[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 167 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15036-S15045]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Conference Report on Medicare

  Mr. President, in a very few days we are going to be confronted with 
the conference report on Medicare. There is no more important issue 
facing the Congress and no more important issue to senior citizens and 
their families. Every senior citizen, every child of senior citizens, 
and every American should understand that this legislation must be 
defeated or drastically modified.
  This conference report represents a right-wing agenda to privatize 
Medicare and to force senior citizens into HMOs and private insurance 
plans. The day it is implemented, it will make millions of seniors 
worse off than they are today. It is a cynical attempt to use the 
elderly and the disabled's need for affordable prescription drugs as a 
Trojan horse to destroy the program on which they have relied for 40 
years.
  It is important to understand how we got to this point.
  First of all, we all understand that Medicare is one of the most 
beloved programs this Nation has ever enacted. It is depended upon by 
seniors all over this country. It is a program which is relied on and 
depended upon, and it works. If there is a failure in the Medicare 
Program, it was not to have included a prescription drug program in the 
legislation we passed.
  That really is not what this current conference report is all about. 
This conference report is going to threaten Medicare in a very 
significant and important way--in a way that those of us who believe in 
Medicare should not permit.
  We started in the Senate with a bipartisan bill to expand the 
prescription drug coverage. We also provided additional choices to 
private insurance coverage for senior citizens as the President 
requested. The bill was not a solution for the problems senior citizens 
face. It only provided about $400 billion between now and 2012 toward 
the prescription costs that will total $1.8 trillion. But it was a 
start, a downpayment. It was a fair and balanced compromise that 
protected Medicare and protected senior citizens. That is why it passed 
by 76 votes. Only 11 Democrats voted no; only 10 Republicans voted no.

  The House took a different course. They passed a bill that was 
designed to radically alter Medicare, not for the benefit of the 
elderly. That is why it passed by a slim partisan majority of one vote. 
Now the conference has been hijacked by those who want to radically 
alter Medicare, privatize, to voucherize it, to force seniors into HMOs 
and into private insurance plans.
  The bill the Senate will consider shortly is not a bill to provide a 
prescription drug benefit. It is a bill to carry out the right wing 
agenda and asks the elderly to swallow unprecedented changes in 
Medicare in return for a limited and inadequate small prescription drug 
benefit.
  This conference report is so ill-conceived, not only does it put the 
whole Medicare Program at risk, it makes 9 million seniors, almost a 
quarter of the Medicare population, worse off than they are today. If 
this bill passes, the country will want to know: Where was their 
Senator when the Senate debated a bill that left a quarter of all 
seniors with worse drug coverage than before the bill passed? Where was 
their Senator when the Senate debated a so-called premium support 
demonstration that jacked up senior citizens' premiums--senior citizens 
who live on a fixed income, who have a median income of about $14,000--
starting us down the road to the unraveling of Medicare? Where was 
their Senator when the Senate debated a bill that stacked the

[[Page S15037]]

deck against Medicare with a $12 billion slush fund for PPOs and much 
higher payments for HMOs than standard Medicare? Where was their 
Senator when the bill gave away $6 billion to health savings accounts 
that could jeopardize whole systems of health insurance?
  On issue after issue after issue after issue, this report abandons 
the bipartisan Senate bill and capitulates to the partisan right-wing 
House bill. On some issues it is even to the right of what the House 
passed.
  One of the most important of these destructive changes is a concept 
called premium support. It should really be called insurance company 
profit support or senior citizen coercion support. It replaces the 
stable, reliable, dependable premium that senior citizens pay for 
Medicare today with an unstable, unaffordable premium.
  Under premium support, the administration's own estimates show the 
average Medicare premiums will initially jump 25 percent. That is the 
administration's estimate. Several years ago the estimate was a 
whopping 47 percent.
  The truth is, no one really knows how high the Medicare premiums 
could rise. But rise they will. But we do know this. Over time, the 
increase will become higher and higher and higher and higher. That is 
just average premiums. Under premium support, how much you pay will 
depend on where one lives, and the amount could change dramatically 
from year to year. In Florida, you will pay $900 in Osceola and $2,000 
if you live in Dade County. This chart demonstrates the price of 
premium support. This is not my estimate of what the premiums are going 
to be. This is the estimate of the Medicare actuaries. If you live in 
Dade County, you will pay $2,050; if you live in Osceola, you will pay 
$1,000, twice as much. Explain that to someone who has a house in Dade 
County when they find out their neighbor is paying half of what they 
are paying because of premium support. This is just the beginning.
  Premium support is a vast social experiment using senior citizens as 
guinea pigs. If it works as the proponents intend, it will raise the 
premiums in Medicare dramatically and force senior citizens to join 
HMOs and PPOs to get prescription drugs. Why would anyone want to make 
the destructive changes to the Medicare Program that have served senior 
citizens so well for 40 years? The answer is a radical ideology. They 
say Medicare is bad. HMOs and PPOs are good.
  There is no mystery here. We know what this is all about. The 
principal supporters of premium support are those people who are 
strongly opposed to Medicare. Many of our colleagues--our friends, but 
our political adversaries--want to see the Medicare system withdrawn or 
destroyed. What do they support? Premium support. What has been 
accepted in this conference? Premium support.

  Some of the supporters of this program claim it's just a 
demonstration--nothing to get excited about. But it's not a 
demonstration. Under the terms of the demonstration, 7 million 
Americans could be forced into the program. Half the States have local 
areas where senior citizens could be forced to take part in this 
demonstration.
  And that's just today. Tomorrow it will be 10 million senior 
citizens, or 20 million, or the whole country. People say we can change 
it. Change it? We will have to pass a law to change it. We will have to 
come to the Senate and the House of Representatives to change it.
  This program will drain healthy seniors from Medicare and leave 
behind those who are sick and need help the most and it will send 
premiums for those who remain in traditional Medicare up through the 
roof. People who support this program make no secret what they want to 
do. They are on record as saying that Medicare is outdated and should 
be scrapped and seniors should be forced into HMOs. That is the same 
philosophy the President embraced when he initially proposed to give 
senior citizens a drug benefit only if they joined an HMO or PPO. 
Remember that? That is what this President wanted in March of this 
year. You only get the prescription drug program if you left the 
Medicare system and joined. We have carried that view forward with this 
program. I respect their opinions, but they should not use a 
prescription drug program as a Trojan horse to foist a bad idea on 
senior citizens.
  The second way this program privatizes and voucherizes Medicare is by 
providing vast subsidies to the private sector at the expense of 
Medicare. Payments to the private sector will be 109 percent of the 
payments to Medicare for the private companies. If we want competition, 
can someone explain to me why we have to give 109 percent of what we 
are giving to Medicare to the private companies? Who is paying for 
those billions of dollars? It is the Medicare population. They have 
paid in. They are paying in. They are the ones who will pay the 109 
percent.
  I thought competition was supposed to be an even playing field. Not 
in this bill. Medicare is at one level; the HMOs are at 109 percent of 
Medicare. That is what they are getting. Medicare overpays by 16 
percent because HMO enrollees are healthier. That is according to the 
CMS, the governmental institution that reviews these statistics. They 
find out seniors in private plans are 16 percent healthier than those 
in traditional Medicare. We ask for a level playing field yet they get 
109 percent of what Medicare receives. And the people they are caring 
for are a good deal healthier than those in Medicare.
  It does not stop there. The private plans have an additional $12 
billion slush fund in case they are having difficulty. The 109 percent 
is not enough. They have a healthier population. But still, if you need 
some help, just come my way. We have $12 billion here with which to 
reach out and help you.

  Medicare will pay at least 25 percent more to insurance companies for 
every senior citizen who joins an HMO and PPO than it would cost to 
care for the same person in Medicare. That is competition? That is 
competition, my friends? That is competition? That is what is in this 
conference report.
  The Medicare trust fund, which today's retirees paid into and rely 
on, will be robbed to lavish billions of dollars on HMOs. That money, 
that 25 percent additional premium, ought to be invested right back in 
terms of the drug program for our seniors.
  There is no truer indication of a nation's priorities than the 
investments it makes. The legislation the Senate considers today 
squanders that historic opportunity with reckless disregard for the 
Nation's health.
  No provision in the bill reveals its warped priorities more clearly 
than the $12 billion slush fund to lure HMOs into Medicare.
  Let's see if I have the reasoning behind this fund right. The 
supporters of this legislation are so convinced HMOs can provide health 
care to senior citizens more efficiently than Medicare that they have 
given HMOs a $12 billion payoff so they can compete. If they are so 
efficient, why do they need a handout?
  I guess the sponsors believe the 9-percent reimbursement bonus HMOs 
already get is not enough, and that is on top of the 16 percent boost 
HMOs get from serving a healthier population. It is a good thing HMOs 
are so efficient or we might have to bleed Medicare completely dry to 
pay for them.
  I wonder which HMO will be the lucky winner for the $12 billion 
Government handout. Will it be United Health Group, which made $1.4 
billion last year? Or maybe the $12 billion lottery winner will be 
WellPoint, whose profits last year were $703 million, and whose CEO 
made $22.4 million. Perhaps the sponsors of this legislation think he 
needs a handout to make ends meet.
  Anyone who reads the bill and comes to these provisions setting up 
this slush fund should be sickened at what they see. I challenge the 
supporters of this legislation to go to a senior center in their State, 
to go to the coffee shop on Main Street, to go to the churches and 
explain to the seniors they meet why their Medicare benefits are being 
stinted to give a $12 billion handout to HMOs. Explain to them why, 
with all the Medicare improvements that could be made with $12 billion, 
this bill decided the best use of that money is to inflate the profits 
of an HMO industry that is expected to make $6 billion this year.
  This bill not only undermines Medicare, we find 6 million senior 
citizens and disabled people on Medicaid--the poorest of the poor--will 
be worse off. Their out-of-pocket payments will be raised, and their 
access to drugs could be curtailed.

[[Page S15038]]

  Two to 3 million people with good employer retiree drug coverage will 
lose it, according to CBO estimates. This means almost a quarter of all 
Medicare beneficiaries will be worse off the day this bill passes.
  This legislation reimposes the asset test, retreats from the positive 
things in the Senate bill. Not only does this agreement put all the 
dreadful things in that harm senior citizens, it unravels Medicare by 
reimposing the asset test. Three million people who were protected with 
the Senate bill are cut off in this program.
  Finally, this conference puts in place an unrestricted program on 
health savings accounts, what used to be called medical savings 
accounts. They provide billions of new tax breaks for the healthy and 
the wealthy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed all but 2 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Worse, they encourage the healthy and wealthy to take 
high deductible policies, policies that require you to pay thousands of 
dollars before you get benefits. That is fine for people who can afford 
to put money into a tax-free savings account, but it is not good for 
ordinary working people.
  We all know what is going on here. Not a word in this controversy is 
about prescription drugs for senior citizens. We have an agreement on 
that. In the Senate we had a solid bipartisan compromise that would 
have helped millions of seniors pay for the drugs they so desperately 
need. It was not full coverage, but it was a good start. That is not 
the issue here. We could send the bipartisan Senate bill to the White 
House this afternoon. President Bush could sign it before supper. But 
Republicans will not do that. They are holding prescription drug 
coverage hostage to their plan to destroy Medicare. They could never 
pass that plan on its own, so they are adding it to the prescription 
drug bill. Shame on them.
  They say they have to destroy Medicare in order to save it. That is 
nonsense. There is nothing wrong with Medicare that Republicans can 
fix.
  There is still time to do what is right. Let's stand up for senior 
citizens and for prescription drug coverage of Medicare. Let's stand up 
against this conference report and these shameful assaults on Medicare.
  I will include at this point the organizations opposed to the 
Medicare conference report. Included are the National Committee to 
Preserve Social Security; the Alliance for Retired Americans; Families 
USA; Medicare Rights Center; Center for Medicare Advocacy; Consumers 
Union, National Senior Citizens Law Center; NETWORK: A Catholic Social 
Justice Lobby; American Public Health Association; the American 
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the American 
Federation of Teachers; NEA; Service Employees International Union; 
AFL-CIO; Older Women's League--there are close to 40 groups here. I ask 
unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Organizations Opposed to Medicare Conference Report

     National committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
     Alliance for Retired Americans
     Families USA
     US Action
     Medicare Rights Center
     Center for Medicare Advocacy
     Consumers Union
     National Health Law Program
     National Senior Citizens Law Center
     New York State Alliance for Retired Americans
     Seniors Citizens Law, Albuquerque, NM
     Legal Assistance to the Elderly, San Francisco, CA
     Medicare Advocacy Project of Greater Boston Legal Services
     Connecticut Association of Area Agencies on Aging
     PRO Seniors Health Care Consumer Rights Project
     NETWORK: A Catholic Social Justice Lobby
     American Public Health Association
     Arizona Center for Disability Law
     Center for Health Care Rights, Los Angeles, CA
     Florida Community Health Action Information Network
     Florida Legal Services
     Human Services Coalition of Miami Dade County
     United Food and Commercial Workers
     United Auto Workers
     American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
     American Federation of Teachers
     International Association of Fire Fighters
     National Education Association
     Service Employees International Union
     AFL-CIO
     International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
     International Longshore and Warehouse Union
     Transport Workers Union of America
     United Steelworkers of America
     National Association of Area Agencies on Aging and the Center 
         for Aging Policy
     Older Women's League
     National Taxpayers Union
     United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think Senator Cornyn is seeking 
recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  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. DAYTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? 
What is the order of business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas yield for a 
question?
  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,

[[Page S15039]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Minnesota is to 
be recognized next. Is there a time agreement, to clarify my own 
understanding?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama controls 29 minutes 
at this point. The minority controls almost 20 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the agreement, 15 of the minority's 20 
minutes is pledged to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I see. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank my colleague from Alabama. I had not intended to 
interrupt my distinguished colleague from Texas with whom I have 
traveled to Iraq and other places, but I misunderstood exactly where we 
were, given the subject matter that was being discussed. I apologize 
for the interruption. I will focus my remarks on this matter because it 
is one that is deserving of all the attention and concern of the 
Members of this body, and it is a very difficult matter, one that I 
wish we didn't have to confront in this Chamber and one I wish we 
didn't have to confront in this country.
  But we do. We have a general with, generally, a very distinguished 
record, who now has been nominated for promotion to a very high office, 
commanding general of the Fifth Army. I have the greatest respect for 
the top echelon of our military command, as I have come to watch them, 
work with them, see their dedication and their professionalism and 
their compassion and concern for the men and women under their command. 
I regret having to raise these questions about any one of them.
  But we have a dead American soldier on the other hand, a young man 
who lost his life while in uniform, while in the service of his 
country. He wasn't murdered in Iraq, as some of our brave soldiers are 
these days, or in Afghanistan, or somewhere else. He wasn't in a 
training accident, as some soldiers from Minnesota have been, in this 
country or abroad.
  He was murdered. He was murdered by his own fellow American soldiers. 
His crime? His crime was that he was perceived and believed to be gay. 
I use that word ``crime'' rhetorically because I don't believe--I don't 
think Americans believe--that the sexual preference of an individual is 
a crime or should be a crime. It is not a crime in this country, 
punishable by death.
  That can only happen in a country such as Iraq, or some country with 
a vicious totalitarian regime, where if someone is different in any way 
and somebody decides it is wrong, they are not only excluded by society 
or discriminated against, but they are harassed, tortured, or executed. 
But not in the United States of America.
  However, it happened in this country at Fort Campbell, KY, in 1999, 
under General Clark's command. The soldiers who committed that terrible 
crime have been prosecuted, convicted, and are serving sentences.
  The military system that allowed that atrocity to occur remains. It 
is a system which permitted a succession of actions--from taunts, 
humiliations, bullying, all sorts of prejudice, immoral and illegal 
behavior--to occur and recur. What happened as a consequence? Nothing. 
Nothing. Nothing, unfortunately, is what happens most of the time in 
the Army of this country today.
  I am very proud of that Army in many respects, but I am not proud of 
an Army, or any other institution in this country, that permits 
discrimination against men and women because of their sexual 
preference. It is just that nothing usually happens when young women 
are assaulted and raped at the Air Force Academy--another matter we are 
dealing with on the Armed Services Committee. Their ``crime'' is that 
they are women.

[[Page S15040]]

  Women have been admitted to the Air Force Academy for 30 years and 
have been flying side by side in airplanes, and taking all of the 
risks, and doing as well as their counterparts. But they are being 
assaulted and raped time after time. We have discovered that at the Air 
Force Academy, what has usually happened to the perpetrators of those 
crimes is very little or nothing.
  These are impressionable young men and women in our Armed Forces--
most of them. They are outstanding young men and women. I have 
interviewed a number of them. I think all of us have that 
responsibility. I find, when I have the opportunity to interview young 
men and women who are seeking admission to or nomination to our 
military academies, that they are really fine young men and women. 
There is a lot of competition to get in. When I have those interviews, 
when I am talking to other young men and women in uniform as I travel 
back and forth, I don't see these kinds of attitudes. I don't see young 
men and women who are looking at their fellow soldiers with this kind 
of prejudice or are considering these kinds of atrocities.
  I just visited, in Minnesota over the weekend, a soldier who had one 
side of his arm shredded while serving in the Iraqi theater. He is 
recovering, thank God. He is a 21-year-old young man. He will recover. 
Another young Minnesotan lost most of his right leg, but he has great 
spirit and morale and he will live a great life.
  But I have also visited parents of young men and women who are not 
recovering, who are not coming home because they paid the ultimate 
price for their service. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and when 
I look at the reports and the casualty figures of the brave young 
Americans who are being injured or wounded or maimed or who died in 
combat, I don't see categories of ``heterosexual'' or ``gay'' or 
``lesbian'' and I don't see ``women'' or ``men.'' I see American 
soldiers, with the same kind of blood and bodies. All they are asking 
is an equal opportunity to serve their country, to risk their lives in 
the service of their country--even to die in the service of their 
country.

  Amazingly enough, that is what these young women who are going to the 
Air Force Academy, and the young men and women entering the Armed 
Forces, who have a same-sex affinity--that is what they want, the same 
opportunity to fight, to be heroic, and even to die for their country.
  That is what makes it so inexplicable and inexcusable and 
unforgivable when they are discriminated against, when they are treated 
the way they are, and when they have nowhere to turn.
  So who is responsible? Who is accountable? Who loses a rank or a 
promotion or a star because a gay soldier was murdered under his 
command? General Clark's actions following that atrocity were 
questionable and, I would say, barely marginal. General Clark's actions 
in many other instances throughout his distinguished career have been 
extraordinary, heroic, and commendable, and I salute him for them. But 
it wasn't only his actions after this atrocity that were called into 
question; it was the actions and inaction before this occurred, which 
permitted in this environment of opportunities for repeated 
discrimination and harassment--for an NCO who was clearly unfit to be 
responsible for impressionable young men who, by his own conduct--or 
misconduct--showed them how not to treat a fellow soldier. That is what 
concerns me about this today.
  I expect we will confirm General Clark's promotion. He will go on, 
and I hope he performs with great distinction, as I believe he will, as 
a commanding general of the 5th Army. But what is going to happen to 
all the other gay and lesbian soldiers out there? What kind of message 
are we sending to them? What kind of message do we send to the young 
women who get raped at the Air Force Academy when they see those who 
commit the terrible acts being promoted? What happens to a military's 
network of people when those promotions occur untouched by these kinds 
of atrocities, and eventually they are the military command or they are 
throughout the military command? How are we ever going to change what 
is going on in these situations if no one is held accountable, if there 
is no consequence for not doing what a commander should do--what in 
some instances they are required by law to do?
  Regardless, common sense and decency and morality would tell them 
that anybody responsible for the lives of young people ought to keep 
people from ganging up or abusing or assaulting or picking on or 
murdering a fellow human being--not to mention a fellow soldier but a 
fellow American citizen. What happens to all of us when we let that go 
on?
  As I said earlier, I think the U.S. military is outstanding in so 
many respects. It is that institution where, historically, young men 
and women have been able to come from all over the country, all 
different backgrounds; it is the great opportunity provider. It doesn't 
matter if your parents don't have any money or if you don't have much 
education; you can find yourself and become somebody and either serve 
with great distinction and make it a career or you can come back into 
society and do just as well. But you are not going to be that kind of 
person or that kind of professional or that kind of citizen or leader 
of this country if you are learning that is what happens, and that is 
OK, and those who do it get promoted, and those who are the victims 
suffer the terrible consequences.
  That is a terribly destructive message to those individuals, a 
terribly destructive result to our Nation; and if this body means the 
concerns it expressed here--and I take them at good faith, but if we 
mean that, we are not going to be satisfied, and we should not be, by 
doing nothing other than promoting this general today.
  We owe it to those men and women who have suffered, and those who 
have lost their lives through these atrocities, to take responsibility 
and tell the military, because we are the civilian command, that we are 
not going to do it; the buck stops here because no one else will, that 
we are going to insist on an armed forces that reflects, represents, 
and defends the standards of the basic decency the founding principles 
of this country that all men and women are created equal, they are 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among 
them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to 
defend their country and be a patriot and not have somebody attacking 
them, humiliating them, or murdering them because of who they are.

  That is the responsibility of leadership. That starts at the top, all 
the way down. It does not come from the bottom because that is where 
the base level is. It has to come from the top, from the commanders, 
from the civilians who are responsible for the system which they 
command and for those who are putting their lives, their hopes, their 
dreams, and their careers on the line. We have a lot of work to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for 
yielding me a few minutes to discuss the nomination of GEN Robert 
Clark. I rise in support of the nomination. This is a very sensitive 
issue and it is one that needs to be dealt with in the right way by 
this body, and I think it has been.
  The tragic death of PVT Barry Winchell should never have occurred, 
nor should any murder of that sort. The fact is, once it did occur, 
General Clark did everything within his power, first, to see that 
justice was done.
  During the course of seeing that justice was done, there was a review 
of all of his procedures and regulations that were in place at Fort 
Campbell relative to the circumstances that led up to this unfortunate 
death. General Clark was somewhat handicapped by not being able to 
speak out openly and publicly after the death because he was a 
convening authority for the court-martial and therefore he could not 
really come forward and have a whole lot to say about the facts and 
circumstances leading up to the death of Private Winchell.
  The fact is that he did make some changes in the procedures. He did 
make sure other regulations that had been in place prior to this 
unfortunate death

[[Page S15041]]

were enforced to an even greater degree than at the time this incident 
occurred.
  It is truly a tragic situation that was of great concern to General 
Clark. I have had the opportunity to visit with him on a couple of 
different occasions, and one does not have to talk with him very long 
to see the concern in his eyes and in his heart relative to the death 
of Private Winchell.

  I have also had the opportunity to meet with Private Winchell's 
parents. Again, we expressed to them deep sorrow and that our prayers 
go out to them. No matter what, we cannot bring their son back. I think 
we do need to make sure that as we move through this process we review 
what was done relative to the facts and circumstances leading up to 
this terrible murder and the facts and circumstances as they occurred 
after the death of Private Winchell.
  As I reviewed this situation with General Clark and as I looked at 
the IG investigation that he ordered to take place after the death 
occurred and after the court-martial was completed, it is pretty 
obvious that he did everything he could have done to ensure that 
justice was done and that the atmosphere surrounding the troops at Fort 
Campbell was not poisoned and everybody was treated in an equal and 
fair manner.
  It is very unfortunate that this situation had to occur, but at the 
same time it is very important that we make sure the procedures of the 
Army are followed very closely, and they were. It is very important 
that we make sure the sensitivity directed towards the family has taken 
place, and I believe it has. It has not been a perfect situation. 
General Clark, just as any officer or any individual in the corporate 
structure of any company in America, can look back on a situation as 
tragic as this and say that maybe they should have done something a 
little bit differently. The fact is, General Clark has always provided 
strong leadership during his career in the U.S. Army, and I think, once 
again, he exhibited strong leadership.
  He did everything within his power to see that justice was done and 
to see that appropriate rules and regulations were put in place where 
they needed to be and that they were carried out to the highest degree. 
So I rise in support of GEN Clark, and I hope my colleagues will see 
fit to confirm his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will vote against the nomination of 
Major General Robert T. Clark to the rank of Lieutenant General and to 
the position of Commander, United States Fifth Army.
  Former President Harry Truman placed a sign on his desk in the Oval 
Office that read ``The Buck Stops Here.'' As Commander in Chief of the 
United States Armed Services, President Truman took full responsibility 
for every action that took place under his watch, at every rank. He 
never shifted blame, and he never accepted failure.
  The same, cannot be said for General Clark.
  In 1999, while General Clark was the commanding officer at Fort 
Campbell in Kentucky, Private First Class Barry Winchell was bludgeoned 
to death with a baseball bat by a fellow soldier who believed that 
Private Winchell was gay.
  Did General Clark immediately accept responsibility for this terrible 
incident? Did he use his position of authority to stamp out the hateful 
and dangerous climate of anti-gay sentiment on the base?
  No, he did not. Instead, General Clark claimed that there wasn't 
anything wrong on his base, denying that a vile culture of hate and 
harassment against gays had been pervasive for some time. But his 
sentiments do not jibe with reports from soldiers at the base detailing 
widespread harassment of soldiers thought to be homosexual and the 
ubiquitous presence of anti-gay graffiti.
  The hazing and harassment that Private Winchell experienced before 
his murder were so pernicious that he bravely reported these episodes 
to the inspector general. This was a very risky course of action 
because it could have led to Private Winchell's discharge under the 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy.
  On his departure from Fort Campbell, General Clark declared, ``There 
is not, nor has there ever been during my time here, a climate of 
homophobia on post.'' Tell that to Barry Winchell's family.
  Apparently, the buck did not stop with General Clark. Instead of 
addressing the problem of homophobia at Fort Campbell, General Clark 
ignored it. Immediately after Private Winchell's murder, General Clark 
remained silent. He did not condemn anti-gay behavior on his base. He 
refused to meet with gay rights organizations who simply wanted to 
address the homophobia prevalent there. Surprisingly, General Clark 
failed to request the psychological and training services provided by 
the Army on how to address anti-gay harassment after the murder.
  General Clark even delayed meeting with Private Winchell's family--
despite their repeated entreaties--for almost 4 years after his murder. 
I find this particularly inexplicable and inexcusable.
  The tragic murder of Private Winchell was not the only problem 
occurring at Fort Campbell. According to an Inspector General review of 
the base, Fort Campbell suffered from low morale, dilapidated barracks 
in need of repair, inadequate health care, and significant problems 
with underage drinking.
  Today, the Senate faces the decision whether to promote General Clark 
to a very high-ranking position in the U.S. military. This position 
requires proven leadership skills.
  I do not think that General Clark showed leadership at Fort Campbell, 
either before or after Private Winchell was murdered. He let Private 
Winchell down. He passed the buck.
  I rise today to say that General Clark's lack of leadership at Fort 
Campbell dissuade me from supporting his promotion. I believe this 
promotion sends the wrong message about what we expect from our 
commanding officers, especially now in a time of war.
  I served in the Army Signal Corps in Europe during World War II. Over 
the course of my three years of service, I never encountered a superior 
officer who avoided responsibility for his soldiers or their actions. 
Each and every one of my commanding officers expected and demanded the 
best from me; their leadership, in turn, inspired me to do my best.
  I don't think Major General Clark inspires such dedication and 
service. Therefore, I will vote against this nomination and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of MG Robert 
T. Clark to the rank of lieutenant general. The facts surrounding his 
conduct, prior to and after the murder of PFC Barry Winchell, raise 
questions about his leadership and judgment that have not been answered 
to my satisfaction.
  The Inspector General of the Army, while clearing Major General Clark 
of fostering a hostile environment at Fort Campbell, raised serious 
issues about discipline at the base. Furthermore, some of Major General 
Clark's actions after Private Winchell's murder raise legitimate 
questions about his fitness for higher command. In the immediate 
aftermath of the murder, for example, a public affairs officer at the 
base issued a statement describing the murder as a ``physical 
altercation in a post barracks.'' This gross distortion of the facts 
was not corrected. In fact, Private Winchell had been asleep at the 
time his murderer struck, goaded on by other soldiers. General Clark 
took no steps to correct this claim in public, and later defended his 
action as in keeping with his mandate not to prejudice the ongoing 
investigation. Regrettably, these actions leave the appearance of a 
general officer who did not want the negative attention that would 
result from a hate crime under his command.
  General Officers are rightly held to incredibly high standards of 
conduct, and they should be. The men and women under their command are 
worthy of no less. In this case, Major General Clark appears to have 
come up short, as evidenced by the Senate Armed Services Committee's 
failure to pass this nomination unanimously. Instead of clarity, the 
nomination process has left us with lingering concerns

[[Page S15042]]

about the general's fitness for higher command.
  Mr. President, I recognize and appreciate Major General Clark's long 
service in the Armed Forces of our country. But there remain too many 
legitimate questions about his leadership and judgment stemming from 
his command of the 101st Airborne at the time of Private Winchell's 
murder to confirm his nomination to the rank of lieutenant 
general.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to speak today on the nomination 
for promotion of Major General Robert T. Clark and the broader issue of 
the Department of Defense's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. The 
unusually lengthy and controversial nomination of General Clark has, 
once again, brought attention to the failure of the Pentagon's policy 
towards gay servicemembers. It is high time that we stop this policy of 
codified discrimination against our brave servicemen and women who 
happen to be gay.
  I fear that this policy may have been a contributing factor in the 
June 5, 1999, brutal murder of PVT Barry Winchell at Fort Campbell, KY, 
a base commanded by General Clark. I will not reiterate the facts of 
that case at this time, but I will say that there are strong 
indications that there was a pervasive and hostile anti-gay climate at 
Fort Campbell both before and after the tragic murder of Private 
Winchell and that the base leadership, including General Clark, appears 
to have done little, if anything, to address it.
  Mr. President, the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has failed. It 
failed to give Private Winchell useful options to combat the harassment 
he faced during the months prior to his murder. It failed to force 
General Clark to take effective action to eliminate the anti-gay 
climate at Fort Campbell. And it continues to fail to stop the 
discrimination and harassment faced by our brave gay servicemembers.
  I want to take this opportunity to urge the Pentagon to begin 
instituting changes to its policy towards gay servicemembers. The 
Pentagon should provide, at a minimum, a safe place for gay and lesbian 
servicemembers to report harassment without fear that they will be 
kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. This 
modest step would be one small way to honor the memory of Private 
Winchell and to prevent what happened to him from ever happening again.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the promotion of 
Major General Robert T. Clark to Lieutenant General in the United 
States Army, which is pending consideration by the Senate. On October 
23, 2003, the Senate Committee on Armed Services voted to favorably 
report General Clark's promotion for consideration by the Senate. The 
vote taken was a voice vote. I asked, however, that the record reflect 
that had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted to oppose this 
promotion.
  I have deep respect and admiration for our military leaders. I have 
often said that anyone who achieves the rank of a flag or general 
officer deserves a Ph.D. for the amount of education and training they 
have successfully completed to attain such distinguished rank. In my 
capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the co-
chair of the Senate Army Caucus, I have had the privilege of working 
with many of our Nation's most respected military leaders.
  This has been a difficult decision for me. General Clark's promotion 
has been pending consideration before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee for 14 months. Military promotions are usually very simple to 
consider, and are rarely troublesome or controversial. I normally do 
not hear from my constituency about a military promotion. In this case, 
however, I was contacted by a number of my constituents asking me to 
oppose General Clark's promotion, primarily for his actions as 
Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, KY, 
during a difficult time when PFC Barry Winchell was murdered. For this 
reason, I made sure that I had the opportunity to review as much 
material as possible pertaining to General Clark's career as well as 
the facts surrounding the incident that led to Private First Class 
Winchell's death.
  In March 2003, I joined some of my colleagues in writing a letter to 
the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee to request information regarding the specific 
actions General Clark took to eliminate the climate of anti-gay 
harassment that existed at Fort Campbell prior to Private First Class 
Winchell's death; statements General Clark made regarding antigay 
harassment to officers, soldiers, and the public; the policies he 
promulgated addressing this issue; other steps he took to prevent 
further acts of violence and harassment; how he handled the Winchell 
case in comparison to other serious crimes occurring during his 
command; and his response, as well as the response of those around him, 
to requests by Private First Class Winchell's family to meet with him. 
I reviewed the information provided and participated in an executive 
session held on October 23, 2003, where General Clark was available for 
questions.
  After reviewing all of the information and listening to General 
Clark's testimony, I decided that I could not support his promotion to 
Lieutenant General. General Clark's professional record reflects many 
distinguished accomplishments as a military officer. However, I remain 
concerned about his lack of what I believe to be leadership qualities 
that are necessary for today's military leaders.
  I remain disturbed by General Clark's continued reliance on lack of 
knowledge regarding misconduct and antigay harassment on post as a 
rationale for his lack of action. General Clark had been in command of 
the 101st Airborne Division for 17 months prior to Private First Class 
Winchell's death. While I understand a commanding general is not 
responsible for the individual actions of his soldiers, I firmly 
believe that a commanding general sets the tone on an installation and 
can influence what his soldiers believe will be considered 
``acceptable'' behavior. I was disturbed to learn of repeated instances 
of underage drinking and harassment, and of the assessment, 
particularly of those soldiers in Private First Class Winchell's unit, 
of the command climate prior to Private First Class Winchell's death.
  I am also disturbed by General Clark's refusal to take responsibility 
for the incident. During his tenure as Chief of Staff of the Army, 
General Eric Shinseki took responsibility for what happened to Private 
First Class Winchell. This reflects official Army policy that 
commanders at all levels are accountable for everything their command 
does or fails to do. As a leader, I believe General Clark should have 
taken responsibility or expressed accountability for the circumstances 
that led to this Private First Class Winchell's death.
  I believe his failure to initiate a meeting with Private First Class 
Winchell's family reflects poor leadership on his part. His position as 
convening authority did not prevent him from meeting with the parents 
of a soldier murdered on an installation over which he had command and 
responsibility.
  Again, General Clark's record reflects that he has led a 
distinguished military career. However, I do not believe his actions as 
the Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, 
KY, warrant his promotion to lieutenant general.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this has been a very difficult nomination 
for the Armed Services Committee. We worked very hard for over a year 
to ensure that we developed all of the relevant facts so we could make 
an informed decision. In fact, this nomination was first sent to the 
Congress in the last session and then was resubmitted in this session.
  It is totally appropriate that we took this time to address Major 
General Clark's nomination because PFC Barry Winchell, a soldier 
serving in Major General Clark's command at Fort Campbell, was brutally 
murdered by another soldier on July 5, 1999.
  Fort Campbell is a large fort, perhaps 25,000 soldiers and 46,000 
family members. We were interested in what the command climate was in 
Major General Clark's command, particularly as it related to his 
command's implementation of the Department's Homosexual Conduct Policy. 
We also wanted to see how Major General Clark responded after the 
murder.

[[Page S15043]]

  Major General Clark asked the Army Inspector General to conduct an 
investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the murder. 
The Inspector General conducted this investigation and also conducted 
an assessment of the command climate at Fort Campbell before the 
murder. Neither the investigation nor the command climate assessment 
found fault with Major General Clark's actions.
  We met with Private Winchell's family. We met with Major General 
Clark on a number of occasions. We met with other Army officials. We 
met with organizations and individuals who expressed an interest in 
this nomination. So under Senator Warner's leadership, I believe our 
committee has given full consideration to the nomination of Major 
General Clark and the events which have to be described as tragic when 
considering that nomination.
  Every one of us, every human being who has knowledge of this 
incident, is appalled by the brutal murder of a soldier sleeping in his 
barracks. So we first wanted to look at, again, the incident and the 
command climate prior to the incident. We reviewed the Inspector 
General's report that stated that the chain of command, from commanding 
general through company leaders, responded appropriately to matters 
with respect to the enforcement of the Department of Defense Homosexual 
Conduct Policy.
  One of the most difficult issues had to do with the statement of 
Private Winchell's family that they requested a personal meeting with 
Major General Clark and they did not receive a personal meeting with 
him.
  I think the fact they made that request and it was not complied with 
was troubling to all of us. As we dug into it, we heard from Major 
General Clark on this issue. He looked us in the eye and said he never 
received such a request. That is not to say the request was not made. 
It is to say that I think most of us believed Major General Clark when 
he said that request was never forwarded to him. What happened to that 
request we do not know, and perhaps nobody ever will know.
  Major General Clark wrote a letter to the family. It was a heartfelt 
letter. It was a personal letter about the death of their son. It was 
really a comment that he added in that letter, which was so personal 
and so heartfelt, that I think persuaded many of us that he was honest 
when he stated that there is no way he would not respond to a family 
request to meet with him.
  As others have mentioned, he did have a special responsibility, as 
the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, to ensure that justice 
was done and to make sure nothing he would say would in any way create 
error in that trial.
  The murderer, PVT Calvin Glover, was convicted of premeditated murder 
by the court-martial, which was convened by Major General Clark. He was 
sentenced to life imprisonment and, of course, a dishonorable discharge 
from the Army.
  Another soldier was convicted of obstruction of justice and making a 
false official statement and was sentenced to 12\1/2\ years confinement 
and a dishonorable discharge.
  To the extent that justice can ever be done following a brutal murder 
of this kind, justice was done in this case. It was done under the 
leadership of the convening authority, Major General Clark himself.
  In the end, looking at all the information that is available to us, I 
have concluded that we should confirm this nomination and that it would 
be appropriate, at the same time, however, for us to take note of the 
events relative to this nomination, that surround it, the length of 
time this nomination has been pending, all of the inquiries and 
investigations and reports which have been requested, and hope all of 
this together will lead to a different environment and a different 
climate in the unit at issue here.
  I ask for 1 additional minute, if I may, from the majority side.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator can use that from the majority side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Alabama.
  When we put all this together, the hope, I think of all of us, is 
that the kind of climate that apparently existed in that one unit, not 
known to Major General Clark--because the Inspector General found no 
evidence that he knew of any anti-gay climate in any of the units, much 
less that one. There was in one unit some anti-gay rhetoric which was 
immediately responded to by the captain in charge of that unit. As a 
matter of fact, the captain counseled the noncommissioned officer and 
put an immediate end to the anti-gay rhetoric. But that was not known 
to General Clark.
  For all these reasons, I think it is appropriate we now confirm this 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin for his work on 
this issue, and Senator Warner's efforts as the Chairman. Senator Levin 
and Senator Warner have discussed this issue in great detail. Senator 
Warner made clear he was going to take it seriously, that there would 
be ample opportunity to evaluate any questions that arose from these 
terrible circumstances, and that the facts would come out in committee 
and could be presented forthwith. That was done. We heard all of the 
information that was available. I would note it is time, now, to move 
forward.
  General Clark's nomination has been blocked for over a year now. He 
is a tremendously fine soldier. He is just not the one responsible 
here. I also should note that I do not think it is correct, as some 
have indicated, to say people who fail to adhere to DOD policy get 
promoted. General Clark acted aggressively against the climate and the 
actions that resulted in this terrible murder.
  In July of 1999, PVT Barry Winchell was a member of the 502nd 
Infantry Regiment. He was murdered in his bed as a result of a brutal 
assault by another private, Calvin Glover. Before his death, Winchell 
had been perceived as gay by Private Glover, and Winchell had 
complained about harassment in his company to superiors.
  I should note that there was evidence that a platoon sergeant had 
made insensitive comments about gays, but there was not evidence of 
command responsibility in any way.
  In December of 1999, after General Clark convened a court-martial and 
a trial was conducted, Private Glover was convicted of first-degree 
premeditated murder and was given life without parole. The individual 
who was Private Glover's buddy, who obstructed the investigation to 
some degree, was given 12 years in jail, without parole. He is serving 
that time.

  I know the Chair has served as a lawyer and clerk to Federal judges. 
General Clark was the convening authority for a general court-martial. 
He was the superior commander on a base with 25,000 people. We don't 
hold mayors responsible for crimes committed in cities of 25,000 
people. In fact, one of the highest crime rates in America is among 
young males. So, what we have in this base is 25,000 of the kind of 
people who, statistically, tend to get in more fights, more crimes, and 
commit more murders than anyone else. That is my experience as a 
prosecutor. I think it is indisputable that that is so.
  So it is therefore not possible for a commander of a 25,000 member 
facility or military base, to guarantee there are not going to be 
fights and even murders every now and then. Heaven help us, that they 
occur, and the climate ought to be set in a way that minimizes that. 
But we cannot hold every commander responsible for this, any more than 
we could hold a mayor responsible for a crime in a city.
  But what I wish to emphasize is that the general took a number of 
direct and dramatic actions to indicate, without question, his 
revulsion with this murder. He clearly stated his expectation that 
everybody at Fort Campbell would be treated with respect, and that 
violence of this kind is unacceptable. He was quite strong on that 
point.
  However, he was unfairly criticized for his actions following Private 
Winchell's death. The criticism was unfair because in the military he 
is the convening authority of the courts-martial. He is required, by 
the Uniformed Code of Military Justice to appoint the members of the 
courts-martial, and he has a duty to remain objective. He has to be 
careful that he does not conduct himself in a way that prejudices the 
officers he appointed to try the case.

[[Page S15044]]

  I served as a JAG officer for several years in the Army Reserve. I 
know a commanding officer has to be careful because the defense lawyers 
who defend soldiers charged with crimes can raise, as a defense to the 
trial, that the commander had prejudiced the trial by suggesting the 
defendant was guilty before he had a trial.
  General Clark testified at his confirmation hearing in the Senate 
Armed Services Committee that he was in regular contact with his staff 
judge advocate, his lawyer, advising him what he could say, and what he 
could not say.
  Some say he should have been more open, he should have been more 
condemning of this act, he should have been more aggressive. It is 
clear that he was acting under the legal direction of his staff judge 
advocate. In fact, his staff judge advocate was talking to the staff 
judge advocate in Washington, for the Department of Defense. They 
exhausted every means possible to ensure they conducted themselves 
properly. They sought to ensure that the trial was fairly conducted, 
and that if a conviction was obtained, as it was obtained, that the 
verdict would be upheld. It was.
  I just would want to say this is not so easy, as some would suggest, 
for him to be really aggressive in making comments about this while a 
trial is ongoing.
  Complaints were certainly made about his conduct afterwards. General 
Clark, who, if you met him, you would understand, is a man of great 
integrity, great decency, who wants to do the right thing, said: Look, 
I haven't done anything wrong. I believe I have conducted myself 
properly. But I am personally requesting that the inspector general 
investigate my conduct and my actions. I want him to come in here and 
investigate this situation to see if I have done anything wrong.

  Of course, the IG did investigate. An IG team conducted a thorough 
investigation into the command climate at Fort Campbell. This 
investigation of the command climate found that Major General Clark was 
not culpable of any dereliction or failure of leadership, as has been 
alleged by the Service Members Legal Defense Network--SLDN--which is an 
advocacy group that works to protect and ensure that homosexual 
soldiers are treated fairly in the military, as they have every right 
to be treated. They have a right to insist that they be treated fairly.
  It is important that people know about this crime. I know it is 
important that people understand how civilization sometimes is fragile 
and people lose discipline and do things they should never ever do.
  To highlight the problem that occurred at Fort Campbell, and to take 
action by an advocacy group--or by the military or any decent people, 
or for the Senate to take action in order to ensure that these kinds of 
things don't happen in future--there is no illegitimacy in that.
  One of the things that has troubled me in recent years in this Senate 
is that we feed on information that is sometimes provided by people who 
have an agenda. As a result of that, sometimes people are unfairly 
treated. Everybody deserves fair treatment. This private who was 
murdered did not deserve what happened to him. I also believe General 
Clark does not deserve some of the charges that have been made against 
him.
  A few other points; This group claims that Major General Clark failed 
to follow Federal law. There is no proof of that. There is no proof 
that he failed to provide a safe environment for soldiers--in fact, 
that claim has been rejected. They claim that he failed to exhibit 
leadership necessary for further promotion. After the inspector 
general's reviews were done, that proved not to be so.
  The allegations were that Major General Clark had allowed 
``significant levels of antigay harassment under [his] command,'' and 
that it allowed a command climate in which ``antigay harassment 
flourished''; it was just not true. The Army IG found sporadic 
incidents of the use of derogatory or offensive cadence calls used 
during marching. These problems which were quickly corrected and 
stopped as soon as they were discovered. It was clearly established 
that anti-homosexual comments were not the norm at Fort Campbell.
  There were allegations that there was anti-gay graffiti in the public 
areas around Fort Campbell. The Army inspector general found one 
latrine at a unit level and one in a public recreation center at Fort 
Campbell which had anti-gay comments on them. This was clearly not a 
common thing on the base. I suspect you would find these comments in 
some of the public bathrooms in cities and gas stations around America. 
It is wrong, but I don't think that should be something the general 
would be found to be responsible for. There is simply no way that he 
can protect against each and every one of those incidents.
  It was suggested that he took no action to deal with this problem. I 
have one document dated November 30, 1999--not long after the incident 
that occurred--in which General Clark wrote his command. He sent it to 
everyone basically on the base.

       Distribution A, Subject: Respect for all soldiers.
       Paragraph 1: The soldiers in the Army today are the best we 
     have ever had.

  I certainly agree with that.

       They are volunteers who merit our respect and they deserve 
     to be treated with dignity in a climate of safety and 
     security.

  He goes on to say:

       We can and will do more to ensure that our soldiers are 
     treated with dignity and respect. I accordingly direct that:
       All soldiers be briefed on the Department of Defense 
     homosexual conduct policy upon their formal in-processing at 
     Fort Campbell. When they come to the base.
       They are to be instructed on this policy of treating people 
     fairly and with respect. As an interim measure, every soldier 
     at Fort Campbell will receive the briefing.

  In addition, he goes on to note:

       This instruction will also include the contents of the 25 
     October 1999 memorandum from the commanding general . . .

  And another memorandum--both of which reiterate the roles and 
responsibilities of commanders regarding investigations of threats 
against or harassment of soldiers on the basis of alleged 
homosexuality;

       Subparagraph (c): All leaders will vigorously police the 
     contents of run and march cadences.

  They have always been a little bit risque over the years. But the 
general took aggressive action here.

       They will monitor the march and run cadences to ensure that 
     they are positive and devoid of profanity or phrases 
     demeaning to others.
       Subparagraph (d): All leaders will vigorously police the 
     content of training briefings, classes, lectures, and all 
     other instructions to ensure that they are devoid of 
     profanity or phrases demeaning to others.
       Subparagraph (3) Respect for others is an Army value and a 
     cornerstone of the discipline and esprit de corps and all 
     soldiers will be treated with dignity and respect. 
     Accordingly, I expect all Department of Defense, Department 
     of Army and Fort Campbell directives, policies and 
     regulations to be enforced by our leaders and adhered to by 
     our soldiers.
       Robert C. Clark, General.

  This is a superb soldier who served his country well in Vietnam. He 
was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. He was wounded in 
combat and refused to be evacuated until he got others out of the line 
of fire.
  He commanded the 3rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, that 
great division, during Operation Desert Storm, the last Gulf War. His 
proven leadership is clear.
  In the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ``Story of the 
Third Army in Desert Storm'' by Richard Swain, published in 1994, he 
talks about how General Clark's brigade moved rapidly to cut off the 
retreat of the Iraqi soldiers, facing tremendously bad weather. It was 
so bad that motorcycle troops were mired down, but he moved 
successfully anyway and seized the objective before other units were 
able to.
  He is a proven commander in combat. He is a proven commander in the 
peacetime Army. He has taken strong action to see that this kind of 
activity never happens again.
  I am proud of him. I am also proud to note that he obtained his 
master's degree at Auburn University, one of America's great 
universities. I had occasion to meet him and to see him testify at 
hearings. I thought he did a superb job. There was little doubt of his 
sincerity in this matter and his capability to be a great general 
officer.
  I thank the President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The majority leader.

[[Page S15045]]

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague, Senator 
Sessions, for really putting into perspective a lot of the things that 
have been said on the floor, allegations from the past but also with 
respect for this man who is a true hero, an American hero.
  I rise to support his elevation to the second highest rank in the 
U.S. Army as Commander of U.S. Army at Fort Sam Houston.
  On October 3, 1971, this young man, Robert E. Clark, first platoon 
leader of Company A, 2nd Battalion, 8th Calvary of the 1st Calvary 
Division, became an American hero.
  It was approximately 10:30 a.m. in Bin Tuy Province of the Republic 
of Vietnam. Company A was completing a reconnaissance mission. As they 
were being extracted, the men came under heavy fire. The first two 
enemy mortar rounds struck hard and inflicted heavy causalities, 
including wounding First Lieutenant Clark. At that time, at great risk 
to his own personal safety, and ignoring or at least putting aside his 
own wounds, First Lieutenant Clark ran forward into enemy fire to carry 
his fellow wounded soldiers back to cover.
  Throughout the battle he pressed on, moving from position to position 
to direct his men to lay down a constant stream of smoke in order to 
mark their position for the helicopters flying overhead. The record 
clearly shows First Lieutenant Clark's heroic action ensured the 
success of Company A's mission. For his bravery in combat and service 
in Vietnam, First Lieutenant Clark received a Purple Heart. He received 
two Bronze Stars, one for valor and one for service.
  In a letter of recommendation on behalf of Robert Clark, the company 
commander wrote:

       [First Lt Clark's] display of personal bravery and devotion 
     to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the 
     military service, and reflect great credit upon himself, his 
     unit, and the United States Army.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
letter of recommendation which lays out these events.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       On 3 October 1971, first Lieutenant Robert T. Clark, First 
     Platoon Leader Of Company (A), 2d Battalion (Airmobile), 8th 
     Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division, distinguished himself by 
     heroic action while on ground combat operations against a 
     hostile enemy force in Binh Tuy Province, Republic of 
     Vietnam. At approximately 1030 hours Company (A) were being 
     extracted after completing a ground reconnaissance mission, 
     when they were engaged by an undetermined size enemy force, 
     receiving enemy mortar fire. The first two mortar rounds that 
     impacted took a heavy toll of friendly casualties including 
     1LT Clark. Although wounded 1LT Clark with total disregard 
     for his own personal safety and his wounds exposed himself to 
     enemy mortar fire as he moved forward and assist in carrying 
     the other wounded members under cover. 1LT Clark continued to 
     expose himself as he moved from position to position 
     directing his men to lay down a constant screen of smoke 
     marking their position to Gunships giving them fire support. 
     1LT Clark's heroic action and aggressiveness, enabled the 
     mission to be a complete success. Resulting in one (1) enemy 
     soldier killed. His display of personal bravery and devotion 
     to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the 
     military service, and reflect great credit upon himself, his 
     unit, and the United States Army.

  Mr. FRIST. In a career spanning over 30 years, Robert T. Clark has 
consistently displayed that uncommon courage and leadership he showed 
on the battlefield in Vietnam. He has earned the admiration of all who 
know him, both in and outside of military life.
  GEN John Wickham, former Chief of Staff of the Army, says General 
Clark is unequivocally ``one of the most ethical, moral, people-
oriented and charismatic leaders I have ever known.''
  GEN John Keane, whom the senior Senator from Massachusetts so 
lavishly praised earlier, calls General Clark ``a man of great 
character. He's a great moral force and a very compassionate person. 
Simply stated, he's one of the Army's very best leaders.'' Those are 
the words of GEN John Keane.
  It is my honor to rise today and support this nomination of this 
outstanding soldier. General Clark has earned numerous awards for his 
extraordinary service, including four awards of the Legion of Merit, 
three Bronze Stars, the Purple Heart medal, four meritorious service 
medals, the Air Medal, the Air Commendation Medal, and numerous 
campaign service medals for service in Vietnam as well as Saudi Arabia.
  He has earned the Combat Infantryman's Badge, the Army Staff 
Identification Badge, the Parachutist Badge, the Ranger Tab, and the 
Air Assault Badge.
  During the gulf war, then Colonel Clark commanded the 3rd Brigade of 
the 101st Airborne. Under his leadership, the 3rd Brigade conducted one 
of the longest and largest airborne assaults in military history. More 
than 2,000 men, 50 transport vehicles, artillery, and tons of fuel and 
ammunition were air lifted at that time 50 miles into Iraq. Land 
vehicles took another 2,000 troops deep into the Iraqi territory. All 
of this was accomplished in 72 hours without a single American 
casualty. Only two Iraqi soldiers were killed and 22 wounded.
  With characteristic modesty, General Clark explained the brigade's 
truly remarkable success by saying, ``We're the first guys who ask them 
to lay down their weapons, and they did. It just took a little 
convincing.''
  General Clark earned a Bronze Star for his command of the historic 
mission.
  In 1998, General Clark was elevated to command the 101st Airborne 
Division at Fort Campbell, which, as most know, is situated on the 
border of Tennessee and Kentucky. Indeed, Fort Campbell can be 
described as a small to midsize city comprised of about 50,000 soldiers 
and civilians. There are homes, schools, a fire department. It is a 
complex and diverse place. During his 2-year tenure there--and I had 
the opportunity to meet with General Clark there on several occasions--
General Clark's reputation for fairness and compassion extended way 
beyond the base, well into the surrounding community.
  In February of 2000, the Clarksville City Council unanimously passed 
a resolution praising General Clark for his ``high standards of 
leadership, professionalism, and integrity.''
  The Montgomery County Board of Commissioners passed a similar 
resolution declaring:

       General Clark's reputation in the local communities is 
     highly acknowledged as one of the brightest, caring, and 
     respected division commanders that the Army has sent to our 
     local community.

  Indeed, General Clark is one of the finest men in uniform today. He 
currently serves as the acting commander of the 5th U.S. Army at Fort 
Sam Houston. I should mention, as an aside, that General Clark 
requested the assignment so that he could take care of his wife who 
suffers from a chronic illness.
  General Clark's peers call him ``a soldier's soldier.'' He descends 
from two generations of Clark men who have served the Army with 
dedication and honor.
  And thus, as I began a few minutes ago, I close by saying, and I do 
call him a true hero. I strongly support his elevation to the second 
highest rank in the U.S. Army.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is, Will 
the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Maj. Gen. Robert T. 
Clark to be Lieutenant General.
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________