Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I respond in kind by thanking the Senator from California for pointing out again what is at stake because we are not allowed to offer our amendments. The Senator from California has done a great service not only to the Senate, but to the country, in pointing out why so many people are disenfranchised in this country because they do not have a voice with which to speak here if we are blocked from offering our amendments. I thank the Senator from California for pointing that out. I want to talk about another issue we are, again, blocked from addressing in the Senate, and that is the issue of prescription drugs for the elderly. Of all the issues out there that cry out for solutions and intervention, this has to be No. 1 on our plate. Anyone who has gone to their State and talked with the elderly who are on Social Security, who are on Medicare, has heard heartrending story after heartrending story about how much our seniors are paying out of pocket for prescription drugs. Vice President Gore was in my home State of Iowa yesterday. There is a story that was running on the news programs and in the newspapers this morning about a 79-year-old woman. I do not know her. I have never met her, to the best of my knowledge. Winifred Skinner, 79 years old, from, I believe, the small town of Altoona--but I cannot be certain about that--who showed up at a meeting with Vice President Gore and talked about how she goes along the streets and the roadways picking up aluminum cans because she can get payment for them. I think it is a nickel a can, if I am not mistaken. She collects these to make some money to help pay for her prescription drugs. This is a real person. It is not a phony person. This is a real person with real problems, and she needs some help. We have tried time and again to bring this legislation to the Senate floor to openly debate it. If other people have other ideas, let's debate them, have the votes, and let's see what the Senate's position will be, but we are precluded from doing so. Now we have an ad campaign put on by the Republican candidate for President, Gov. George Bush. This TV ad campaign is being waged across the country to deceive and frighten seniors about the Medicare prescription drug benefit proposed by Senate Democrats and Vice President Al Gore. I thought I would take a few minutes today, as I will do every day we are in session, to set the record straight. First, we have to examine Bush's ``Immediate Helping Hand.'' That is what he calls it, ``Immediate Helping Hand.'' Quite simply, it is not immediate and, secondly, it does not help. Is it immediate? No. The Bush proposal for prescription drugs for the elderly requires all 50 States to pass some enabling or modifying legislation. Only 16 States right now have any drug benefit for seniors. Many State legislatures do not meet but every 2 years, so we might have a 2-year lapse or 3-year or 4-year lapse in the Bush proposal. How do we know this? Our most recent experience is with the CHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. We passed it in 1997. It took Governor Bush's home state of Texas over 2 years to implement the CHIP program. In addition, the States have said they do not want this block grant program. This is what the National Governors' Association said, Republicans and Democrats, by the way: If Congress decides to expand prescription drug coverage to seniors, it should not shift that responsibility or its costs to the states. . . .'' But that is exactly what the Bush 4-year program does. Again, keep in mind, the Bush proposal on prescription drugs is a two-phased program. In the first 4 years, he delegates it to the States. As I pointed out, States do not even want to do it. Secondly, many legislatures do not meet for 2 years. Thirdly, talk about a ``helping hand,'' who gets helped under the Bush program? If your income is more than $14,600 a year, you are out-- $14,600 a year, and you are out. What does that mean? It means many of the seniors will not qualify. The Bush plan will only cover 625,000 seniors, less than 5 percent of those who need help. Again, under the Vice President's proposal--and what we are supporting--all you need is a Medicare card. If you have a Medicare card, you can voluntarily sign up for a drug benefit, your doctor prescribes the drugs. You go to the pharmacy and you get your drugs. That is the end of it. That is all you have to show. If you are under the Bush program, you are going to have to take your income tax return down, plus probably other paperwork to show your assets, to show that you have income of less than $14,600.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for pointing this out. It is true, it is the first time since 1965 we have not reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. What the Federal Government has done since the adoption of that bill, since 1965, as the Senator knows, is we have filled in the gaps. Obviously, education still remains a local and State obligation, as we want it to be, but we recognized there were certain gaps. For example, disadvantaged students: We came up with the title I program to provide needed funds to States to help educate disadvantaged children in disadvantaged areas. I do not think there is a Governor anywhere in this country who does not like title I, or educators. Since we set up title I, it has done great things for our kids. That is at stake here. Without reauthorization, we cannot give guidance and funds to title I. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: for kids with disabilities, is another example of what will slip through the cracks in terms of bringing us into the new century and addressing the new problems in education. Teacher training is a very vital component of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to provide guidance and, yes, support for teacher training, for example, in new technologies, such as closing the digital divide. This is all part of that. This will all fall through the cracks. Because of the intransigence of the Republican majority in the Senate--we will fund it; I am sure we will get the appropriations bill through; we will fund it--we will not address the new problems in education which we need to address. We will still be answering the problems of 8 years ago and 10 years ago rather than addressing new problems.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. HARKIN. I was trying to say--I will yield in just a second more-- I think what is happening is that the foundation on which this Senate has been based is beginning to crumble. It is not all gone yet. But I was thinking, the Senate is like a foundation. If you pull one brick out, OK; it still holds. You pull another brick out--the foundation is still strong. What is happening, I believe, and I say this in all candor, the majority side, for the last several years, has been pulling some bricks out of the foundation. They pulled one out and no one complained. They pulled another one out and nothing happened. What concerns me is that one feeds on another. So if we take back the majority, do we then say we will take out another brick? And then another brick? And then it bounces to the other side? Pretty soon the foundation crumbles and nobody can point to that first brick and when it was pulled out. That is what I see, a kind of insidious pulling out of the bricks of the foundation of the Senate. Yet since things do happen, at the end of the year there is this big omnibus that is put together and people say: There you go, no big deal. But I predict pretty soon the foundation is going to start crumbling if we don't stop pulling out the bricks.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator to yield on that point.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will be glad to continue the colloquy with the Senator. I yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. HARKIN. Exactly.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. Sometimes--I am not mentioning any names--sometimes we talk with colleagues about the rules. There is kind of a smirk: Oh, yes, we have business to do around here. And there is sort of--I detected it lately--there is sort of: ``Well, the rules are the rules, but if we have the votes, we don't care.'' That is a terrible attitude. As the Senator from West Virginia said, it really returns us to the Dark Ages when we were a lawless, ruleless society.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding. I want to point out to the Senator from West Virginia, regarding the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, this is the first time since it was enacted in 1965 we have not reauthorized it. Why? There is no reason we cannot debate the Elementary and Secondary Education Act before we adjourn. I am certain reasonable minds on both sides would agree to time limits. No one wants to filibuster the bill. Offer the amendments. But the way things are today, if someone has ideas on what we want to do on education in this country, they are precluded from doing so. It is still stuck on the calendar, for the first time since 1965. S. 2, the No. 2 bill of this Congress, and it is still on the calendar. We haven't had a chance to act. I say to my friend from California, the Senator from West Virginia referred to returning back to the Dark Ages. I was thinking about that when the Senator was speaking. Someone remarked to me that: All this talk about rules and procedure is gobbledygook. Who cares? That is inside ball game stuff around here, and it doesn't really matter on the outside. I know it sounds like inside ball game stuff when we talk about rules and procedures, rule XVI and things such as this. The Senator mentioned the Dark Ages; I got to thinking about the Dark Ages. That is an appropriate allegory because the reason they were the Dark Ages is that we didn't have rules, we didn't have laws, it was uncivilized. In order for us to be civilized, we said there are certain rules by which we should live. We have these rules in the Senate so that we don't live in the Dark Ages. They have a lot to do with people's lives outside of the beltway of this city. I think the Senator's mentioning of the Dark Ages is very appropriate. That is what we are returning to. We are returning to a rule-less kind of Senate where whoever is in charge calls the shots. That is what the Dark Ages was about: Whoever had the power ran everything. It was a lawless society. Through the years we developed our rules. There is a reason the Senate is the way it is. Read the Senator's ``History of the Senate.'' There is a reason the Founding Fathers set up the Senate the way it is. It is to allow some of the smaller States and others to have their say and to have their equal representation so they aren't bound up by the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. HARKIN. That is true. I thank the Senator from California for amplifying on that. Because Governor Bush's program is not Medicare; it is welfare. What seniors want is they want Medicare, they do not want welfare. Look at the States. To sign up for Medicare, seniors fill out long, complex applications in 26 States. They must meet an extensive asset and income test in 41 States. And they have to sign up in the welfare office in 34 States. Maybe that is why only 55 percent of eligible seniors sign up for Medicaid compared to 98 percent who sign up for Medicare. That is what the Bush proposal would do: Send seniors to the local welfare office. Take your income tax returns down, take down other paperwork, fill it out, show them what your income and assets are, and then maybe--maybe--you will qualify. As I have said repeatedly, the seniors of this country want Medicare, they do not want welfare. The Bush plan would put them on welfare. Then, after the 4 years--the first 4 years of the Bush block grant-- then what does his proposal do? His proposal turns it over to the HMOs. So it gets even worse. The long-term plan under Governor Bush is tied to privatizing Medicare, a move that would raise premiums and force seniors to join HMOs. Under the Bush drug plan, there would be radical changes in Medicare--radical changes. You would not recognize it today. Premiums for regular Medicare would increase 25 to 47 percent in the first year alone. Why is that? Why do we say that? Because once you turn it over to the HMOs and the insurance companies--which is what the Bush plan does--after the first 4 years, it shifts to universal coverage, but turns it over to the insurance companies. Obviously, the insurance companies are going to do what we call cherry pick. They are going to pick the healthiest seniors and give them a really good deal to join their insurance program. Who does that leave in Medicare? The oldest and the sickest. And to cover the Medicare costs, under legislation we have that exists, their premiums will go up 25 to 47 percent in the first year alone. That is shocking. But we have to understand that what the Bush proposal is for Medicare is the fulfillment of Newt Gingrich's dream to let Medicare ``wither on the vine.'' Governor Bush supported that concept when Mr. Gingrich was Speaker of the House. Governor Bush's proposal fulfills Newt Gingrich's dream because by turning it over to the insurance companies, by privatizing Medicare, it would ``wither on the vine.'' Governor Bush would leave seniors who need drug coverage at the mercy of HMOs. Listen. Under the Bush proposal, who would decide what the premiums are going to be? HMOs. Who would decide copayments? HMOs. Who would decide any deductibles? HMOs. Who would even decide the drugs that you can get? It would be the HMOs--not your doctor, not your pharmacist. Lastly, as someone who represents a rural State and who still lives in a town of 150 people, the Bush plan would leave rural Americans out in the cold. Thirty percent of our seniors live in areas with no HMOs. In Iowa, we have no Medicare HMOs. Listen to this. Only eight Iowa seniors, who happen to live near Sioux Falls, SD, belong to a Medicare HMO with a prescription drug benefit. Yet in Iowa, we have the highest proportion of the elderly over the age of 80 anywhere in the Nation. And only eight--count them--elderly, who happen to live near Sioux Falls, SD, belong to a Medicare HMO that has a prescription drug benefit. Also, HMOs are dropping like flies out of rural areas. Almost a million Medicare beneficiaries lost their HMO coverage this year alone, mostly in rural areas. So, again, our seniors want Medicare. They do not want welfare. The Bush plan turns it over to the States for the first 4 years. Take your income tax returns down, show how poor you are, maybe you will get help. The Bush plan for prescription drugs says, if you are rich, you are fine. If you are real poor, you are OK. But if you are in the middle class, you are going to pay for it both ways. Lastly, we have to talk about priorities. The Bush priority is $1.6 trillion in tax breaks, almost 50 percent of which goes to the top 1 percent of the wealthiest people in this country. For prescription drugs for the elderly, he is proposing $158 billion over the next 10 years. There you go. Those are the priorities right there. So every day we are in session, I will take the floor to point out the fallacies in Governor Bush's proposal for prescription drugs for the elderly, how it will put elderly first on the welfare rolls--they will have to be eligible for welfare--and then take their income tax returns down; and how, secondly, it will turn it over to the private insurance companies, and it will destroy Medicare as we know it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is time to shed some light on the Medicare prescription drug proposal advanced by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and by their nominee for President, Gov. George Bush. Unfortunately, there is a big TV ad campaign being waged across the country to deceive and frighten seniors about the Medicare prescription drug benefit proposed by Vice President Al Gore and the Democrats in the Senate. So I want to set the facts straight. First, let's examine Bush's ``immediate helping hand.'' That is what Governor Bush calls his Medicare proposal. Quite simply, it is not immediate and it doesn't give much help. Will it be immediate? The answer is no. His plan for Medicare would require all 50 States to pass enabling or modifying legislation. Right now, only 16 States have any kind of drug benefit for seniors. Each State will have a different approach. Many State legislatures only meet once every 2 years. So for Bush's plan to go into effect, the State has to pass some kind of enabling legislation. Well, our most recent experience with something like this was 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.

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. What is the time allotment for the remainder of morning business?

Mr. HARKIN. Repeat that, please.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, who is next in order to be recognized?

Mr. HARKIN. I will check on that. I ask unanimous consent that I may take Senator Robb's 5 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. It works both ways.

Mr. HARKIN. Here is basically the thing.

Mr. HARKIN. Certainly, I will yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. I understand we are now under cloture and each Senator is recognized for up to 1 hour to speak.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield whatever time I have remaining under cloture on the bill to the minority leader, Senator Daschle.

Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my disappointment that the Republican leadership in the Senate seems to have better things to do than to pass a bill reauthorizing one of our most effective laws to combat domestic violence. I am talking about the Violence Against Women Act. Since it became law in 1994, it has provided money to State and local programs to help women obtain restraining orders and to arrest those who are abusing women. The numbers show that the Violence Against Women Act is working. A recent Justice Department report found that domestic violence against women decreased by 21 percent between 1993 and 1998. That is good news, but we still have a long way to go. In 1998, American women were the victims of 876,340 acts of domestic violence. Between 1993 and 1998, domestic violence accounted for 22 percent of the violent crimes against women. And during those same years, children under the age of 12 lived in 43 percent of the households where domestic violence occurred. This is generational. The kids see it, they grow up, they become abusive parents themselves. In Iowa and all across America, law enforcement officers and prosecutors and victims service organizations are fighting back, but they need help. The help they need is to make sure we reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, to make sure it is funded, to keep the great job going that it has been doing over the last 5 years. There is other help that we need to cut down on domestic violence and violence against women; that is, to make sure that we have judges on our courts who understand this law, who know what is happening out there and can make sure the law is applied fairly and is upheld in the courts around the country. To that end, it is again disappointing that the Republican Senate is holding up the nomination of one person uniquely qualified to ensure that the Violence Against Women Act is enforced in our courts around the country. Since the beginning of the Violence Against Women Office that was created under the Justice Department in 1995, the person who has been at the head of that office is the former attorney general of the State of Iowa, Bonnie Campbell. Earlier this year, the President nominated her for a vacancy on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. She has had her hearing on the Judiciary Committee. She is broadly supported on both sides of the aisle, strongly supported in her home State of Iowa where, as I said, she served with distinction as attorney general. Yet for some reason, the Judiciary Committee is holding up her nomination. I have heard a couple of reasons: It is too late in the year; this is an election year; they want to hold on, maybe Bush will be elected and they can get their people in. So, that makes me feel the need to take a look at the history of our judicial nominations. In 1992, when there was a Republican in the White House and the Democrats controlled the Senate. But in 1992, from July through October, the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed nine circuit court judges. This year, with a Democratic President but a Republican-controlled Senate, we have only gotten one confirmed since July. We have some pending who could be reported out, one of whom is Bonnie Campbell. But we see no action and time is running out. And everything I have heard from the Judiciary Committee is that they will not report her name out. The other thing I heard was, she was nominated too late. I also heard from some people on the committee-- that she was only nominated earlier this year. I shouldn't expect her to be reported out. Well, again, let's take a look at the record books. In 1992, when there was a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, nine circuit nominees were nominated and confirmed that same year. Let me say that again. They were nominated in 1992 and acted on in 1992. Yet this year, we are told that the Republican-controlled Senate cannot move circuit court judges out because it is an election year. Yet when the Democrats were in charge in 1992, as I said, nine were nominated and nine were acted upon by the Democratic Senate. Let's jump back to this year. Seven people this year were nominated to sit on the judicial circuit. Only 1 of those seven has been confirmed and that was in July. I want to focus on Bonnie Campbell. A hearing was held in May. All the paperwork is done. She is widely supported. If there are people here who would like to vote against her, at least bring her nomination to the floor; and if they want to vote against her, for whatever reason, let them do so. But I have not had one person on the Republican side or the Democratic side come to this Senator and say that Bonnie Campbell is not qualified to be a circuit court judge--not one. She is eminently well qualified and everyone knows it. Here is this person who has headed the Office of Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice since it started. She has run it for 5 years. The House of Representatives, yesterday, reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, with 415 votes for it. I ask, do you think 415 Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, would have voted that overwhelmingly to reauthorize the bill if the person who had been running that office had not done an exemplary job? I think by the very fact that 415 Members of the House, from every end of the ideological spectrum, voted to reauthorize that bill, what they are saying is that Bonnie Campbell gets an A-plus on running that office, implementing the VAWA provisions and enforcing the law. Yet this Republican Senate will not report her name out on the floor to be confirmed, or at least to vote on her to be a circuit court judge. Well, I tell you, talk about a split personality. The Republicans in this Senate can talk all they want to about violence against women and that they are going to bring the bill up and we are going to pass it before the end of the year; but if this Republican-controlled Senate holds Bonnie Campbell's name and won't let her come out for a vote, they are saying: We will pass the Violence Against Women Act, but we don't want judges on our courts who are going to enforce it. I say that because nobody is more qualified to enforce it than Bonnie Campbell. The Judiciary Committee, I am told, is going to meet tomorrow. I am hopeful that tomorrow they will report Bonnie Campbell's name out for action by the full Senate. (Mr. L. CHAFEE assumed the chair.)