make over $14,600 a year, you get nothing. So in order to qualify for prescription drugs under the plan advocated by Governor Bush, you would basically have to meet all of the requirements for Medicaid in terms of showing your income, assets, everything else. I want to put together the sheaf of papers you would have to fill out if you were an elderly person and you wanted to get prescription drugs under the Bush plan. This is what you would fill out. It looks like about 40 pages of paperwork. First of all is the tax return. You have to take that in and show them how much you made. Then you have to do all the documents, including instructions, applications, certificates, estate recovery--of course, if you have some estate and you have some assets. There is an insurance questionnaire. This is the type of paperwork you would be faced with under the Bush proposal. Under the Gore proposal: One simple Medicare card. I sum it up by saying what the seniors of this country want is Medicare; they don't want welfare. That is exactly what Governor Bush is proposing in his Medicare prescription drug proposal.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will now--and I will every day--ask unanimous consent to discharge the Judiciary Committee on further consideration of the nomination of Bonnie Campbell, the nominee for the Eighth Circuit Court, and that her nomination be considered by the Senate immediately following the conclusion of action on the pending matter, and that the debate on the nomination be limited to 2 hours, equally divided, and that a vote on her nomination occur immediately following the use or yielding back of that time.

Mr. HARKIN. Bush's plan would leave rural Americans out in the cold. Thirty percent of seniors live in areas with no HMOs. And contrary to what the Senator from Minnesota said, if I heard him correctly, under the Bush program, the Government would pay 25 percent of the premiums and Medicare recipients would have to pay 75 percent. The Bush program basically is kind of scary. Seniors ought to be afraid of it, because if it comes into being, you will need more than your Medicare card. You will need your income tax returns to go down and show them how much income you have, how many assets you have. If you qualify, you are in; if you don't, you are out. That would be the end of Medicare. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for at least a couple more minutes to finish up. I didn't realize I was under a time schedule.

Mr. HARKIN. I wish I knew why people are objecting. Why are they objecting to Bonnie Campbell? Why are they objecting to a debate on the Senate floor? Why are they objecting to bringing her name out so that we can have a discussion and a vote on it? I want to make clear for the Record, it is not anyone other than the Republican majority holding up this nominee. Every day we are here--I know there will be an objection--I am going to ask unanimous consent because I want the Record to show clearly what is happening here and who is holding up this nominee who is fully qualified to be on the circuit court for the Eighth Circuit. Now I want to turn my comments to something the Senator from Minnesota was talking about; that is, the prescription drug program from the debate last night. Quite frankly, I was pretty surprised to hear Governor Bush talking about his prescription drug program. He calls it an ``immediate helping hand,'' and there is a TV ad being waged across the country to deceive and frighten seniors. He talks about ``Mediscare''; that was Bush's comment last night. He accused the Vice President of engaging in ``Mediscare,'' scaring the elderly. If the Bush proposal for prescription drugs were to ever go into effect, seniors ought to be scared because what it would mean would be the unraveling of Medicare, letting Medicare wither on the vine. Let's take a look at the Bush proposal. We know it is a two-stage proposal. First, it would be turned over to the States. It would require all 50 States to pass enabling or modifying legislation. Only 16 States have any kind of drug benefit for seniors. Each State would have a different approach. The point is, many State legislatures don't meet but every 2 years. Even if we were to enact the program, there are some State legislatures that wouldn't get to it for a couple years. Our most recent experience with something such as this is the CHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Congress passed in 1997. It took Governor Bush's home State of Texas over 2 years to implement the CHIP program. It is not immediate. He calls it ``immediate helping hand.'' It won't be immediate because States will have a hard time implementing it. In fact, the National Governors' Association says they don't want to do it. This is the National Governors' Association: If Congress decides to expand prescription drug coverage to seniors, it should not shift that responsibility or its costs to the states. That is exactly what Bush's 4-year program does. Beyond that, his plan only covers low-income seniors. Many of the seniors I have met and talked with wouldn't qualify for Bush's plan. A recent analysis shows that the Bush plan would only cover 625,000 seniors, less than 5 percent of those who need help. His plan is not Medicare; it is welfare. What the seniors of this country want is Medicare, not welfare. Seniors would likely have to apply to a State welfare office. They would have to show what their income is. If they make over $14,600 a year, they are out. They get nothing, zero. After this 4-year State block grant, then what is his plan? Well, it gets worse. Then his long-term plan is tied to privatizing Medicare; again, something that would start the unraveling of Medicare. It would force seniors to join HMOs. So under Governor Bush's program, after the 4-year State program, then we would go into a new program. It would be up to insurance companies to take it. So seniors who need drug coverage would have to go to their HMO. They would not get a guaranteed package. The premium would be chosen by the HMO, the copayment chosen by the HMO, the deductible chosen by the HMO. And the drugs you get? Again, chosen by the HMO.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I want to get engaged in that discussion. I guess we will have time for that later. But the fact is, I think the Senator from Florida is correct. What we are seeing here, really, is a continuation of Newt Gingrich's philosophy that Medicare should wither on the vine. We all remember that. That was this ``Contract on America.'' That was Newt Gingrich's philosophy. I think we see it further taking place here today. The Senator from Minnesota, I think, is basically going down that same path that Governor Bush is. Basically, what they have envisioned is a prescription drug program where, basically, if you are poor, you are on welfare, and you get it. If you are rich, you don't need it, and you pay for your own or you can belong to your own insurance plan and pay for it, or maybe you have an employer-sponsored program. But if you are the middle class, and you are in that middle group, you are paying the bill for both of them. You are paying for the tax breaks for the wealthy, and you are paying for the welfare benefits for the poor so they can get their prescription drugs. But you, in the middle class, don't get anything. If you do, in fact, get in this program, you will be paying and paying and paying and paying. The Republicans have never liked Medicare. They did not like it when it came in, and they have never liked it since. So they just keep coming up with these kinds of programs that sound nice, but basically it is designed to unravel Medicare and let it wither on the vine. Mr. President, I want to take to the floor today again to speak about the lack of due process in the Senate regarding judgeships, and especially the nomination of Bonnie Campbell for a position on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Her nomination has now been pending for 216 days. Yesterday, the Senate voted through four judges. Three of them were nominated and acted on in July; one was nominated in May. Bonnie Campbell was nominated in March. Yet those got through, but they are holding up Bonnie Campbell. Why? Maybe it is because she has been the Director of the Violence Against Women Office in the Justice Department for the last 5 years; that office which has implemented the Violence Against Women Act, which, by all accounts, has done an outstanding job. Maybe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want any woman that is qualified to be an appeals court judge. Maybe that is why they are holding it up. Maybe it is because she has done such a good job of implementing the Violence Against Women Act. Maybe they are holding her up because they think there are enough women on the circuit court. Of 148 circuit judges, only 33 are women; 22 percent. But maybe my colleagues on the Republican side think that is enough women to have on the circuit court. I have said time and time again--and I will say it every day that we are in session--that Bonnie Campbell is not being treated fairly, not being accorded, I think, the courtesy the Senate ought to afford someone who is well qualified. All the paperwork is done. All the background checks are done. She is supported by Senator Grassley, a Republican, and by me, a Democrat from her home State. That may rarely happen around here. So Bonnie Campbell is not being treated fairly. Senator Hatch, the other day, said, well, the President made some recess appointments in August, and that didn't set too well with some Senators. But what has that got to do with Bonnie Campbell? Maybe they don't like the way President Clinton combs his hair, but that has nothing to do with Bonnie Campbell being a judge on the circuit court. Is Senator Hatch really making the argument that because President Clinton made some recess appointments that he didn't like, so that gives him an adequate excuse and reason to hold up Bonnie Campbell? I find that an interesting argument and an interesting position to take. I have heard that there was a news report that came out today that some of the Senators on the other side had some problems with her views. Now, this is sort of general. I don't know what those problems are. But that is why we vote. If some Senator on the other side does not believe Bonnie Campbell is qualified or should not be a Federal judge in a circuit court, bring her name out, let's debate it. These are debatable positions. Let's talk about it. And then let's have the vote. If someone feels they can't vote for her, that is their right and their obligation. But we did not even have that. We do not even have her name on the floor so we can debate it because the Judiciary Committee has bottled it up. Then I was told her name came in too late. It came in just this year. I heard that again. That is also in the news reports today, that somehow this vacancy occurred a year ago, but her name did not come down until March. So I did a little research. In 1992, when President Bush--that is the father of Governor Bush-- was President in 1992, and the Senate was in Democratic hands, we had 13, 14 judges nominated; 9 had hearings; 9 were referred; and 9 were confirmed--all in 1992. Every judge who had a hearing got referred, got acted on, and got confirmed. Now, that was OK in 1992, I guess, when there was a Republican President and a Democratic Senate. But I guess it is not OK when we have a Democratic President and a Republican Senate. Here we are. This chart shows this year, we have had seven nominees, including Bonnie Campbell. We have had two hearings; we have had one referred; one confirmed--one out of seven. So this kind of story I am hearing, that her nomination came in too late, is just pure malarkey. This is just another smokescreen. Circuit judges. They say: Well, it's a circuit court. There's an election coming up. We might win it, so we want to save that position so we can get one of our Republican friends in there. Well, again, in 1992, circuit nominees, we had nine: six were acted on in July and August, two in September, and one in October. Yet in the year 2000, we had one acted on this summer, and we are in the closing days of October. No action. So, again, it is not fair. It is not right. It is not becoming of the dignity and the constitutional role of the Senate to advise and consent on these judges. Thirty-three women out of 148 circuit judges; 22 percent--I guess my friends on the other side think that is fine. I do not think it is fine. Again, everything has been done. All of the paperwork has been in, and here she sits.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand this Senator has 30 minutes?

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

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will support consideration by the Senate of these nominations to fill district judge vacancies in Arizona and Illinois because we are entering a critical stage in the rising number of judicial vacancies in our Federal courts. However, in addition to the district vacancies, there are 22 vacancies in our Federal appeals courts, and pending before the Judiciary Committee are several appeals court nominations who are more than qualified to fill those positions. That, of course, includes a constituent of mine, Bonnie J. Campbell, former attorney general of the State of Iowa and presently the head of the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women. Her nomination is for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. These positions should be filled with qualified individuals as soon as possible. I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations. Basically what I have been hearing from the other side of the aisle, the Republican leadership, is: This is an election year. Why allow circuit nominees a vote on the floor? Hold it up. Maybe Governor Bush will win the election and we will control the Senate and the House, and we can have a whole new batch of appointees next year. That attitude led me to take a look at the history of our judicial nominations. Let's go back to a time when there was a mirror image of what we have here, when there was a Republican President in the White House and a Democratic majority in the Senate. That year would be 1992. That year, then-President George Bush nominated fourteen circuit court judges. From July through October, the Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed nine of those judges. This year, a Democratic President nominated seven circuit court judges but with a Republican-controlled Senate, only one of these nominees has been confirmed. We have several pending, but we see no action. Time is running out. Basically what I have been told is, it is over with. They are not going to report any more of these nominees out for circuit courts. I have also heard the argument that Bonnie Campbell was not nominated until this year so we shouldn't expect this nominee to go through. Let's take a look at what I am talking about with these charts. This is kind of a busy looking chart, but these are the circuit judges nominated in 1992 by then-President George Bush. These were all nominated in 1992. There were 14 nominated. There were 9 who had hearings, 9 who were referred, and 9 who were confirmed, 9 out of 14 who were nominated that year. There was one nominee--Timothy Lewis--who was nominated in September of 1992, had his hearing in September of 1992, was referred in October of 1992, and confirmed in October of 1992. If the attitude that prevails among the Republican leadership today had prevailed in the Democrat-controlled Senate in 1992, we would not have confirmed anyone after July. This year, we have had none since July. In 1992, we had two in September, two in August, and one in October, despite the fact that it too was late in an election year. This year we have only had one. It is clear who is playing politics with judgeships. The Republican leadership of the Senate is playing the most baldfaced politics. It is not alleged that these nominees are not qualified. It is simply that they were nominated by a Democratic President. That is all. I have not heard one person on the Republican side tell me that Bonnie Campbell is not qualified to be a circuit court judge. Some people on the other side may have some differences with her on some of her views. I understand that. I have had differences of view with judges I have voted to confirm. Why? Because I thought they were qualified. I thought that if the President nominated them, they had a fair hearing, and they were reported out, my only decision was whether or not they were qualified--not whether they were ideologically opposed to me or to how I feel or what I believe. It has been my observation over the last quarter century that oftentimes when judges who have more of a liberal bent get appointed to the court, in many cases they come down on the more conservative side of cases. And I have seen conservative judges appointed to the court come down on the liberal side of cases. You never really know how this will come out, but you know whether or not people are legitimately qualified to serve on the bench. So the arguments made that Bonnie Campbell wasn't nominated until this year--well, as I said, in 1992, we had nine circuit court judges confirmed that were nominated in that year. A couple of these were quite controversial. This year, we have had one confirmed. We have six more pending for the circuit courts. I know my colleague from Vermont, who is ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, stated this last week that when a majority in the Senate starts playing these kinds of games, the result is that when the other side becomes the majority they will do the same thing. That is too bad for our democratic system of government, too bad for the judgeships, and for our third branch of Government to have that happen. I am not naive enough not to know that there are always politics involved in how judges are nominated. I understand that. That is the system in which we live. But there comes a point where politics ends and responsibility begins. When you have people who have had a hearing, who are qualified, yet they won't be reported out for a vote on the Senate floor, that is pure politics and that is the height of irresponsibility. The Republican leadership is being totally irresponsible. Of the judges nominated in 1992, every judge who got a hearing--every single judge who had a hearing in a Democrat-controlled Congress, when a Democrat was the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, when the Democrats controlled the Judiciary Committee, every person who got a hearing was confirmed. Every single one. That is not the case today. Too many political games are being played, I am afraid, on the Judiciary Committee and on the other side. I would like to mention one other judicial example from 1992. Michael Melloy was nominated for the district court in April of that year. He was a Bush nominee, supported by Senator Grassley. As my colleagues know, Senator Grassley and I have a longstanding commitment to support the nominations of individuals from Iowa to our courts. Mr. Melloy is an example of this. He was nominated April 9, 1992, received his hearing on August 4, 1992, reported out of committee on August 12, 1992, and confirmed by the Senate that very same day in 1992. Again, I may have been ideologically opposed to Mr. Melloy. There may have been some things he believed in that I didn't, but there was no question in my mind that Mr. Melloy was fully qualified to be a Federal judge. As long as he was qualified and supported by Senator Grassley and the administration, I supported that nominee, even though it was in the closing days of 1992. Let's look at the current nominees that we have. Three of the four we are going to be voting on today were nominated, got hearings, and were reported out of the committee within one week. Mr. James Teilborg was nominated on July 21, 2000, got his hearing on July 25, and was reported out of the committee on July 27. Now he stands to be confirmed today. On the other hand, Bonnie Campbell received a hearing by the Judiciary Committee in May--more than 2 months before Mr. Teilborg. Yet she is not here on the floor. Why is it that Mr. Teilborg can come out on the floor today and not Bonnie Campbell? Politics, the rankest form of politics. The majority is being very inconsistent in their arguments. They say, well, Bonnie Campbell was nominated this year, so it is too late. Mr. Teilborg was nominated this year--nominated, had a hearing, and was reported out all in the same week, and he will be confirmed today. If this year was too late for Bonnie Campbell, why wasn't it too late for James Teilborg? As I said, nobody has come up and said Bonnie Campbell is not qualified. I challenge someone to come on the floor and say that. Again, if people want to vote against Bonnie Campbell to be a circuit court judge, that is the right of each Senator--not only a right, but an obligation--if they believe someone is unqualified. We can't do that as long as she is bottled up in the committee. The Senator from Utah has the power on that committee to report her out. I say to my good friend from Utah, who just appeared on the floor, the Senator from Utah can report Bonnie Campbell's name out here to the floor and we can have a vote on this nominee. That is the way it should be done. Nobody has come up to me to say she is not qualified. She is a former attorney general of the State of Iowa. Since 1995, she has led the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act as the head of that office under the Justice Department. She has broad support on both sides of the aisle. This is a case where a judicial nominee has the support of both the Republican Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and the Democratic Senator from Iowa, me. Yet she has not been reported out of the Judiciary Committee. I say report her out. If people want to vote against her or say something about her qualifications, let them. I can stand here today and talk about the qualifications of James Teilborg, or the other people; but, quite frankly, I am convinced they are qualified. I may be opposed to the way they think once in a while, but they are qualified. Is the reason Bonnie Campbell is not being reported out because somebody on the other side of the aisle doesn't like the way she thinks, or because she may have a view on an issue contrary to theirs? The rankest form of politics is holding up Bonnie Campbell's nomination. We have a backlog of nominees and we should vote on her. The Violence Against Women Act expires this year. The Office of Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice has had only one person head it since this bill was first implemented in 1995, and that is Bonnie J. Campbell. The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act was voted on in the House of Representatives last week. If I am not mistaken, I think the vote was 415-3. So 415 Members of the House voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Now, if the only person to ever head that office had done a bad job in enforcing that law, had not acted responsibly, had not brought honor and acclaim to that office and the administration of that law, do you think that 415 Members of the House would have voted to reauthorize it? No. They would have been on their feet over there, one after the other, talking about how terrible this office has been run and how the person operating that office had done such a bad job in enforcing the law. Not one Member of the House took the floor to so speak. The one person to head that office is Bonnie J. Campbell. Not one person I have ever run across has said she has done anything less than an exemplary job in running that office. Yet the Senate Judiciary Committee will not report her name out for action by the full Senate. Yet we will get the Violence Against Women Act here and Senator after Senator will rush up to speak about how great this law is. I will bet you won't hear one Senator get up and say how badly this law has been administered by the Office of Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice. That tells you what an outstanding job Bonnie Campbell has done in that office. If that is the case, why won't the Senate Judiciary Committee report her name out? Politics; pure rank politics. That is what is going on in the Judiciary Committee today. I hope it won't be that way if the Democrats take charge of the Senate. I am not on the Judiciary Committee, but we tend to get in what I call a ``cesspool spiral,'' like a whirlpool. One side takes over the majority and begins to stall nominations, and then the other side takes over, we keep spiraling down further and further to the point where any nominee for a Federal court will be held up months and perhaps even years while we await the next election. Then our third branch of Government truly becomes a political football. I hope the Judiciary Committee and the leadership on that side--I say to my friend from Utah--will listen to the words of Texas Governor George Bush. He said he would call for a 60-day deadline for judges-- once they are nominated, the Senate will have 60 days to hold a hearing, to report out of committee and vote on the Senate floor. Bonnie Campbell has been there a lot longer than 60 days and so have some of the other judges. I say to my friends on the Republican side--you are supporting George Bush for President. If he said he would call for a 60-day deadline, I ask my friends on the Republican side: Why don't we act accordingly? In this Congress, the judicial nominees who have been confirmed had to wait on average 211 days. Governor Bush said they should not wait longer than 60 days. This is not getting better; it is getting worse around here. It is really a shame. Let's look at the percentages. I am told: This is the same today as it was before--blah, blah, blah, blah. I hear this all the time-- nothing has changed. It has changed dramatically. For example, in the Reagan years, during the 98th Congress, the Republicans were in the majority. They had a Republican President. We received 22 circuit court nominations, and 14 were confirmed. This is a Republican President and a Republican Senate--22 received, and 14 confirmed, for a 63.6-percent confirmation rate. Let's look at the 100th Congress. President Reagan was still President, but there was a Democratic Senate. Twenty-six circuit court judge nominations were received; 17 were confirmed, for a 65.4-percent confirmation rate. Think about that. Democrats had a higher confirmation rate under President Reagan--a very conservative President. We had a higher confirmation rate when the Democrats were in charge of the Senate than when the Republicans were in charge. We didn't block things when the Democrats were in charge. Next, the 102d Congress, 1991-1992. President Bush was the Republican making nominations and the Democrats were in charge in the Senate. We received 31 circuit court nominations. Twenty were confirmed, again, for a 64.5-percent confirmation rate--Republican President and a Democratic Senate. Now we move to the 104th Congress. We had a Democratic President, President Clinton, and we had a Republican Senate. Twenty circuit court nominations were received; 11 were confirmed. That was a 55-percent confirmation rate. Now we are in the 106th Congress. We have a Democratic President and a Republican Senate. Thirty-one circuit court of appeals nominations have been received; 15 have been confirmed, for a 48.4-percent confirmation rate. I ask my friend--and he is my friend--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee: How can we live with something like that? How can the Judiciary Committee come to this Senate with a straight face and say that a 48-percent confirmation rate is what we did in the past, when the record is clear? The record is in the 60-percent confirmation rate when we had Republican Presidents and a Democratic Senate. Yet today we are faced with a 48-percent confirmation rate. I have heard from many judges. I have gotten letters from them saying that it is time we filled the bench. Cases are backing up. We need to get judges on the bench. But I suppose we first have to pay attention to the elections. This one nominee, Bonnie J. Campbell, should be reported out if for no other reason than we need people on the bench who are sensitive to what is happening in domestic abuse cases and violence against women. In 1998, American women were the victims of 876,000 acts of domestic violence. In 5 years--1993 to 1998--domestic violence accounted for 22 percent of the violent crimes against women. During those same years, children under the age of 12 lived in 43 percent of the households where this violence occurred. It is generational. The kids see it, they grow up, and they become abusive parents themselves. In Iowa, and all across America, prosecutors, victim service organizations, and law enforcement officers are fighting. But they need help. We need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. But there is more we can do to make sure that we have judges who know what is happening from firsthand experience and who can make sure that the law is applied fairly and upheld in courts around the country. That is why we need someone like Bonnie Campbell on the circuit court of appeals. As I said, she is widely supported. She is supported by me and by Senator Grassley. She has the support of judges, police organizations, women, and domestic violence coalitions. She has strong support in the State of Iowa and on both sides of the aisle. I ask the chairman of the committee: Why aren't we reporting out Bonnie Campbell? Why? Just one simple question: Why? Is there a member of the majority who thinks she is not qualified? Let them so state. Have specific objections been raised as to her qualifications? If so, we ought to know that so they can be addressed. But all we hear is a deafening silence from the other side. We are left to assume that the reason Bonnie Campbell is being held up is because they are hoping their nominee wins the election. That is their right to hope that. They can work as hard as they can for him. I don't blame them for that. But to hold up a qualified person like Bonnie Campbell who had her hearing 2 months before Mr. Teilborg had his; yet she is being locked up in the committee--all the paperwork is done. Yet politics is holding her up. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of an article that appeared in the Des Moines Register the other day regarding the Bonnie Campbell nomination and the text of two editorials, one in the Cedar Rapids Gazette and one in the Des Moines Register, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I see the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the floor. He is a good man. He and I have fought many battles together. I like him personally and I respect him. If he would like to engage in colloquy, I will. He knows how strongly I feel about this nominee, about her qualifications and about the kind of job she has done at the Department of Justice. I am sure he knows I will do everything that is humanly and senatorially possible to try to get her name here. I believe I have a right and an obligation to do that. I will, within the confines of what is right and proper in the Senate, not violating any rules, do everything I can to try to get her name out. We will be here this week and we will be here next week. I ask my friend from Utah, will we be allowed to have a vote on Bonnie Campbell for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals? I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I respond by saying I was not trying to imply one way or the other that seniority had something to do with who gets out of the Judiciary Committee. My main point was that three of the four nominees we voted on today have been pending a very short time. They were nominated in July, their hearing was in July, and they were reported out of Committee in July--all in the same week. And they were brought to the floor today. Bonnie Campbell has been sitting there for 215 days. She had her hearing in May. Yet they won't report her out of the Judiciary Committee. This is unfair. It is unfair to her. It is unfair to the women of this country. It is unfair to the court which needs to fill this position. We recognize in Bonnie Campbell a champion, a champion of women, someone who has done an outstanding job in administering the office of violence against women. She is the only one who has held that office since the legislation was passed. The House last week voted 415- 3 to reauthorize it. Now we will try to do something in the Senate. I think the women of this country understand the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee and the Republican-controlled Senate are stopping the Senate from having a vote on Bonnie Campbell for pure political reasons. I think it is wrong the way they are treating Bonnie Campbell in this nomination process. I will continue to point that out every day that we remain in session. It is unfair to her. It is unfair to the women of this country to have someone so qualified, someone who has done so much to reduce and prevent violence against women, to have the Senate Judiciary Committee bottle up her name and not even permit it to come on the floor for a vote. I am still hopeful perhaps they will see the light and permit that to happen, although time is running out. I will take every day we are here to talk about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of Senators and staff, I initially had 3 hours of time on which to speak about the judicial nominees and, more specifically, the holdup that is happening on the Judiciary Committee with regard to the former attorney general of the State of Iowa, Bonnie J. Campbell, who has been nominated for a seat on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In discussing this with several Senators, I can say that it is now my intention to speak for a few minutes and to yield back the remainder of my time. In discussions with our side, I understand there probably will be just voice votes on all of these nominees. Just for planning purposes--I know how sometimes I get irritated when I don't really know what is happening when some people have a lot of time--I want Senators to know I am going to speak for a few minutes, yield back my time, and then move to the votes on the nominees. Again, I want to respond a little bit to what my friend from Utah said this morning, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. I am reading from the transcript of this morning's session. Senator Hatch said: It had always been my intention for the Judiciary Committee to report Ms. Campbell's nomination. However, events conspired to prevent that from happening. First, during the August recess, as I have explained, the President determined to recess appoint several executive branch nominees over the express objection of numerous Senators. He did so notwithstanding his agreement to clear such recess appointments with the relevant Senators. . . . Second, after their August recess, Democrat Senators determined to place holds on the four nominations we are debating today, even everybody admits--I think everybody admits--that they are important nominations and this arrangement that has been worked out has been fair. Again, they threatened to shut down the Senate's committee work, going as far as to invoke the 2-hour rule and forcing the postponement of scheduled committee hearings. . . . For these reasons, Bonnie Campbell's nomination has stalled. Ms. Campbell has only the White House and Senate Democrats to blame for the current situation. I don't know what the Senator from Utah is talking about. Bonnie Campbell had nothing to do with whether the President made recess appointments or not. And the holds that were placed on the four nominations--they were saying, wait a minute, Bonnie Campbell had her hearing 2 months before some of the nominees that we are voting on today. Three of these nominees that will get their vote today were nominated, got their hearing and were reported out of Committee within one week in July of this year. Bonnie Campbell's hearing was in May. So we are only saying: Why not take those who had their hearings first? Why take up those who had them later? Bonnie Campbell had her hearing, answered questions; they had more written questions that they sent her, and she responded to those. Yet there again, three of the four judges we are voting on here today went through the first three steps of the process within one week. Ms. Campbell has only the White House and Senate Democrats to blame for the current situation? What is the Senator from Utah talking about? What is to blame are the pure rank politics of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Republicans for holding up Bonnie Campbell's nomination and keeping it bottled up in committee. The Senator from Utah knows full well that this Senator from Iowa had every right to exercise his rights as a Senator on the floor, to bottle up a lot of things on this floor after the August recess. I did not do so because I was led to believe that, by acting in good faith, the Senate Judiciary Committee would act on Bonnie Campbell's nomination. Why? Because the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley--and if I am not mistaken, he is the second ranking member on the Judiciary Committee--supports Bonnie Campbell and has stated so publicly. So I figured, well, he is second ranking. Now, Mr. Kyl, the Senator from Arizona, is fourth ranking on the committee, but he gets his nominee through. He was nominated, had a hearing, and was reported out that week. Mr. Kyl gets his nominee through. Well, I figured if I acted in good faith--and I did so by not doing anything and letting the Judiciary Committee go from one week to the next, one week to the next, and I thought this week they didn't report her out, maybe they'll do it next week, or maybe the next week. Well, now, the time has run out and it is clear to me I was being strung along all this time with false promises that the Judiciary Committee would, indeed, act on Bonnie Campbell's nomination. So now to say that it is the Senate Democrats who are to blame for the current situation with Bonnie Campbell is utter fabrication, total nonsense. The Senator from Utah knows as well as I do that there is one reason it is being held up, and it is called politics--pure rank politics. Then, again, Senator Hatch says that the reason it has been held up is because President Clinton had some recess appointments, and that we had a hold on these four nominees for a while. Well, why is he singling out one nominee? Why is he targeting Bonnie Campbell? Why is Bonnie Campbell the target? What about all the other judges? Why is he singling her out? Is it because of her work to prevent domestic violence as the director of the Office of Violence Against Women at the Justice Department? The Senate Republicans have stalled passing the reauthorization of that law just as they have blocked Bonnie Campbell's nomination from getting a vote on the Senate floor. Bonnie Campbell has done a superb job of focusing on the issue of violence against women, especially domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act has expired. It expired on the last day of September of this year. This Republican Congress didn't even see fit to take it up and pass it. So it is no surprise to me that in poll after poll after poll across this country women are saying no to Republican candidates because they see what has been happening here. This Republican Senate is holding up the one person who really knows what violence against women is about, who headed that office and has done a superb job; yet Senate Republicans aren't going to let her come out. How well has she done? Take a look at the House vote on reauthorization. The vote was 415 to 3. Do you really think this bill would have been reauthorized if the person who has headed the office to implement its provisions had done a bad job? Well, I say to Senate Republicans, you better beware. The women of this country are watching what you do up here on the issues that are important to them. They want the Senate to reauthorize VAWA. They want judges who will enforce that law. Who better to do that than Bonnie Campbell? She is qualified, and no one has come to the Senate floor and said any differently since her hearing. I can tell you, this Republican Senate that is holding up her nomination and the reauthorization of VAWA will have only themselves to blame if the women of this country vote overwhelmingly against their party in November. It pains me to say this, but I think that is what it has come down to. If they want to play politics with Bonnie Campbell and Violence Against Women, go right ahead, but it will bite them bad. Real bad. You may think you are only holding up one person, only one judge, saying, well, she was from Iowa, not of any consequence. I say to my Republican friends, you are seriously mistaken. Bonnie Campbell did an outstanding job as attorney general for the State of Iowa. She was well known to women all over this country as a role model and someone they have looked to for leadership, someone who has brought honor to our State, honor to the legal profession, honor to this administration, and honor to what we are about as a nation in trying to provide more equality for women in this country. I say to my friends on the Republican side, if you think you are playing smart politics by holding up Bonnie Campbell's nomination, I say to you that you are sadly mistaken. But I guess it has come down to this. I am told that there is no use even talking about it anymore. They are not going to let Bonnie Campbell's nomination be reported out. I don't know about that. I say it is never over until it's over. And perhaps some cooler heads will prevail on the Republican side. They will see that they are only hurting their own cause. They are only hurting themselves and their candidates who are out there running by holding up Bonnie Campbell's nomination. It is time we have more diversity on the Federal bench. Only 20 percent of the Federal judiciary are women. Of the 148 circuit judges, only 33 are women. It is time we have more--qualified women on the federal bench. Last year, a report by the Task Force on Judicial Selection of Citizens for Independent Courts--an independent group--verified that the time to confirm female nominees is now significantly longer than that to confirm male nominees. There is a difference that has defied logical explanation. The fact is--it is true--to confirm female nominees takes a lot longer than men. We have some men who are being voted on today. We have one man being voted on today who was nominated in July. He was passed out the same week. Bonnie Campbell has waited 215 days since she was nominated. The standard bearer of the Republican Party this year--Gov. Bush of Texas--said there should be a deadline of 60 days from nomination through the process. Evidently, the Republicans in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee are not paying much heed to their standard bearer. I am sorry to have to disagree with Mr. Hatch. But the White House is not to blame for this, and neither are the Senate Democrats. Mr. Hatch has an argument with the White House on recess appointments. That is another matter entirely. It has nothing to do with judicial nominees. Maybe he doesn't like what Mr. Clinton said at a press conference. Maybe Senator Hatch doesn't like a lot of things the President does. But does that give the Senator from Utah the right to hold up a judicial nominee because he doesn't like what the President did on some other matter? I want to point out again that three out of the four nominees voted on today were nominated, a hearing was held, and they were reported out of the committee in 1 week in July. Yet Bonnie Campbell has been waiting 215 days, and they will not report her out of the committee. One can only ask again why the Republicans are playing this political charade. I guess they figure, well, if they just hold on, maybe their guy will win and they can move ahead. But, as I said earlier, I think the Republicans over there ought to be aware of this one. This one is going to bite hard. Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from Minnesota desires. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I plan to be here every day. I thank the leader.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the distinguished majority leader, in good faith, if he would modify his unanimous consent request to discharge the Judiciary Committee on further consideration of the nomination of Bonnie Campbell, the nominee for the Eighth Circuit Court, and that her nomination be considered by the Senate under the same terms and at the same time as the nominees included in the majority leader's request? I ask the majority leader if he would modify his request.

Mr. HARKIN. I just say to the leader, it seems odd we have a nominee that is supported by both of the Senators from her home State, on both sides of the aisle, on the Republican and Democratic side; and I think she is not getting her due process here in this body. I just want to make that point. I appreciate that.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object for just one more, again, I just want to say to the majority leader that on some of these nominees--I think maybe three of them were nominated, got their hearings and were reported out of committee all within one week in July. Yet Bonnie Campbell from Iowa was nominated early this year. She has had her hearing, and has been sitting there now for four months without being reported out. I just find this rather odd. I haven't heard of any objections to bringing her nomination out on the floor. I just ask the majority leader whether or not we can expect to have at least some disposition of Bonnie Campbell before we get out of here.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I rise today in continuing concern over the National Ignition Facility, a massive stockpile stewardship facility being built at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore Labs in California. This program has been beset by cost overruns, delays, and poor management. The House in its Energy & Water bill included $74.1 million for construction of NIF. The Senate adopted an amendment I offered that capped spending at the same level, and also requested an independent review of the project from the National Academy of Sciences. I know the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee each have their own concerns about NIF, and I greatly appreciate their efforts to bring this program under control. But frankly I am disappointed in what has come out of conference. The funding for NIF construction has risen from $74 million to $199 million. $74 million in the House, $74 million in the Senate, and $199 million out of conference. That is a lot of money to spend on a program that is out of control. Projected costs of constructing this facility have almost doubled in the last year. We don't know if the optics will work. We don't know how to design the target. Even if the technical problems are solved, we don't know if the National Ignition Facility will achieve ignition. We don't even know if this facility is needed. DOE's recent ``rebaselining'' specified massive budget increases for NIF for several years, but, despite Congressional requests, did not say where this money would come from or what impact it would have on the stockpile stewardship program. This is the time to slow down, conduct some independent studies, reconsider how we can best maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile and whether this risky program really is critical to that effort. Instead we are saying full steam ahead. It is true that part of the money, $69 million, is held back until DOE arranges for studies of some of these issues and certifies that the program is on schedule and on budget. These issues are critical to future Congressional action on NIF. Unfortunately, the bill does not clearly specify who will conduct those studies. I wish we could entrust DOE with these reviews, but history suggests they have not earned our trust. A recent article in the journal Nature describes ten years of failed peer review on this project: so-called ``independent'' reports that were not independent, that were written by stacked panels with conflicts of interest, that even were edited by project officials. A recent GAO report notes that reviews ``did not discover and report on NIF's fundamental project and engineering problems, bringing into question their comprehensiveness and independence.'' DOE is currently under threat of a second lawsuit regarding violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act in NIF studies. We need a truly independent review. I am pleased that the Chairman and Ranking Member agreed to join me in a colloquy on this concern, and hope the studies mandated in this bill will be fully independent and credible. Otherwise, I fear that the $199 million we are appropriating will be poured down a bottomless pit with the $800 million already spent. We've seen this happen too many times, with the Superconducting Supercollider, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, the Space Station, and on and on. I will continue to strive to protect our taxpayers, keep our nuclear stockpile safe, and end wasteful spending on NIF before more billions are spent.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I agree with the Senator. I want to say a few more things on my own time about Senator Byrd's presentation this morning, but I also want to respond to the point that my friend from California is making about being able to offer amendments to the appropriations bills that come up. I ask the Senator from California: I do not know if we agree on this, but I think if we had more of an opportunity to act as a Senate, to bring legislation out and to be able to consider bills that we might be interested in, that we wouldn't have to do them on appropriations bills. But because we are prevented from doing so, many times it is only the appropriations bills where we can offer them. I ask the Senator from California if she would maybe--I see her nodding her head--agree with that decision; if we had that opportunity to act as a Senate and to bring authorizing bills out here to be able to offer those amendments, then we wouldn't have to do that on appropriations bills.

Mr. HARKIN. May I have 5 more minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from California. She is absolutely right. Forty-three percent of these tax breaks go to the top 1 percent, who have an average income of over $915,000 a year. This is where Governor Bush's tax breaks go. Yet Winifred Skinner--age 69, in my home State of Iowa--has to go around the streets and the roads and pick up aluminum cans so she can pay for her prescription drugs. I think that says it all. I thank the Senator from California. I thank the Senator for yielding me the time and yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I will say one more time, what the seniors of this country want is they want Medicare; they do not want welfare.

Mr. HARKIN. That is right.

Mr. HARKIN. According to a recent study, if the experience of state pharmacy assistance programs is any guide, of the 34 million, about 625,000--less than 5 percent of those eligible--would sign up for a low-income drug plan.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member to engage in a brief colloquy on the National Ignition Facility. The bill as it passed the Senate requested a study by the National Academy of Sciences of a number of issues regarding the National Ignition Facility. The current bill and conference report language require reviews of several issues, including the need for the facility, alternatives to NIF, consideration of starting with a smaller facility, and planning for the Broader stockpile stewardship program. All these elements are important, but the bill does not specify how these reviews are to be conducted. Previous supposedly independent DOE reviews of NIF have been strongly criticized in the recent GAO report and in a recent article in the journal Nature, and have even been subject to lawsuits for violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act. I believe it is critical for the credibility of these reviews that they be conducted by an independent body, such as the National Academy of Sciences, and that they be organized as independent studies under FACA rules. This is a troubled program, and we need the very best thought of independent experts to help us get it back on track or to scale it back as needed.