[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 122 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S9839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--NOMINATION OF BONNIE CAMPBELL

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I object on behalf of the leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
time as needed, yielded off the continuing resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________