[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.
____________________