John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, January 28, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. on ``Judicial Nominations,'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List Panel I: Senators. Panel II: Franklin S. Van Antwerpen to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would make my remarks no longer than 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. That is acceptable.

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a brief UC?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from New Jersey--I believe he told me he would speak for about 10 minutes or so--I be recognized for remarks that I might make at that time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have some remarks I would like to make shortly, but I know Senator Lautenberg got here before I did. He told me he had about 10 minutes. I know the majority leader may have some remarks, and, of course, I would defer to him. Unless there is objection, I would like to ask--well, I will just defer to the majority leader at this time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Candace Shelton and Scott Koelker of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I object, Madam President.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to speak for the next few minutes about the judicial confirmation process, now that we have passed the Medicare bill, which represents perhaps the single largest accomplishment of this session--a session filled with many important accomplishments. I want to revisit the judicial confirmation process because I think it is perhaps the one issue that has the greatest potential for constructive action in this body, and the one issue that has the most potential for destruction of constructive action in this body. The American people have seen accusations fly back and forth in the Senate as we have observed partisan minority filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. As a relatively new Member of the Senate, I have no personal stake in these grievances over past perceived slights or actions. In fact, as the Chair knows, in April, all 10 freshmen Senators wrote a letter to the Senate leadership asking that we have a fresh start when it comes to the way we approach this process because, as we all know, any tactic or strategy used by a partisan minority now to obstruct President Bush's nominees, if successful, if allowed to proceed, will no doubt be sought to be used in the event a Democrat takes the White House and Republicans find themselves in the minority of this body. I ask unanimous consent that the letter we freshmen Senators wrote to the leadership be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am pleased to report that, last Friday, S. 1720 was presented to the President for his consideration, after receiving the unanimous approval of both the House and Senate. I sponsored S. 1720, joined by Senator Huthinson, because I believe that this legislation is necessary to ensure that all of the citizens of North Texas have access to justice in the Federal courts. S. 1720 authorizes the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to hold court in the City of Plano. Such legislation was first endorsed by the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Eastern District of Texas in 1991. Yet although, prior to this year, the House had already approved such legislation five times since 1991, it has never received the approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate until this year. Federal law does not currently authorize the Eastern District of Texas to hold court in Plano--making the Eastern District, of all 93 judicial districts across the United States, the only judicial district in which its largest city cannot hold Federal court. The nearest Eastern District judge is in the city of Sherman, a 100-mile or more roundtrip drive away. As a result, Federal prosecutors, public defenders, other attorneys, and law enforcement officials must waste precious time and resources conducting even the most simple court business. The people of the Eastern District of Texas are woefully underserved as a result. S. 1720 enjoys strong support among officials across the State of Texas. Most notably, U.S. Attorney Matthew D. Orwing, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Gregory, Chief Judge John Hannah, Jr., and Judge Richard A. Schell worked closely with my office in this effort, and I am grateful to each and every one of them for working with me to ensure that the people of North Texas enjoy adequate access to justice in the Federal courts. The judges of the Eastern District firmly believe that this legislation is good for the citizens of Sherman as well as Plano. On June 13, 2003, on behalf of all the judges of the Eastern District, Chief Judge Hannah issued General Order No. 03-15, which resolves, ``if pending legislation passes that authorizes Plano as a place of holding court, to have half the Sherman Division caseload docketed and tried in Sherman, and the other half of the caseload docketed and tried in Plano. If Judge Brown ceases holding court in Sherman, a new resident judge shall be designated to hold court in Sherman as soon as possible, and pending the new judge's residing in Sherman, 50 percent of civil and criminal cases shall be docketed and tried in Sherman, and the clerk's office in Sherman shall remain staffed sufficiently to support a resident judge.'' Relying on this general order, the Grayson County Bar Association, which includes Sherman, and the Collin County Bar Association, which includes Plano, recently approved a joint resolution endorsing this legislation. Furthermore, consistent with the terms of the order, Congressman Ralph Hall inserted the following statement into the Congressional Record just moment before House approval of S. 1720 last Wednesday: Both Sherman and Plano shall have a resident United States District Judge. Fifty percent of the cases filed in or transferred to the Sherman Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas shall be assigned for trial and tried in Sherman by either the resident United States District Judge sitting in Sherman or another United States District Judge assigned to hold court in Sherman. The remaining 50 percent of the cases shall be assigned for trial and tried in Plano by either the resident United States District Court Judge sitting in Plano or another United States District Judge assigned to hold court in Plano. If the resident judge in Sherman or Plano retires or dies, 50 percent of the cases shall continue to be tried in Sherman and 50 percent tried in Plano while a new resident judge is being assigned. This provision shall not prevent the transfer of a case to another judge or division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas or another United States District Court for trial, if such transfer is permitted by applicable law. This language reflects the intentions of the judges of the Eastern District of Texas as stated in General Order No. 03-15--as confirmed by Chief Judge Hannah last week. Accordingly, I am pleased to join Congressman Hall in inserting this statement into the Congressional Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I wanted to speak for a few minutes about this conference report which is before the Senate. I did not support the Medicare bill voted out of the Senate. I voted against it hoping and praying all along that this bill would be improved as a result of the collaboration of the leadership in the House and the Senate in the conference. Indeed, I believe it has. That is not to say that I believe this is a perfect bill--far from it. But this bill does represent an improvement. This bill provides coverage for those who need it most. In Texas, nearly 300,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are not eligible for Medicaid and who did not have any prescription drug coverage will be covered under this new bill. It will increase the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries in Texas with prescription drug coverage from roughly 60 percent to 95 percent. I would like to express my congratulations to leadership, to Majority Leader Frist, who I know has taken a personal interest in this cause as a medical doctor and as someone who has worked very hard to get us to where we are today; Chairman Chuck Grassley, who has the patience of Job and who I know has worked very closely with Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, and Senator John Breaux of Louisiana on other side, as well as Senators Nickles and Kyl and others who specifically shared some of the concerns that I had with the Senate bill but which I believe have produced as a result of their collaboration a much improved bill, and one which I am now proud to support. I do not view this bill as the finished product. I view this as a good start. But I think it would be a mistake to say because we view the glass is half empty as opposed to half full that we ought to vote against this Medicare conference report. I have no confidence the stars will align and the political climate will be such that we could ever get to this point any time in the near future. It is important we deliver on the promise that each Member in this Chamber made when we ran for this office and which the President made when he was elected, that we would strengthen and improve Medicare by providing prescription drug coverage for seniors who need it. The reason I am proud to support this bill today is because this represents delivery on that promise. In the end, I don't think the American people care very much about demagoguing certain aspects of the bill. They do not care very much about partisan differences. They do not care that much, really, about some of the ideological differences, the competing ideas that now have been melded into this bill and which create, to some extent, a hodgepodge, but on balance, an improvement over the status quo. It is our responsibility to govern. Governing means delivering results and not just criticizing things that are easy enough to criticize. Frankly, any bit of legislation that comes before this floor has defects that are easy to criticize. We are sent here to get the work of the American people done. This bill represents delivery on a promise we have made. We spend about $1.4 trillion a year in this country on health care. We know as much money as is spent on health care that still we have large segments of the population that are underserved and who do not have access to good quality health care. Fortunately, since 1965, our seniors have been provided access to good quality health care through the Medicare Program. We also know unless you happen to be among even the most modest means in our society, you would not have coverage. For example, under Medicaid, only those who are of very modest means who fall beneath the poverty level are eligible for that free health care program. Children are provided coverage to health care under the S-CHIP program which has provided coverage for many children who come from families of modest means who would not otherwise have access. We still have about 45 million people in the United States who do not have health insurance and who have limited access to health care coverage. That is something that we need to address. Fortunately, it is something that has been addressed, at least in part, in this bill. For example, in my State of Texas, we have many people who are uninsured and, indeed, who are undocumented. In other words, they have come to this country without the benefit of the legal process. But under Federal law, the Federal Government says you must provide free medical care at your emergency rooms and hospitals all across the country. Finally, rather than to foist that financial burden on the local governments and the local taxpayers and the State government and State taxpayers, this bill starts at least a downpayment to provide for that previously unfunded mandate. Indeed, it provides $250 million a year to be distributed among the States based on their percentage of population of undocumented immigrants. For example, the State of Texas will receive about $50 million a year over the next 4 years to help make good on that broken promise by the Federal Government. Indeed, that unfunded mandate will at least be funded to that extent. It is not by any stretch of the imagination enough to make Texas whole, but it is a start, a movement in the right direction. The other reason I am for this bill is because in 1965 the U.S. Government made a promise to our senior citizens that if you played by the rules, if you worked, if you paid your Medicare taxes, when you turn 65, Medicare would be there for you. While we know there have been enormous changes in the practice of medicine and the delivery of health care since 1965, Medicare has not changed. It is in response to the demands of that passage of time that we see this bill which does actually strengthen and improve Medicare today. If there is one fundamental reason I am for this bill it is because I think it is the best this body and our counterparts across the Rotunda are able to come up with at this time. It would be unconscionable to leave our seniors without prescription drug coverage, especially after all Members in this Chamber and elsewhere have campaigned on that issue, year after year after year, and left perhaps too many people skeptical or maybe even cynical about whether we actually intended to follow through on our campaign promises. This bill represents the kind of results I think they deserve and the kind of results that make good those promises we have made. As I say, I believe this is a good start. This is not a finished product. One of the best aspects of this bill is it changes the nature of Medicare to some extent by turning at least to some small degree from the command and control model that says the Federal Government knows best, which provides no choice, no alternatives, no opportunities for seniors to actually get better service or better health care by having some competition in the marketplace. Now, 38 years after Medicare was first passed in 1965, we see better coverage under this bill. We see more choice. We see coordination of medical therapies because, of course, many people are on multiple types of therapies, even drugs that may interact. This bill provides for a coordination of those medical therapies in a way that will enhance and protect the health of our seniors, not damage them. This bill places an important emphasis on prevention. This is one of the areas on which we need to do a lot more work. Frankly, it is much more humane and much cheaper and, indeed, much more compassionate to prevent disease than to wait until it has occurred and then try to treat it, perhaps with some or no success. This bill does provide for screening for cardiovascular disease, for diabetes, for greater access to mammography so that breast cancer can be diagnosed earlier, and it will provide an opportunity for every senior, as they go into Medicare, to get a complete physical examination so that if there is some way we can prevent them from becoming ill or perhaps address that illness much more effectively and efficiently by getting to it earlier, we can improve the quality of life and also save the taxpayers money when it comes to treating full-blown illnesses as they run amok. This bill is a vast improvement over the status quo because it has strong provisions for prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse. It is inevitable in a bill this big, some $400 billion over the next 10 years, that there is potential for fraud, waste, and abuse. I congratulate Chairman Grassley and the conference committee for writing into this bill important protections that will allow for the detection, indeed, for the investigation and hopefully for the prosecution of fraud, waste, and abuse when it comes to the taxpayers' dollars. I know the chairman of the Finance Committee shares a passion for protecting people in the rural parts of his State, and certainly across the United States. I share that passion with him. I still remember when I was campaigning up in the panhandle of Texas, a place where there is low-population density, in a rural part of our State where the county judge, who is the chief administrator for the county government, came up to me. She was concerned about her mother. She said the doctor for her mother, who was 80 years old, had refused to continue to accept Medicare patients. And this individual's mother had no other way to pay for her health care other than Medicare. So literally she lost access to the only doctor she had ever had and that she had ever known, at least during that period of her life. This bill addresses that concern, too, by providing greater access to health care in rural parts of our country, and it imposes reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals. Frankly, I have always thought it was wrong for us to try to balance the budget on the backs of health care providers because, frequently, these people provide free health care out of the goodness of their heart, for which they have no hope of compensation. I think it is only just and it is only right that we provide for fair and adequate reimbursement for treatment of Medicare patients. Frankly, that is the only way we are going to continue to see ready access for our seniors to the health care they need. There were two reasons I was very concerned about the bill as it left the Senate. One was because it lacked any means testing; in other words, the young man or young woman who earns minimum wage would be expected, out of their Medicare taxes, to pay for the prescription drugs of Bill Gates or Ross Perot from my State, someone who is more than capable of paying for their prescription drugs. I, frankly, thought it was unfair to foist that on the minimum-wage worker. Then the other concern I had was that I wanted to make sure we were not providing incentives for employers who maintain health insurance coverage for their employees after they retire, to simply drop them and create a greater burden on taxpayers. I think both of those issues have been addressed. Finally, Mr. President, I think the provision of health savings accounts represents a tremendous victory for those of us who believe that individuals ought to have greater choice, greater opportunity to manage their health care costs, by taking pretax dollars to pay for medical costs that are not otherwise covered by insurance. So for all those reasons, I congratulate again Chairman Grassley and those who have worked so hard on this bill. I know it has not been easy. It is not perfect, but, again, I do not think we should let the best be the enemy of the good. So I will proudly support it and work with Chairman Grassley and others to see that this gets to the President's desk for signature as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes about the Energy bill conference report that is before this body, and specifically address some of the criticisms that have been made against a clean fuel additive that was mandated by Congress under the Clean Air Act, and which was specifically certified for use by the Environmental Protection Agency. But, first, let me just speak more generally about the need for a national energy policy in this country. We are a country that likes to consume a lot of energy--whether it is gasoline, natural gas, coal--because it improves our quality of life and because it is key to growth in our economy and our prosperity, which, in turn, creates jobs so people can provide for their families. At the same time, we are a country that loves and cherishes our environment, whether it is clean water or clean air. We know that by consuming energy we need to also take necessary steps to protect our air and our water and our environment at the same time. We do not want to be forced to choose one or the other. We want, and I believe we can have, both. We can have the energy we need in order to maintain our quality of life and our prosperity and to fuel our economy, and we can also have that energy supply produced and consumed in a way that protects the environment against unreasonable damage. The reason I support this Energy bill is not because I believe it is perfect. I do not believe there is such a bill, unless the person talking happens to be the author of that bill. That is probably the only bill any of us would agree was perfect, the one that we were able to write by ourselves. But, of course, that is not the way it happens. That is not the way the Founding Fathers conceived of legislation passing. So what we have is a bill that has some strengths and some weaknesses. But, on the whole, I support this bill because I believe, for the first time in at least 10 years, it means America has the hope for a national energy policy that not only serves our economic interests but serves our national security interests as well. About 60 percent of the fuel we consume in this country is imported. Over the years, as we have consumed more and more energy, we have also become more and more dependent on imports from other parts of the world. We know one of those locations in the world is the Middle East, which is the subject, of course, of daily news reports. We know how troubled it is. We know how volatile that area of the world is. It means our energy supply is in jeopardy. Thank goodness we have been able to secure a steady supply of fuel, but it is at risk--as much at risk as the next headline, the next news flash, where we learn that some terrorist activity or some disruption of our energy supply is caused by other governments and other people beyond our control. So I think what we need to do, and what this Energy bill does, is encourage innovation and increase productivity here in America so we are less dependent on imported energy. I think that is a good thing. What we have right now is a schizophrenic energy policy in this country, one that squanders our strength in terms of our natural resources. It discourages innovation, and it leaves consumers too vulnerable. There are specifically some interests that relate to my State of Texas in this bill that I want to talk about, but this is a bill that is not just good for Texas, this is a bill that is good for the entire Nation. It moves us one step forward, and it is one that I believe is in the best interests of the American people. There has been some criticism of the provisions of this bill as they relate to a chemical called MTBE. The technical term is methyl tertiary-butyl ether. Now, people may wonder why we are talking about MTBEs, and why it is so important. Well, the truth is, this was mandated, the use of reformulated gasoline, in the Clean Air Act about 20 years ago because what Congress recognized was that unless we could find ways to burn gasoline in a cleaner, more environmentally friendly way, then we were going to have dirtier air. So Congress mandated the use of reformulated gasoline. American enterprise, as it does so well, innovated, created this product, which has then been used over the last 20 years and has enabled literally millions of people with lung disease, asthma, and the elderly to breathe easier. In other words, this oxygenate, as it is called, this chemical compound, has improved the public health in this country over the last 20 years. We are a better and healthier Nation for it. As a result of this Federal mandate that reformulated gasoline be used, and that something be innovated and created to allow gasoline to burn cleaner so we may breathe easier, people in my State and around the country began to produce MTBE. And you do not do that overnight. It takes a lot of infrastructure. It takes a lot of investment to produce this particular product. Indeed, 70 percent of MTBE is produced in the State of Texas and, not coincidentally, it creates a lot of jobs in our State. It is used in parts of the United States which are among the most polluted because we universally recognize that the use of reformulated gasoline and this particular oxygenate is important to reducing pollution and improving the public health. Well, the problem is--that this Energy bill seeks to identify--in some places we have seen that people who store MTBE in storage tanks have not kept those tanks in good repair and they have leaked this oxygenate into the surrounding environment. But rather than address their ire and their concern--a concern which I share--at those who maintain leaking tanks, we have people focusing on this chemical compound--which has not been shown to be harmful to public health but which, indeed, has improved the quality of the air we breath over these last 20 years--people who want to opportunistically claim that this chemical is somehow dangerous, when, in fact, the fault lies with those who do not maintain the tank in which this chemical is stored. We realize--and common sense would tell us--that whether it is gasoline or whatever the product is, if it is in a leaky tank, once it gets out of that tank into the surrounding environment, it can cause some harm. Common sense tells us that. But rather than focus on the leaky tanks and the people who have negligently allowed those tanks to leak, we have people who want to aim their crosshairs at the people who produce MTBE, which has improved public health and air quality. What this bill simply does is provide a safe harbor provision for those who have produced this product, which has improved the public health, and says: We are not going to stab you in the back for doing what the Federal Government asked you to do in the first place. In other words, the Federal Government said: Please invest your money, Mr. Businessman. Please create this infrastructure to produce this reformulated gas additive that allows our air to be cleaner. We are not going to let that happen and then years later, when perhaps memories dim and when someone has another idea, to say: Yes, we have you. Now you are going to be liable for money damages because you have done what Congress and the EPA asked you to do. We don't care about the benefit to the public health by producing clean air because now all we are concerned about is getting the people who have, perhaps, the deep pockets. What we are discussing, in terms of the safe harbor, is a provision that ensures fairness, that preserves the trust that is so important to guaranteeing that we in this country have the benefits of the innovation that the free enterprise system provides and that improves all of our lives. I hope we are not going to say to those who place their trust in Uncle Sam, when Uncle Sam says, please, Mr. Businessman, innovate and create a product that is going to improve public health, we are not going to allow that to be turned into a liability. There are some who want it to turn into a liability. In fundamental fairness, as well as our collective interest in the innovation that comes in the free enterprise system, when people step up and produce a product from which we all benefit, we should not let that innovation and we should not let that commitment and that trust suffer as a result of this legislation. I congratulate Chairman Domenici and the conference committee for standing strong in the interest of fairness. It is true that over the next 15 years, MTBE will be phased out. There will be other products that will step in to provide cleaner burning gasoline, those that are based on ethanol. But, frankly, unless the safe harbor provision stays in this bill, if I were someone who was going to produce an ethanol- based gasoline additive to produce a cleaner burning fuel, I would be very skeptical about investing the money, about developing a product that will clean our air, because I would worry that just as those who are targeting MTBE, we would be back here 10 or 15 years from now, saying: We caught you. And what are you guilty of? You are guilty of trusting Uncle Sam and Congress. Now we are going to let entrepreneurial lawyers and others make claims regarding the very product that you designed in order to meet the needs of the American people. They are going to sue you for it and try to take everything you have and more. I don't think that would be fair. I don't think that would be right. Frankly, I wanted to come out here and talk a little bit about how we got to this place because I think anybody who understands the complete story would understand that while this bill phases out MTBE use over the next 15 years, it also, at the same time, preserves the trust that is so important to getting investment in innovative products that make the public health better. Manufacturers will be extremely reluctant to invest in other additives without some confidence that the Federal Government will not allow those investments to become the basis of future liability. In short, the bill Chairman Domenici and the conference committee have crafted ensures that clean alternative fuels will not be regarded as unreasonably dangerous simply because they comply with Federal mandates. It is important to say, though, that if someone is negligent, whether it is maintaining a leaky tank that contains MTBE or any other product, and it causes harm, they are not protected by the language in this bill in any way. There is no defense or immunity from a suit for negligent conduct. I have heard some say that MTBE is a threat to public health. As I said, MTBE on the whole has benefited public health. The truth is, it is one of the most widely studied chemicals in commerce, including the pharmaceutical industry. The overwhelming majority of scientific evaluations to date have not identified a single health-related risk from the intended use of MTBE in gasoline. Numerous government and world-renowned independent health organizations to date have found no compelling reason to classify MTBE as even a possible cause of harm to human beings. Because MTBE manufacturers have complied with the requirements of the federally mandated program, MTBE should receive the equivalent legal treatment as ethanol for the reasons I have mentioned: for reasons of fairness and sound energy and consumer policy, and to encourage the kind of investment that ultimately will improve and maintain the public health. The facts that demonstrate the need for a comprehensive energy policy that this bill represents are overwhelming. Gas prices are at $1.50 and above in most areas of the country. Natural gas prices at the burner tip are more than $9 per 1,000 cubic feet. This summer, as we will recall, 20 percent of the Nation faced a total blackout which lasted more than 8 hours. If now is not the time to pass comprehensive energy legislation, I ask my colleagues: When is? If now is not the time to pass comprehensive energy legislation where America can again have a coherent and comprehensive energy policy that protects our economy and our national security, when will we pass such a bill and embrace such a policy? We should do so without any hesitation and without any further delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I can conclude my remarks, then I would be glad to yield for a question in the time that remains. My concern was about some of the comments made or the characterization made about the bill as being the product of some rightwing agenda. I do note in the announcement I heard, along with the American people, on Saturday, with the majority leader and Chairman Chuck Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee seated there, and also the Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, and others, including the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, who is a Democrat, and John Breaux, the Senator from Louisiana, another Democrat, who both have been leaders on Medicare reform, and what was announced was a bipartisan conference committee agreement on principles. I do not know how this debate will ultimately pan out, but I do not believe the debate is advanced by, frankly, characterizing it as a product of some conspiracy or captive of some special interest agenda. I do know there are a lot of people who have been active on this issue on both sides of the aisle who support the bill. There are others who express concerns, and I want to explore those in the coming days in deciding how I might ultimately vote. But, Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about what I thought was the subject of the day and of this hour, which is the promotion of MG Robert Clark to lieutenant general. First and foremost, I am well aware of some of the concerns that have been expressed about Major General Clark. I do not believe these concerns are based on any facts, but perhaps sentiment alone. As we know, as the record reflects, in July 1999, a soldier named PFC Barry Winchell in General Clark's division was murdered by a fellow soldier at Fort Campbell in Kentucky. It is alleged this young man was murdered because he was perceived to be a homosexual. I am sure I speak for the entire Senate when I say such inhumane acts deserve every condemnation. My heart, and that of others, goes out to the friends and family of Barry Winchell as they mourn his untimely demise. The perpetrators of this heinous crime were, however, punished to the fullest extent of the law. As the convening authority for the court- martial, Major General Clark played a key role in ensuring the people who savagely killed Private First Class Winchell were, in fact, brought to justice. Unfortunately, there are those who want to unfairly blame major General Clark for this tragic death. This is a very serious charge and should not be made lightly. I commend Chairman Warner for his excellent work in making sure that this nomination has been carefully considered by the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, the committee spent more than a year looking into this tragic situation so that we could make sure we knew everything that could be known about the facts and circumstances involving Private First Class Winchell's death and any alleged culpability or responsibility that General Clark might bear for this tragedy. This is what we learned. The Department of the Army inspector general conducted a full investigation into the facts and circumstances of the death of Private First Class Winchell at Major General Clark's request. The inspector general also conducted an overall command climate assessment at Fort Campbell which, as Chairman Warner pointed out, consisted of, at the time, about 25,000 soldiers. Neither the investigation nor the command climate assessment found that Major General Clark was in any way responsible for this sad event. The record, in fact, demonstrates that General Clark conducted himself as a consummate professional, before and after the homicide. He adopted enhanced unit level training programs to ensure that Department of Defense policy was understood and implemented. And he repeatedly took personal action to communicate the requirements of the proper conduct and respect each soldier deserves. The murder of Barry Winchell was indeed a tragedy. But it would be wrong to allow the career of a great American soldier to be ended over false allegations of some vague perceived shortcomings, when it is clear that he joins all of us in condemning the despicable actions of the drunken soldier that took Barry Winchell's life. General Clark is more than worthy of promotion to lieutenant general. A San Antonio native, General Clark is a graduate of Texas Tech University and, like many brave Texans, he chose to serve his country in a military career. In fact, 1 out of every 10 men and women in uniform today is from the State of Texas, something of which we are immensely proud. What a career General Clark has had, spanning more than three decades on as many continents. Among other decorations, General Clark has received the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with four Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star for Valor, and the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster for his service. To my mind, these achievements alone would merit his promotion. His record demonstrates that he has been a fine officer and, indeed, a great American patriot. But there is also this: When Major General Clark was only First Lieutenant Clark, barely a year in uniform, he was serving in Vietnam as the first platoon leader of Company A, the Second Battalion of the 8th Calvary, the 1st Calvary Division. As his men were being extracted from hostile territory following a ground reconnaissance mission, they were engaged by enemy mortar fire, and the first two rounds caused heavy casualties, including Lieutenant Clark. A lesser soldier might have faltered in this situation, but even though he was wounded, Lieutenant Clark did not forget his foremost duty was to his own men. With total disregard for his personal safety, for his wounds, Lieutenant Clark put himself in the line of mortar fire again to carry wounded members of his company out of harm's way. He bravely moved from position to position, urging his men on until help arrived. For his wounds, Lieutenant Clark was awarded the Purple Heart; for his valor, the Bronze Star. General Clark has literally bled for his country. He has put his life on the line for his men and, yes, for us. He has dedicated himself to defending American freedoms against all enemies. In short, he is a true American patriot. There are brave young men and women who today are doing exactly the same thing that General Clark was doing then: fighting for the cause of freedom and democracy in the ongoing war on terror. They are serving a just cause with bravery and dedication. I can think of no better leader than Major General Clark to serve as a living example to them, the next generation of American heroes. I yield back any remaining time to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor because I know this is the time that was set aside to talk about the nomination of MG Robert Clark and his promotion to lieutenant general. I want to talk about that in just a moment. I would say I have been interested in listening to the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts on another topic, on the Medicare conference report that will soon come to the floor. I must confess when that bill was first considered by this body, I could not support it. It was always my hope that once it went through the conference committee it would be improved. Indeed, from what I know of the bill so far, it has been. But I am so far undecided on how to vote on the conference report.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2115 shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, once again, we are proceeding with the Democrats' filibuster of the circuit court nominees.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request so that just prior to proceeding as requested, the three cloture votes would be vitiated and the Senate would then immediately proceed to three consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nominations, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. If I may----

Mr. CORNYN. I would like to ask the Senator from New York, of the individuals he has listed on his chart, isn't it true that all but Judge Fortas were ultimately confirmed to the positions to which the President appointed them?

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield----

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. The Senator has talked about Miguel Estrada and his admirable qualities, the fact he emigrated here as a young man at 17, barely spoke the English language, and yet rose to the top of his profession and, indeed, represented the United States Government before the highest Court in the land in 15 cases, which is a remarkable professional accomplishment. But you also alluded to the comments made by our colleague from New York, and you gave us some quotes about the nature of President Bush's judicial nominees. I believe at another time he accused the President of loading up the judiciary with rightwingers who want to turn the clock back to the 1890s and warning that America is under attack from the hard right, the mean people. They have the sort of patina of philosophy, but underneath it is meanness, selfishness, and narrowmindedness. If I may ask the Senator, how in the world can you reconcile the public record of Miguel Estrada and this sort of characterization? Do you have an explanation for what is happening here?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Friday, November 14, 2003, after the last cloture vote in Dirksen Room 226. Note: This markup was rescheduled from Thursday, November 13, 2003. Agenda I. Nominations: Henry W. Saad to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; James B. Comey to be Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Garcia to be Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Claude A. Allen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; and Federico L. Rocha to be U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California. II. Bills: H.R. 1437, To improve the United States Code [Sensenbrenner, Conyers] and S. Res. 253, To recognize the evolution and importance of motorsports [Campbell, Kyl].