Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 124 (Friday, October 6, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 124 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10059-S10061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE NOMINATION OF BONNIE CAMPBELL

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it has now been 218 days--218 days that
the Judiciary Committee of the Senate has had Bonnie J. Campbell's name
there and not reported her out. She has had her hearings. Her paperwork
is done. Yet she sits bottled up in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I understand that later today--or maybe early next week--there will
be a unanimous consent request to bring up for consideration and pass
the Violence Against Women Act. It is a very good bill, a good law,
that has done a lot to help reduce domestic violence in our country.
But we have an interesting dichotomy here. There will be a line of
Senators out here talking about how they are all for the Violence
Against Women Act. It will go through here like greased lightning. But
when it comes to the person who has been in charge of implementing the
provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, the person who has been
in charge of the Office of Violence Against Women since its beginning
in 1995--because it was created by the Violence Against Women Act--when
it comes to that person who is widely recognized all over America as
the one person who has done more to implement that law than anybody
else--when it comes to that person, they say, no, we are not going to
let her be reported out of the Judiciary Committee. That is Bonnie
Campbell.
It is all right to have the Violence Against Women Act but, no, it is
not all right to have her sit on the court of appeals--the one person
who knows this law intimately, the one person who has led the fight in
this country against domestic violence and violence against women in
general.
Bonnie Campbell has not been treated fairly by this Senate, by the
Republican leadership, and by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I have heard all the arguments--including the one that she she wasn't
nominated until this year. Mr. President, she was nominated in early
March. She had her hearing in May. Yet the other day we reported four
judges out, all of whom were nominated later than Bonnie Campbell.
Three were nominated in July, had their hearing, and were reported out
all in the same week. Yet Bonnie Campbell sits there, 218 days today.
It is not as if the appeals courts are full. We have 22 vacancies on
the appeals courts. And we need more women serving on the appeals
court. Out of 148 circuit judges, 33 are women--22 percent. Yet the
Republican leadership in this Senate and on the Senate Judiciary
Committee will not let Bonnie Campbell's name come out for a vote.

[[Page S10060]]

If somebody on the other side wants to vote against her, for whatever
reason, that is their right. It is their senatorial privilege and even
their responsibility, if they feel deeply about it, to do so. But I
don't believe it is anyone's responsibility, nor even a right, to hold
that name bottled up in committee when she is fully qualified. I have
not heard one Senator say Bonnie Campbell is not qualified for this
position--not one. I have heard no objections raised at all. She is
supported by both the Senators from Iowa--a Republican Senator, Mr.
Grassley, and by me, a Democrat. So there has been strong, bipartisan
support.
Again, she is a former attorney general of the State of Iowa and now
head of the Violence Against Women office. Yet they won't report her
name out.
Yes, they will let the Violence Against Women Act come through, and
we will hear wonderful speeches about it, I am sure, from the
Republican side. The House of Representatives, last week, voted for the
Violence Against Women Act, 415-3. Does anybody believe they would have
voted that overwhelmingly if the only person who has run that office
had done a bad job and had not enforced the law fairly and equitably
and brought honor to the law and the position? Absolutely not. By that
415-3 vote, they were saying Bonnie Campbell has done an outstanding
job.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say this to the Senator from Iowa--and I wonder
whether he would agree with me--I think if we had an up-or-down vote on
Bonnie Campbell, it would be 100-0 or 99-1. Under the Violence Against
Women Act, in terms of dramatically affecting the lives of women and
their children, we would not have been able to have made a real
difference without Bonnie Campbell. She is the one who made this a
reality----
Mr. HARKIN. Exactly.
Mr. WELLSTONE. When it came to directly affecting their lives. If we
had a vote, I think it would be 100-0 or 99-1.
Mr. HARKIN. I hadn't made that point, but yes, that is true. If we
had a vote, I daresay maybe one or two may have a problem for some
reason, but I think it would be overwhelming.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. The Republican nominee for President, George W. Bush, has
said what the Senate ought to do on all these nominees is, within 60
days, vote them up or down, but at least bring them to a vote. Would
the Senator from Iowa agree with me that that is a good idea on what
should be done?
Mr. HARKIN. I think that is a great idea.
Mr. LEAHY. Would he also agree with me that if Governor Bush actually
means that, he ought to pick up the phone and call the Republican
leadership and say there are an awful lot of women and minorities and
others who have been bottled up, as well as Bonnie Campbell, a lot
longer than 60 days--I think one for more than 1,360 days--we ought to
vote them up or down?
Mr. HARKIN. I agree.
Mr. LEAHY. Lastly, would the Senator from Iowa agree with me that all
he wants and would be satisfied with--bring her down here, 9 o'clock in
the morning, or at night, whatever, and let's have a rollcall vote? I
can assure you, I have read all of her file, and I sit on the Judiciary
Committee. I have gone through every bit of this. Bonnie Campbell is
one of the most qualified people nominated by either a Republican or
Democrat in the 25 years I have been on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. HARKIN. I agree with the Senator from Vermont, my great friend
who does an outstanding job on the Judiciary Committee. He is
absolutely right. Governor Bush said we ought to have a 60-day
deadline. He should pick up the phone, as my friend said, and call the
Republican leadership. He is the leader of the Republican Party.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. President, I will, as I do every day, ask unanimous consent to
discharge the Judiciary Committee on further consideration of the
nomination of Bonnie Campbell, nominee for the Eighth Circuit Court,
and that her nomination be considered by the Senate 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. SESSIONS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I intend to make my point every day. And
as you can see, an objection to bringing Bonnie Campbell's name out of
the Judiciary Committee so we can have a debate and vote is made every
time on the Republican side. That is who is holding this up. It is a
darn shame that this is being done to a person who has led an exemplary
life, done an outstanding job in public service both as attorney
general of Iowa and now as head of the Violence Against Women Office in
the Department of Justice. It is not right, it is not fair.
So every day that we are here I will continue to ask unanimous
consent to bring her name out. Before I yield the floor, once again, I
will point out that in 1992, when there was a Republican President and
a Democratic Senate, 9 circuit court judges had their hearings; there
were 14 nominated in 1992, during an election year, and 9 had hearings.
Of all those who had hearings, they were all referred and all
confirmed--one as late as October of 1992, a couple in September, and a
couple were in August.
When the shoe was on the other foot, when there was a Republican
President and a Democratic Senate, we had the hearings. Everyone who
had a hearing during the Bush Administration got a vote in Committee.
All but one got a vote on the Senate floor. Well, Bonnie Campbell had
her hearing. All the paperwork is done. Yet she has been referred.
Every single one was confirmed in 1992.
Well, this is the year 2000 and we have had seven circuit court
judges nominated this year. One has had a hearing and was referred and
was confirmed. That is one out of seven. In 1992, it was 9 out of 14.
Tell me who is playing politics around this place. Tell me who wants to
play politics with the circuit courts. It is not our side. It is the
other side.
In 1992, as I said, we had nine circuit judges nominated and
confirmed. This year, there was only one. No. 1, it is a flimsy
argument to say because she was nominated this year it is too late. No.
2, it is a phony argument that, well, it is a circuit court and maybe
George Bush will win the election and, therefore, we will put
Republicans on there instead of somebody such as Bonnie Campbell.
In 1992, as I pointed out, when the roles were reversed, we confirmed
nine circuit court judges that year. We could have said the same thing:
Bill Clinton may win, so don't confirm them. But we didn't do that. I
believe the right course of action to follow is to report those out,
let them have a debate. If people want to vote one way or the other,
that is their right.
I will continue to take this floor every day until we adjourn sine
die, or whatever we do here. I will begin to use every means at my
disposal to get her name out of the Judiciary Committee and make sure
she is treated fairly by this Senate and that at least we have a vote.
I yield the floor.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3059

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. McCAIN. I am doing a unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, in
consultation with the Democrat leader, establish a date certain and
time certain for consideration of S. 3059, and that only relevant
amendments to the bill be in order.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Chair, is there no
time certain for the vote on the unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time certain.
Mr. REID. I object.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I have the reason for the objection?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, we are very anxious to move forward on
this

[[Page S10061]]

matter, but we want a time for the vote.
Is this your request?
Mr. McCAIN. It is my request.
Mr. REID. I thought it was a different matter; sorry. I withdraw my
objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Alabama leaves the
floor, the Senator from Alabama should understand what he is doing.
This bill came out 2 weeks ago. This bill came out 2 weeks ago and
there are relevant amendments that are in order. The Senator from
Alabama is going to bear responsibility for our failure to act.
Mr. President, I quote to the Senator from Alabama what the Secretary
of Transportation says:

More importantly, however, is expeditious action on
comprehensive legislation that will strengthen NHTSA's
ability to address life-threatening motor vehicle safety
defects.

I tell the Senator from Alabama, if we don't act expeditiously, we
will not address life-threatening motor vehicle safety defects.
The Senator from Alabama can have all the amendments he wants that
are relevant, and he can have all the time he wants that is relevant.
By blocking the bill, the Senator from Alabama assumes great
responsibility, great responsibility. I hope he has a chance to talk to
the relatives of those who have already been killed, and those who are
going to be killed if this legislation is killed.
Again, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, in
consultation with the Democrat leader, establish a date certain and a
time certain for consideration of S. 3059, and only relevant amendments
to the bill be in order.
For the benefit of my colleagues, that doesn't mean there is any time
limit or any limits on amendments. An objection to this can only be
viewed as obstructionism. I say again, expeditious action on
comprehensive legislation will strengthen NHTSA's ability to address
life-threatening motor vehicle safety defects.
I intend to come back to the floor in about 15 minutes and propound
this unanimous consent agreement again, if there is an objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
Will the Senator from Arizona yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. SESSIONS. I want to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
Mr. REID. How long does the Senator from Alabama desire to speak?
Mr. SESSIONS. Five minutes.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Montana has been on the floor for a long
time and he wants 10 minutes; the Senator from Connecticut desires 10
minutes. I ask permission from the Senator from Montana to allow the
Senator from Alabama to speak for 5 minutes, and I ask unanimous
consent the speaking order be: the Senator from Alabama for 5 minutes;
the Senator from Montana, 15 minutes; the Senator from Connecticut for
10 minutes, in that order; and following my having this consent
granted, I ask that the Senators from Minnesota and from Kansas be
allowed to speak for 1 minute.
Mr. BROWNBACK. At most to proffer a unanimous consent. Could we do
that first?
I understand Senator Domenici seeks 20 minutes.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent Senator Domenici speak for 20
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I will want to have 10
minutes following Senator Domenici for the purpose of propounding
another unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. This is a unanimous consent agreed to and worked out
ad nauseam on both sides.

____________________