ONLY 33 ARE WOMEN. 22%. BUT MAYBE MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
           REPUBLICAN SIDE THINK THAT'S ENOUGH WOMEN TO HAVE ON THE
           CIRCUIT COURT. WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, I SAID TIME AND TIME AGAIN,
           AND I WILL SAY IT EVERY DAY THAT WE'RE IN SESSION, THAT BONNIE
           CAMPBELL IS NOT BEING TREATED FAIRLY, NOT BEING ACCORDED, I

           THINK THE COURTESY THAT THE SENATE OUGHT TO AFFORD SOMEONE WHO
           IS WELL QUALIFIED, ALL THE PAPERWORK'S DONE, ALL THE BACKGROUND
           CHECKS 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. THAT DIDN'T
           SIT TO WELL WITH SOME SENATORS. WELL, WHAT'S 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, THAT 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. NOW I'VE HEARD THAT, THERE WAS A NEWS REPORT TODAY
           THAT CAME OUT 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 THEY ARE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE PROBLEMS ARE.
           BUT THAT'S WHY WE VOTE. IF SOME SENATOR ON THE OTHER SIDE
           DOESN'T FEEL BONNIE CAMPBELL IS QUALIFIED OR SHOULD NOT BE A
           FEDERAL JUDGE ON THE 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 THAT THEY CAN'T
           VOTE FOR HER, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT, THEIR OBLIGATION I WOULD
           THINK. BUT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE HER NAME
           ON THE FLOOR SO WE CAN DEBATE IT BECAUSE THE JUDICIARY
           COMMITTEE HAS BOTTLED IT UP. WELL, THEN I WAS TOLD THAT, WELL,
           HER NAME CAME IN TOO LATE. CAME IN JANUARY. I'VE HEARD THAT
           AGAIN. THAT'S ALSO IN THE NEWS REPORTS THIS YEAR -- TODAY, THAT

           SOMEHOW THIS VACANCY OCCURRED A YEAR AGO, BUT HER NAME DIDN'T
           COME DOWN UNTIL FEBRUARY. SO I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH. IN 1992
           WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH -- THAT'S THE FATHER OF GOVERNOR BUSH --
           WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH WAS PRESIDENT, IN 1992 AND THE SENATE WAS

           IN DEMOCRATIC HANDS, WE HAD 13 -- 14 JUDGES NOMINATED. NINE HAD
           HEARINGS AND NINE WERE REFERRED AND NINE WERE CONFIRMED ALL IN
           1992. EVERY JUDGE THAT HAD A HEARING GOT REFERRED, GOT ACTED ON
           AND GOT CONFIRMED. NOW THAT WAS OKAY IN 1992, I GUESS, WHEN
           THERE WAS A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND A DEMOCRATIC SENATE. BUT I
           GUESS IT'S NOT OKAY WHEN WE HAVE A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT AND A
           REPUBLICAN SENATE. HERE WE ARE. THIS IS THIS YEAR. WE'VE HAD

           SEVEN NOMINEES. HERE'S BONNIE CAMPBELL. WE'VE HAD TWO HEARINGS.
           WE HAVE HAD ONE REFERRED, ONE CONFIRMED. ONE OUT OF SEVEN. SO
           THIS KIND OF STORY THAT I'M HEARING THAT HER NOMINATION CAME IN
           TOO LATE IS JUST PURE MALARKEY. IT 2 DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.
           1KWRU69 ANOTHER SMOKE SCREEN. -- JUST ANOTHER SMOKE SCREEN. THE
           CIRCUIT JUDGES, THEY SAID, 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, ONE IN OCTOBER.
           YET, IN THE YEAR 2000 WE HAD ONE ACTED ON THIS SUMMER. AND
           WE'RE IN THE CLOSING DAYS OF OCTOBER, NO ACTION. SO, MR.
           PRESIDENT, AGAIN, IT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S NOT RIGHT. IT'S NOT

           BECOMING THE DIGNITY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF THE UNITED
           STATES SENATE TO ADVISE AND CONSENT ON THESE JUDGES. 33 WOMEN
           OUT OF 148 CIRCUIT JUDGES, 22%. I GUESS MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER
           SIDE THINK THAT'S FINE. I DON'T THINK IT'S FINE. AGAIN,
           EVERYTHING'S BEEN DONE. ALL OF THE PAPERWORK'S BEEN IN. AND

           HERE SHE SITS. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I WILL BEGIN RIGHT NOW, MR.
           PRESIDENT, I WILL BEGIN NOW, AND I WILL EVERY DAY, ASK
           UNANIMOUS CONSENT. I 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, THAT
           DEBATE ON THE NOMINATION BE LIMITED TO TWO HOURS EQUALLY
           DIVIDED, AND THAT A VOTE ON HER NOMINATION OCCUR IMMEDIATELY

           FOLLOWING THE USE OR YIELDING BACK OF THAT TIME. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           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'D KNOW WHY PEOPLE ARE OBJECTING. WHY ARE
           THEY OBJECTING TO BONNIE CAMPBELL?
           WHY ARE THEY OBJECTING TO A DEBATE HERE ON THE SENATE FLOOR?
           WHY ARE THEY OBJECTING TO BRINGING OUT HER NAME?
           SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION AND A VOTE ON IT?
           SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD THAT IT'S NOT
           ANYONE OTHER THAN THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY HOLDING UP THIS
           NOMINEE. AND SO, EVERY DAY THAT WE'RE HERE -- I KNOW IT'S GOING
           TO GET AN OBJECTION -- BUT I'M GOING TO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT

           BECAUSE I WANT THE RECORD TO SHOW CLEARLY WHAT'S HAPPENING
           HERE, WHO'S HOLDING UP THIS NOMINEE WHO IS FULLY QUALIFIED AND
           OUGHT TO BE ON THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. MR.
           PRESIDENT, I NOW WANT TO TURN MY COMMENTS TO SOMETHING THAT THE
           SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA WAS TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT'S THE

           PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM ON THE DEBATE LAST NIGHT, QUITE
           FRANKLY, I WAS PRETTY SURPRISED TO HEAR GOVERNOR BUSH TALKING
           ABOUT HIS MEDICARE -- HIS PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM. HE TALKED
           ABOUT IT. HE CALLED IT AN IMMEDIATE HELPING HAND. THAT'S SORT
           OF WHAT HE CALLS IT. AND THERE IS A TV AD BEING WAGED ACROSS
           THE COUNTRY TO DESIFE AND FREET -- DECEIVE AND FRIGHTEN
           SENIORS. HE TALKS ABOUT MED SCARE. THAT WAS BUSH'S COMMENT LAST

           NIGHT. HE ACCUSED THE VICE PRESIDENT IN ENGAGING IN MEDI-SCARE,
           SCARING THE ELDERLY. I'LL TELL YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, 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, THE UNRAVELING OF MEDICARE, LETTING
           MEDICARE WITHER ON THE VINE. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE BUSH
           PROPOSAL. WE KNOW IT'S A TWO-STAGE PROPOSAL. FIRST IT WOULD BE

           TURNED OVER TO THE STATES. IT WOULD REQUIRE ALL 50 STATES TO
           PASS ENABLE OR MODIFYING LEGISLATION. ONLY 16 STATES HAVE ANY
           KIND OF DRUG BENEFIT FOR SENIORS. EACH STATE WOULD HAVE A
           DIFFERENT APPROACH. THE POINT IS THAT MANY STATE LEGISLATURES
           DON'T MEET BUT EVERY TWO YEARS. SO EVEN IF WE WERE TO ENACT
           THAT PROGRAM, THERE ARE SOME STATE LEGISLATURES THAT WOULDN'T
           GET TO IT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. OUR MOST RECENT EXPERIENCE
           WITH SOMETHING LIKE 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 TWO
           YEARS TO IMPLEMENT THE "CHIP" PROGRAM. SO IT'S NOT IMMEDIATE.
           HE CALLS IT AN IMMEDIATE HELPING HAND. IT WON'T BE IMMEDIATE
           BECAUSE STATES WILL HAVE A HARD TIME IMPLEMENTING IT. IN FACT,
           THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION SAY THEY DON'T WANT TO DO
           IT. HERE'S THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION -- AND I QUOTE
           -- "IF CONGRESS DECIDES TO EXPAND PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE TO
           SENIORS, IT SHOULD NOT SHIFT THAT RESPONSIBILITY OR ITS COST TO

           THE STATES." THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BUSH'S FOUR-YEAR PROGRAM DOES.
           BEYOND THAT, HIS PLAN ONLY COVERS LOW-INCOME SENIORS. ONLY
           LOW-INCOME. MANY OF THE SENIORS THAT I ADMIT TALKING WITH
           WOULDN'T QUALIFY WITH BUSH'S PLAN. A RECENT ANALYSIS SHOWS THE
           BUSH PLAN WOULD ONLY COVER 625,000 SENIORS, LESS THAN 5% OF
           THOSE WHO NEED HELP. HIS PLAN IS NOT MEDICARE. IT'S WELFARE.

           AND GOVERNOR BUSH, WHAT THE SENIORS OF THIS COUNTRY WANT IS
           MEDICARE, NOT WELFARE. SENIORS WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO APPLY TO
           THEIR STATE WELFARE OFFICE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW WHAT THEIR
           INCOME IS. IF THEY MAKE OVER $14,600 A YEAR, THEY'RE OUT. THEY
           GET NOTHING. ZERO. THEN AFTER THIS FOUR-YEAR STATE BLOCK GRANT,
           THEN WHO'S 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
           H.M.O.'S. AND SO, UNDER GOVERNOR BUSH'S PROGRAM AFTER THE
           FOUR-YEAR STATE PROGRAM, THEN WE GO INTO A NEW PROGRAM. AND IT
           WOULD BE UP TO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO TAKE IT. SO SENIORS WHO
           NEED DRUG COVERAGE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THEIR H.M.O. IT WOULD

           NOT GET A GUARANTEED PACKAGE. THE PREMIUM WOULD BE CHOSEN BY
           THE H.M.O. THE COPAYMENT CHOSEN BY THE H.M.O. THE DEDUCTIBLE
           CHOSEN BY THE H.M.O. AND GUESS WHAT?
           THE DRUGS YOU GET, AGAIN, CHOSEN BY THE H.M.O.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
           

           MR. HARKIN: WELL, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR JUST AT LEAST A
           COUPLE MORE MINUTES TO FINISH UP. I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS UNDER
           A TIME SCHEDULE.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
           IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
           

           MR. HARKIN: I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WAS A TIME SCHEDULE. WELL,
           ANYWAY, I'LL WRAP UP BY SAYING THAT BUSH'S PLAN WOULD LEAVE
           RURAL AMERICANS OUT IN THE COLD. 30% OF SENIORS LIVE IN AREAS
           WITH NO H.M.O.'S. 30%. AND CONTRARY TO WHAT THE SENATOR FROM
           MINNESOTA SAID, IF I HEARD HIM CORRECTLY, UNDER HIS -- UNDER
           THE BUSH PROGRAM, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PAY 25% OF THE PREMIUMS
           AND MEDICARE RECIPIENTS WOULD HAVE TO PAY 75%. SO THE BUSH

           PROGRAM BASICALLY IS KIND OF SCARY. SENIORS OUGHT TO BE AFRAID
           OF IT. BECAUSE IF IT COMES INTO PASS, YOU'LL NEED MORE THAN
           YOUR MEDICARE CARD. YOU'LL NEED YOUR INCOME TAX RETURNS TO GO
           DOWN TO SHOW THEM HOW MUCH INCOME YOU'VE GOT, HOW MUCH ASSETS
           YOU HAVE. IF YOU QUALIFY, YOU'RE IN. AND IF YOU DON'T, YOU'RE
           OUT. AND THAT WOULD BE THE END OF MEDICARE. MR. PRESIDENT, I
           YIELD THE FLOOR.
           

           MR. FRIST: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           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.
           

           MR. FRIST: MR. PRESIDENT, I'VE COME TO THE FLOOR TO DISCUSS AND
           SHARE WITH MY COLLEAGUES SOME VERY GOOD NEWS, SOME NEWS THAT IS
           BIPARTISAN, THAT REFLECTS WHAT I THINK IS THE VERY BEST OF WHAT
           THE UNITED STATES SENATE IS ALL ABOUT, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH A
           BILL CALLED THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH ACT OF 2000, A BILL THAT IS
           BIPARTISAN, THAT REFLECTS THE INPUT OF PROBABLY 20 TO 30

           INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES SENATORS ON ISSUES THAT MEAN A GREAT
           DEAL TO THEM BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCE, THEIR LEGISLATIVE
           HISTORY, WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THE PAST, THEIR PERSONAL
           EXPERIENCES, RESPONDING TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS, A BILL THAT HAS
           PASSED THE UNITED STATES SENATE JUST LAST WEEK. IT PASSED THE
           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUST LAST WEEK AND WILL BE SENT TO THE
           PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SOMETIME EITHER LATER TONIGHT OR
           TOMORROW. IT'S CALLED THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH ACT OF 2000. IT'S A

           COMPREHENSIVE BILL, A BILL THAT FORMS THE BACKBONE
{END: 2000/10/04 TIME: 19-00 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}