[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21246-21248]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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.

[[Page 21247]]


  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 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.

[[Page 21248]]

  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.

                          ____________________