Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join with Senator Cochran in supporting the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act of 2003. The STOP Stroke Act is a vital first step in building a national network of effective care to diagnose and quickly treat victims of stroke. For over 20 years, stroke has consistently been the third leading cause of death in our country. Every 45 seconds, another American suffers a stroke. Every 3 minutes, another American dies. Few families today are untouched by this cruel, debilitating, and often fatal disease that strikes indiscriminately, robbing us of our loved ones. More than ever today, help is available. Modern medicine is generating new scientific advances that increase the chance of survival and partial or even full recovery following a stroke. We are learning how to manage this disease more effectively, and we are also learning how to prevent it from happening in the first place. But science doesn't save lives and protect health by itself. We have to put new discoveries into action. We need to educate as many people as possible about the warning signs of stroke, so that they know enough to seek medical attention. We need to train doctors and nurses in the best techniques of care. We need better ways to treat victims as quickly and as effectively as possible--so that they have the best chance of full recovery. Our bill provides grants to States to develop statewide programs for stroke care, so that the most effective care will be available to patients as quickly and efficiently as possible to reduce the level of disability caused by stroke. Stroke systems will rely on information sharing among agencies and individuals involved in the study and provision of care, in addition to training for health professionals on the signs of stroke and guidelines on best practices. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of HHS, acting through CDC, to operate the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry to develop and collect data and analyze the care of acute stroke patients. Funds were appropriated for the registry at the end of the last Congress, but the registry has not yet been authorized. In fact, the Senate passed the act unanimously last year, and it came very close to House passage. Literally millions of our fellow citizens will benefit from the lives saved and the better care they will receive as a result of this legislation. It's long past time for Congress to act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Now, on the second situation, our Republican friends say: Well, we believe in competition. With competition we will get the best health care for the best price and the best cost. Oh, we say, well, how are you going to do that? Let's see what is in the bill now that you say that is what you want to do. You think you have competition in this proposal? Let me show you and explain to you how this is a rigged proposal. First of all, in this legislation they give to all of the HMOs and the PPOs a 9 percent increase in the cost of living over what they give in the Medicare--9 percent. Nine percent? Nine percent? Why are they doing that? Because: They think they ought to get it. They want competition. The second point that is in this bill is that those who are in HMOs today and in the private insurance companies are 16 percent healthier than those in traditional Medicare. That is not my estimate, that is CMS's estimate, the agency which provide the reimbursement. That is their estimate. You add these two together and you get a 25 percent subsidy for every private plan and every HMO. They call it competition. I thought competition was an even playing field. This is not an even playing field. And who is paying this additional 25 percent? Our seniors are. It is coming out of their payments. It is coming out of the Medicare trust fund. It is cutting out the benefits they ought to have. That is ridiculous. That 25 percent should be reinvested in the drug program, not used as a subsidy for the private sector. Now, we say: Well, you have that 25 percent on that. If you looked through, you would say: Well, that is a pretty big chunk of change for it. You think they would be happy with that, wouldn't you? No, no, no, no, Senator Kennedy, we are not even happy enough with that. We are going to include, on top of the 25 percent subsidy, a $12 billion slush fund in this bill--$12 billion. So 25 percent is not enough. We will be able to provide hundreds of millions--hundreds of millions--billions of dollars to those HMOs, some of which made more than $1 billion last year. Some of those CEOs are getting paid more than $22 million a year. And we are going to take $12 billion more on top of the 25 percent and use that as a slush fund. Talk about an even playing ground. What could that $12 billion provide for? These are the leading diseases about which our elderly are concerned: Arthritis, osteoporosis, diabetes, cholesterol, acid reflux, thyroid deficiency, and depression. That $12 billion could provide for 11 million of our senior citizens who suffer from arthritis a year, or 12 million who suffer from osteoporosis, or 11 million who suffer from depression, or it could be used for those who suffer from high cholesterol, right on down the line. That is what it could mean for our senor citizens. But, oh, no, this conference said no, we are going to take that and add that in. Not only are we going to threaten you with this premium support program, you will never really know what your premiums are, except that they are going up. I want to take just a few more minutes about this proposition. I had mentioned earlier that the day this bill passes, you are going to have 9 million of our 40 million Americans who are going to be worse off and pay more. Do we understand that? On top of what I have already explained--the completely unfair playing ground that is so tilted towards those who do not support Medicare--now we are saying to our elderly that between 2 million and 3 million--and closer to 3 million. Low-income seniors pay more. Six million of them will be receiving Medicare but also receive Medicaid. The conference proposal denies States the ability to provide wraparound coverage to those low-income seniors. Instead, a uniform Federal co-payment is imposed, and it is indexed, so that it goes up every year. Their out-of-pocket payments for drugs will be raised, and they may not even have coverage for the drugs they need the most. If they need a drug that is not on the insurance company formulary, they will have to go through a burdensome appeals process. Most will simply go without. Every one of these 6 million will be paying more. Maybe it is $2 a prescription, but if you have three prescriptions, that is $6. You may have to get a refill every other week, and it begins to go up, $24, $25. Nine million lose the day this passes. Let's keep our eye on these 6 million low-income seniors. Prescription copays hurt the very poor. You will have almost double the amount of serious adverse events when seniors don't take those medicines. Emergency visits go up as well, double the amount. For those 6 million, these are the statistics from all the health care studies. Not only will they be paying more, but their health condition will be threatened. It makes absolutely no sense from a health policy point of view. One of the most important aspects of the legislation passed in the Senate was to say we were going to make sure that the asset test, which has been around for many years, the asset test for the very poor would no longer be in effect. As a result, we took steps with regard to prescription drugs that we haven't even done with regard to Medicaid. The Senate bill really reached down for the poorest of the poor elderly. We said: OK, maybe you can have the car, $4,200; you can have the personal savings, $2,300; you can have even a $1,500 insurance policy and a burial plot for $1,500, and we were not going to hold that against you. People who had worked all their lives perhaps had those. What do our good Republican friends do? They reimpose the assets test and say, if you have that, you are not eligible. Three million of the poorest of the poor are dropped out of coverage under this proposal. That is enormously unworthy of the proposal. I want to mention an aspect of this because I am running out of time. I have mentioned that we have the premium support which is going to threaten the Medicare system. We have the subsidy programs which are going to threaten the whole Medicare system by enticing, coercing, bribing seniors out of that, and then letting the Medicare system collapse right in front of them. Then they have added another program which they call health savings accounts--what used to be called medical savings accounts--which provides billions of new tax breaks for the healthy and the wealthy. The money that should have been used in this bill to provide additional prescription drugs, they have taken billions out to provide for this new program. They encourage the healthy and the 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 tax-free savings accounts but it is not good for ordinary working Americans.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Medicare system is the system which is relied on, trusted, and a beloved health care system which our seniors use just about every day. They know it is always there for many of them. It gives them an enormous sense of security as they are looking down the road towards the future. I was here in the Senate in 1965 when the Medicare bill was passed. It failed in 1964. It passed in 1965. It is generally recognized today across the country that even though the Medicare bill provided for hospitalization and physicians' fees, the one thing that it did not provide for was the prescription drugs. In 1965, only 3 percent of all of the private health care bills provided for prescription drugs. But now it would be inconceivable that this institution would pass a health care program for our seniors and give our seniors who have paid into the Medicare system the assurance that their health care needs would be attended to because we know that prescription drugs is of such extraordinary importance to all of them. It will become increasingly clear. We are in the period of the life sciences century. We are seeing these extraordinary breakthroughs in DNA and genes. The Congress has doubled the NIH budget, and the prospects for breakthroughs are just enormous. If we were to see a breakthrough, for example, in Alzheimer's, we would empty three- quarters of the nursing home beds in my State of Massachusetts. The prospects in terms of what these prescription drugs can do and what they are doing today is enormous. Therefore, we have a very important responsibility to get a prescription drug program. I believe the bill which passed the Senate was a good bill. Seventy- six Members supported it. It was a prescription drug bill. But the proposal that is coming out of the conference committee failed to meet the basic and fundamental test; that is, to do no harm because the particular proposal that is being recommended by the conferees will do harm to the Medicare system. The House of Representatives adopted important changes in the Medicare system under the guise of a prescription drug program, and they have been accepted in that conference committee. Now, for the first time since 1965, the Medicare system itself is threatened. Many of us are going to do everything we can to make sure that is not the case. An editorial in the Des Moines Register today gets it exactly right. It says: Once upon a time, lawmakers wanted to add a prescription- drug benefit to Medicare. In year one, they failed. In year two, they failed. Now, in year three, the quest for a drug benefit has ballooned into a plan to change the entire health-care program for 40 million seniors. As a few details about the 1,100-page bill crafted in conference committee trickle out, it's clear another failure this year would be best for Americans. The editorial concludes: Lawmakers need, once again, to go back to the drawing board. Effectively, what they are saying is that no bill is better than a bad bill. This is Des Moines Register. They get it right. The editorial continues: This time they should try a new approach: Focus on holding drug prices down, keep 40 million seniors in one buying group to leverage lower prices, open up the global market on drugs to Americans, and remind themselves their job is to serve the interests of the people, not industry lobbyists. There it is, Mr. President, the Des Moines Register gets it. This proposal will do virtually nothing for keeping prices down. Access to prescription drugs and costs to senior citizens are the two elements with which our seniors are concerned. This bill does virtually nothing regarding costs. It is flawed in its effort to provide prescription drugs by undermining Medicare. This conference report represents a right-wing agenda to privatize Medicare and force senior citizens into HMOs and private insurance plans. I guess seniors should not get to choose their doctor and hospital, they just do not know enough. That choice should be made for them by the insurance company bureaucrats. The conference report includes no serious program to reduce the double-digit drug price increase. The attitude of the special interests who hijacked this process is clear: Control senior citizens, not drug costs. The day this program is implemented, it will make millions of seniors worse off than they are today. It is an attempt to use the elderly and disabled's need for affordable prescription drugs as a Trojan horse to destroy the program they have relied on now for 40 years. It is an enormous give-away to the insurance industry and an enormous take-away from the senior citizens. The new study that has just been released today indicates, when this program goes into effect, the HMOs and private insurance industry will increase by more than $100 billion if this bill passes. That is more for the private insurance companies and for the HMOs. No wonder our Republican friends and the insurance companies are for this bill. No wonder senior citizens are against it. The more senior citizens learn of these problems, the more they oppose the legislation. In a poll released this morning, only one in five older voters, 18 percent, say this bill should be allowed to pass in its current form. In fact, 59 percent of the AARP members agree with Democrats that this bill does more harm than good. Regarding the drug plan itself, even before getting to the problems of privatization and the subsidies for HMOs that are in this bill, older voters oppose the drug plan by 65 to 26 percent. In fact, only 27 percent of all seniors say they would bother to enroll in this plan at all. Seniors are deeply concerned about the way Republicans have hijacked the drug plan to undermine Medicare. They oppose the subsidies for private plans, 65 to 23 percent. In fact, among the AARP members, opposition to the subsidies is even stronger--68 percent to 19 percent. Older voters oppose the cost caps on Medicare services, 60 percent to 26 percent. And they are deeply concerned, 64 to 26 percent, about the failure of this bill to control drug costs to allow drugs to be reimported from Canada. As elected representatives of the people, we pass this bill at our peril. In fact, by a margin of 3 to 1, older voters are saying they are less likely to support politicians who support this bill. It is important to understand how we got to this point. We started in the Senate with a bipartisan bill to expand the prescription drug coverage. A bill passed with 76 votes. The Senate solidly rejected the President's plan to privatize Medicare by telling senior citizens they could only get the prescription drugs they needed by joining HMO and other private insurance plans. That was the position of the President in the spring of this year: You are only going to get prescription drugs if you join an HMO or private insurance plan. You will not be able to under the Medicare system. Then the administration shifted. But the House took a different course. They realized the President's plan would not be accepted by the American people, so they passed a more subtle proposal, one that tries to privatize Medicare by stealth. Their only problem was it was not stealthy enough. That is why it passed by a slim partisan majority of one vote in the House of Representatives--one Republican vote. Now the conference has been hijacked by those who want to radically alter Medicare and to privatize it, to voucherize it, to force seniors into HMOs and 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. It allows the elderly to swallow unprecedented and destructive changes to the Medicare Program in return for a limited, inadequate, small prescription drug benefit. This conference report is so ill conceived that 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. I will illustrate that in one moment. On issue after issue, this report abandons the bipartisan Senate bill and capitulates to the partisan 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 premium senior citizens pay for Medicare today with an unaffordable premium for the future. Here is how it works. Today, the Medicare premiums are set at 75 percent of the cost of Part B of the Medicare Program, the part that pays for doctors' care. Beneficiaries pay the remaining 25 percent. The premium is the same no matter where you live. It is universal whether you live in Key West or Portland, ME, whether you live in Takoma, WA, or whether you live in San Diego. You pay the same premium. You pay into the system and you pay the same premium. It increases from year to year at the same rate as the Medicare increases. It is stable. It is reliable. It is now $58.70 a month Part B premium and $704 for the year. Premium support would change all that. The senior citizens can choose, if they want to, get their Medicare benefits through HMOs and other private insurance plans. The Government pays these plans approximately the same amount it costs Medicare to provide the services. The senior citizens pay at least the same Part B premium to enroll in the plans they pay for the regular Medicare, but the plans can charge more if they offer additional services or lower copayments. If the plans can provide services more cheaply than Medicare, they give the difference back to the beneficiaries in the form of better services or lower copay without additional charge. Senior citizens who choose the private plans may get some additional benefits, but the senior citizens who prefer to keep the freedom to choose their own doctor are not penalized. And 9 out of 10 seniors have chosen Medicare over Medicare HMOs. What happens, as everyone knows, is the insurance companies cherry- pick and get the healthier and younger seniors. Therefore, it costs them less, although they get the payment that would otherwise be going into Medicare. So we have the healthier ones leave and the sicker ones remain in the Medicare system. That is what has happened today. There is no reason it will not happen in the future. As a result, we will get increases in the cost of premiums under the Medicare system. This chart reflects what the Medicare actuaries--not what I estimate but what the Medicare actuaries--estimate would be the national average for seniors. It would be $1,205. And their estimate national average for premium support, the current estimate, would be $1,501. And 2 years ago they estimated the national average was $1,771. The fact is, no one knows what the premiums will be. You are playing roulette with premium support. Here we have a swing of $300 in estimates, estimates made by the Medicare actuaries. It could be $1,205, but under this bill for those who fall into the trial category, they will be paying at least $1,500 or the $1,771. Look at this chart. Let me give you a few examples of the disparity. Again, this is from the Medicare actuaries. If you live in Massachusetts, and in Barnstable--that is primarily Cape Code--the premium for Medicare will be $1,400. If you live in Hampden, it will be $900. That is a $500 difference. Today, everyone pays in the same amount and they get the same premium on it. Under this legislation, everyone is going to be paying in, and if you live 100 miles apart, you are going to get a $500 disparity in the payments under the premium support system. This information is from the Medicare actuaries. This is the kind of roulette our seniors do not want. Here is another example in Florida. In Dade County, the best estimate from the Medicare actuaries is you will pay $2,050; and in Osceola County, you will pay $1,000; you will be paying twice as much. How do you explain that to the seniors? How do you explain that they pay in and their premiums are going to have this amount of swing to them? No one can accurately predict with any certainty, but we are buying this program? It is untested, untried. It is the greatest social experiment with whom? With our senior citizens. Why? Because there is going to be all kinds of money in there for those private insurance companies and those HMOs. That is what it is about--risking the Medicare system. Here we have the example in Los Angeles, $1,700; in Yolo, CA, $775. And in New York City, $2,000 if you live in the Queens area; $975 in Erie. This is the Medicare actuaries' data, these premiums and estimates. And that is the element that is written in this bill. Now you hear our colleagues who defend their proposal say: Well, Senator, this is really just a trial program. It is not going to be anything more than a trial program. Well, they are going to have five what they call MSAs, metropolitan statistical areas. If you take five metropolitan statistical areas and then you take one small one--here they are--if you take the States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, that is 2.6 million people who are affected. For California--Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana--that is 1.4 million. For Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, that is 1.1 million. For Florida it is 833,000; that is Miami, Fort Lauderdale. For Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, that is 866,000. And then take a small one, Nevada--Reno and Sparks--47,000. So 6.8 million of the 40 million; you are almost up to a quarter who are going to be included in their program, who are going to be subject to these kinds of swings. They call this a demonstration? This is a Mack truck. This is not just a small Volkswagen, it is a Mack truck, and they are calling it a Volkswagen. And seniors ought to understand it. So that is one threat. Now, listen to the second threat. We say, well, what about the risk? Mr. President, how much time have I used?

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. Let me know when I have 3 minutes left.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Urban Institute and the American Academy of Actuaries have estimated that the healthiest people are pulled out of the risk pool for regular comprehensive policies by these accounts. Premiums skyrocket, if this policy becomes law. If you want to keep your insurance policies, you can see your premiums increase as much as 60 percent. The Urban Institute estimates that premiums, and this will be for all those who are employees working in small companies all across the country, once this program gets started, could increase by over 60 percent and the American Academy of Actuaries have estimated that premiums would jump $1,600. Why are we doing this? Why are we taking a chance with the Medicare system? The American people and our seniors have confidence in Medicare. Why not just do what we did in the Senate in a bipartisan way and have a good downpayment rather than threaten the Medicare system? This was the wrong way to go. This bill does not deserve the support of the Senate. I hope it will be defeated.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in these difficult days when the brave men and women of our Armed Forces face such great dangers in Iraq, we continue to mourn the losses of our heroes who gave their lives in past wars. One of those heroes is Major Richard W. Cooper, Jr., of Holyoke, MA, and his loss is very much in our minds now. Major Cooper was a navigator aboard a B-52 bomber from Westover Air Force Base. He was on one of the final bombing runs in the Vietnam War in 1972, and his plane went down on December 19 of that year. He has been listed as Missing in Action ever since. The Air Force never gave up the search and recently, his remains were discovered and identified through the Joint Task Force Full Accounting operation in Vietnam. Next month, on December 19, at long last, 31 years to the day after his final mission for our country, Major Cooper will be laid to rest with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery. Major Cooper earned many decorations for his loyal service to our country, including the Distinguished Flying Cross, and we honor his great courage. Our Nation has often called its sons and daughters into harm's way, and their families bear the scars of battle forever. America owes an enormous debt of gratitude to Major Cooper and his family, and our thoughts and prayers are very much with them now. Massachusetts is proud of him and so is our country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, regarding the voice vote on the nomination of Major General Robert T. Clark, U.S. Army, yesterday in the U.S. Senate, had such vote been a rollcall vote, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will yield the floor for that purpose and ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion I be recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator wants to address the Senate first, Senator Dayton was yielded 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, for all of his courtesies during the consideration of this nominee. I mentioned during my comments that we wanted to get additional answers. He has been extremely accommodating to those of us who raised the questions, as he always is as the chairman of the committee. I thank him for his fairness and ensuring that all of those who had concerns were able to conduct our concerns in accordance with the rules. I thank him very much for all of his courtesies.

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator Bunning I know has a great interest in this. I thank him also. I will address the Senate briefly on another matter which is of importance and consequence to the Senate. Then I will yield the time because I know my colleague wants to address this issue. Then we will be prepared to move to a vote. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. If you would let me know when 15 minutes have been used, I would appreciate it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think 40 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think Senator Dayton also had 15 minutes. I think there is a unanimous consent agreement for this; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I think there is a consent that has been agreed to whereby there are 2 hours equally divided, with 40 minutes for myself and 15 minutes for Senator Dayton.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will not necessarily take all of that time.

Mr. KENNEDY. How long did the Senator plan to speak?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to remind me when I have used 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Major General Clark to the rank of lieutenant general. I agree that General Clark has a strong record as a soldier. He has received numerous decorations for his distinguished service and courage, and he has served in a number of leadership capacities during his more than 30 years in the Army. I am concerned, however, about General Clark's performance as Commanding General at Fort Campbell, KY, at the time of the brutal murder of PVT Barry Winchell on the base in 1999. There are few more respected units in the Army than the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell. The ``Screaming Eagles,'' as the division is called, has a well-deserved reputation of professionalism, heroism, and outstanding performance. Yet, in the months leading up to the murder of Private Winchell, the command climate at Fort Campbell was seriously deficient. According to a report by the Army inspector general, Fort Campbell had command-wide low morale, and inadequate delivery of health care to soldiers and their families, and the leadership condoned widespread, leader-condoned underage drinking in the barracks. There is compelling evidence that anti-gay harassment was pervasive at Fort Campbell during this period. The inspector general reported multiple examples of anti-gay graffiti, the use of anti-gray slurs in cadences by non-commissioned officers during training runs, and routine remarks and bantering that, in the inspector general's words, ``could be viewed as harassment.'' Outside groups have documented many instances of anti-gay harassment in the months leading up to the murder. The inspector general also found that prior to the murder, there was no sustainment training at Fort Campbell on the proper implementation of the Homosexual Conduct Policy, known as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and that, as a result, ``most officers, NCOs, and soldiers at Fort Campbell lacked an understanding and working knowledge of the Policy.'' In his response to my questions, General Clark stated that he agrees with these findings, but that he was nevertheless not aware of even a single instance of anti-gay harassment before the murder. On July 5, 1999, after enduring anti-gay harassment for many months, including harassment by members of his chain of command, Private Winchell was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat by a fellow soldier in his barracks. It seems clear that if General Clark had exercised his responsibility to deal with the serious anti-gay harassment that was prevalent at Fort Campbell during his 17 months of command leading up to the murder of Private Winchell, the murder would probably not have occurred. Even more serious, however, was General Clark's performance at Fort Campbell in the days, weeks, and months following the murder. A brutal bias-motivated hate crime is an extraordinary event in any community, civilian or military, and it demands an extraordinary response from the community's leaders. Such a crime sends the poisonous message that some members of the community deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. The potential for such a crime was magnified in this case because of the existing climate of anti-gay harassment at Fort Campbell, but the available evidence indicates that General Clark's response was not adequate with respect to his contacts with Private Winchell's family or his command responsibilities at Fort Campbell. One factual issue which I have repeatedly asked the Army to resolve, without receiving a satisfactory response, is why General Clark did not meet with the parents of Private Barry Winchell, Patricia and Wally Kutteles, in the days following his murder. Following such a brutal murder it is difficult to believe that such a meeting did not take place. Any responsible and compassionate commanding officer would want to meet with and console the parents of the murdered soldier, even if no request for such a meeting had formally been made. I understand that during the 4 days immediately following the murder, General Clark was at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington with his wife, who was undergoing tests for a longstanding illness. It is understandable that General Clark had declined to meet with the parents for this reason, during that period and did not attend the memorial service for Private Winchell on July 9. But Clark did not meet with the parents in the days after his return to Fort Campbell from Walter Reed Hospital nor in the weeks and months that followed the Winchell murder. Instead, he states that he never received a request to meet with the parents, but he would gladly have met with then if he had received a request to do so. Patricia Kutteles, Private Winchell's mother, has submitted a sworn affidavit stating that she and her husband traveled to Fort Campbell immediately after hearing about her son's murder. She was assigned an Army liaison officer, Lieutenant Colonel Stratis, as their point of contact with Fort Campbell and the Army. Two or three days after the murder, she made a request to Lieutenant Colonel Stratis to meet with General Clark to talk about her son's death. Lieutenant Colonel Stratis told her that General Clark was unable to meet with them. There are three possible explanations for this dispute of fact: Ms. Kutteles may have submitted a false affidavit, General Clark may have given false information to the Committee, or General Clark was, for some reason, not informed by his staff about the parent's request. Like others on the Armed Services Committee, I have met with the parents, and I was struck by their sincerity, their patriotism, and their continuing support for our Armed Forces in spite of the tragedy. I find it difficult to believe that they are lying or mistaken when they say they asked for a meeting with General Clark. Nevertheless, that appears to be the position of the Army inspector general, who states in his most recent memorandum, dated October 20, 2003, that the mother's statement in the affidavit is ``unfounded.'' The inspector general states that his office ``determined, after extensive interviews, none of the key staff members and other relevant witnesses recalled receiving or learning of such a request.'' I have seen several of the affidavits relied upon by the inspector general, and I found the statements relied on to be disturbingly non- responsive. These affidavits fail to resolve the serious factual dispute about whether the parents requested a meeting with General Clark, and it seems improper for the Army inspector general to suggest that no such request was made. I believe that it is inappropriate for the Senate to act on this nomination until this issue is more satisfactorily resolved. General Clark states that he was not aware of any instance of anti- gay harassment on the base before the murder. At the very least, the murder should have made painfully clear that anti-gay bias and anti-gay harassment were real and pressing problems at Fort Campbell, problems that demanded an immediate and effective response. Yet from the very start, and throughout the remainder of his command, General Clark and his office took patently ineffective steps to respond to these specific problems. Two days after the murder, the Fort Campbell public affairs office issued a statement describing the incident as a ``physical altercation in a post barracks,'' insinuating that Winchell was partly responsible for his own death. In fact, Winchell was asleep in the barracks when he was attacked by his killer. General Clark stated that he probably learned about the false press statement 3 or 4 days later, following his return to Fort Campbell from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He said he did not instruct the public affairs office to retract the statement or issue a correction because ``comments by my command spokesperson regarding the case might well have influenced the investigation, or suggested that I had reached premature conclusions about the case, and might have influenced or tainted the deliberations of any soldier serving on a court martial-panel.'' It is important for a commanding officer not to make statements that might influence an investigation or court-martial. But it is well established in military law that a statement may be made to correct a false public statement, in order to avoid prejudice to the Government or the accused. General Clark's explanation is doubly unconvincing in the light of the fact that the Fort Campbell public affairs office made a statement, 2 days after Clark returned to Fort Campbell, that there was ``no evidence'' that Private Winchell was killed because he was gay. This statement was clearly false, and it also raised a far more serious issue about whether the command at Fort Campbell was undermining the ability of the Government to prosecute the murder as a bias-motivated offense. In fact, anti-gay harassment continued in the months following the murder. The continuing anti-gay harassment at Fort Campbell was also accompanied by a sudden exodus of soldiers discharged for violations of the Homosexual Conduct Policy. In the 10 months after the murder, 120 soldiers were discharged from Fort Campbell under this policy, compared to only 6 such discharges from Fort Campbell during the same time period in the previous year. In all of 1999, there were 271 such discharges in the entire Army. Instead of dealing directly with the problem of anti-gay harassment, General Clark chose to deny that any problem existed. In an op-ed article in the New York Times, a year after the murder, he stated that ``There is not, nor has there ever been during my times here, a climate of homophobia on post.'' In addition, he refused to meet with groups concerned about the welfare of gay soldiers, including a local gay community group, and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a national organization. Another of General Clark's most serious failure of leadership after the murder is the fact that, from all the evidence we have seen, he did not even once speak out against the specific problems of anti-gay harassment and anti-gay violence, or implement any training for the soldiers against it. He did take general steps after the Winchell murder to address the quality of life for soldiers at Fort Campbell, and he reinforced existing programs on the need to treat all soldiers with ``dignity and respect.'' These measures were helpful, but hardly sufficient to address the specific problem of anti-gay harassment. Private Winchell's murder was an anti-gay hate crime, and it called for, at the very least, a clear and unequivocal statement by Fort Campbell's commanding officer that violence against homosexuals is wrong. According to the record, no such statement was ever made. General Clark has been asked repeatedly for instances in which he spoke publicly about anti-gay harassment. In his response last November 6, 2002 to written questions, he listed a number of speeches, press conferences, and publications, but none of these examples dealt with the specific problem of anti-gay harassment. For example, General Clark wrote that on January 14, 2000: I published an article in the post newspaper, The Fort Campbell Courier, in which I emphasized the quality of soldiers serving at Fort Campbell, and outlines the initiatives we had undertaken to eliminate anti-gay harassment. I also reinforced our longstanding policy of treating all soldiers with dignity and respect. In fact the article itself contains no information regarding efforts to address anti-gay harassment--not even a statement that such harassment is wrong. The article includes only two references to homosexuality. First, General Clark writes that he has requested a review and assessment: to determine whether any member of this command violated the Department of Defense Homosexual Conduct Policy in any interaction with PFC Barry Winchell. Second, he writes that he has: issued a policy on the handling of discharges for homosexual conduct to ensure these matters preserve the privacy and dignity of individual soldiers. There is nothing in the article about anti-gay harassment. It deals only with the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. The article refers only to General Clark's efforts to improve barracks conditions generally and his ``special emphasis'' on the dignity of all soldiers. Much of the article is defensive in tone; General Clark writes that the soldiers at Fort Campbell are the ``best we have ever had,'' that they are ``intolerant of abuse of anybody for any reason,'' and that ``leaders'' at Fort Campbell ``set the example through word and deed.'' He concludes with this sentence: This is the climate that exists at Fort Campbell, in contrast to which you have seen on TV and in the papers during these past few months. This tone has characterized much of General Clark's public statements during the remainder of his command at Fort Campbell. On June 9, 2000, he said at a news conference that he objects: in the strongest terms to the way our soldiers, and the climate that embraces them, have been characterized. At a Rotary Club meeting in March 2000--another event listed by General Clark as an example of his efforts to address anti-gay harassment--press reports, say that he: used the Rotary speech to lambaste the Kentucky New Era and other area newspapers for printing an earlier story on his refusal to allow Servicemembers Legal Defense Network to place an advertisement in the post newspaper. The ad had listed an anonymous hotline number for the Army inspector general's office and the telephone number for the organization. General Clark justified his decision to reject the ad on the ground that the inspector general's office had all the access it needed to soldiers on post. Newspaper reports of General Clark's Rotary Club speech contained no mention of any statement condemning anti-gay harassment. I have repeatedly asked the Department to investigate this issue further, to find out whether in fact General Clark made any statements specifically addressing anti-gay harassment and anti-gay violence following the Winchell murder. But the responses of the Department have been inadequate. In response to similar questions by the parents, the inspector general stated: During the 6 months following the murder, Major General Clark was personally involved in talking to Commanders at all levels about the anti-gay harassment. There have been other cases where commanding officers have had to respond to tragedies, and they have done so in a variety of ways that demonstrate their leadership. Many have drawn comparisons between General Clark's response in this case and General John Keane's response to the murder of African American civilians at Fort Bragg by racist soldiers. After these murders, General Keane held a 1-year anniversary remembrance and publicly offered his condolences. He met with the NAACP and the Anti- Defamation League to discuss the murders and consider ways to improve the racial climate. General Keane offered very strong public statements against racism, and he implemented sensitivity training on the base. General Clark did none of this. In all the services, discrimination against gays is codified in the ban on their service in military. In reporting anti-gay discrimination, soldiers face potential investigation, further harassment, and even discharge. This makes this population even more vulnerable to acts of harassment and violence, which makes it even more essential for leaders to act quickly and effectively in response to attacks on soldiers perceived to be gay. In the recent controversy at the Air Force Academy, the senior leadership has been held accountable, from the Commandant of the Academy, to the Secretary of the Air Force. The Commandant of the Air Force Academy has been held responsible for the shortcomings of his subordinate commanders. General Clark never held a single officer responsible for the command climate that led to the murder of Private Winchell. General Clark did not take responsibility for addressing the problem of anti-gay harassment at Fort Campbell after the murder. He should bear the ultimate responsibility for the climate that led to this tragedy and for not remedying that climate afterwards. These are important questions that go to the heart of this officer's suitability for promotion to lieutenant general. The Senate deserves better information acting on such a controversial nomination. I will just review for a few moments the difference between Fort Bragg and Fort Campbell. This is the difference, the comparison between General Keane's response to the murder of two African-American civilians and General Clark's response to the murder of PVT Barry Winchell. Fort Bragg: In December 1995, three White Fort Bragg soldiers murdered two Black North Carolina civilians. Then Fort Bragg commanding general, LTG John Keane, currently General Keane, did the following actions after the murder: At Fort Bragg, an on-base memorial service for ``remembrance and reconciliation'' was held 1 year after the murders. Lieutenant General Keane publicly communicated strong condolences. On General Clark's actions after the murder, he declined to meet with the Winchell family, did not attend the Winchells' on-base memorial service held shortly following the murder, and did not hold any subsequent memorial events. LTG John Keane invited the NAACP and the ADL to discuss the murders and work with the base to improve the racial climate. The local NAACP leader, James Florence, on the NAACP's relationship with Fort Bragg, said: Since [the murders] we have had a liaison with Fort Bragg. We can talk with them almost any time we need. General Clark declined to meet with the gay groups, declined to meet with the legal defense funds, and declined to meet with gay veterans organizations. There is a dramatic difference between two commanding officers and how they dealt with the hate crimes. General Keane's response to the soldiers after the murders? LTG John Keane and the Army launched an aggressive program to ``weed skinheads and extremists out of the military.'' General Keane said: We did not see this cancer coming. We missed the signs, symbols, and manifestations of extremism. General Keane implemented sensitivity training at Fort Bragg regarding race relations. He said: We've educated our people, in terms of what to look for and how to deal with it, and when we find soldiers whose attitudes and behavior are disruptive to good order and discipline of our unit, we are going to act. General Clark publicly stated there was not a climate of homophobia on Fort Campbell, did not make any public statements or issue any written directives and never publicly communicated an appreciation of the harm caused by the antigay murder. There are dramatic differences between how an officer dealt with this, who continues to serve with great distinction in our service, and the nominee. Finally, here is the comparison between General Clark's response to the murder of PVT Barry Winchell and the response of the Air Force Academy leaders on sexual assaults. At the Air Force Academy during the period of 1993 through 2003, 60 cases of sexual assault were reported. Earlier this year, LTG John Dallager, the academy commandant from 2000 to 2003, lost his third star and retired as a major general because the Secretary of the Air Force determined he ``did not exercise the degree of leadership in this situation that we expect of our commanders.'' In September 2003, an independent panel commissioned to review the climate situation issued a report supporting the demotion of General Dallager and recommending an additional review to assess the actions taken by other leaders and holding individuals accountable. On General Clark, in July 1999, two Fort Campbell soldiers murdered Barry Winchell because they believed him to be gay. This murder occurred on the base, in the barracks. This murder and additional problems with antigay harassment occurred during the tenure of Commander Clark and there has been no response. My final point on the ultimate responsibility: General Dallager is the Academy leader--[this was the finding]--bearing ultimate responsibility for the failure to adequately respond to sexual assault issues. The Panel concurs with the decision . . . to retire General Dallager. . . . Retire him. On the ultimate responsibility, Army leadership doctrine states that commanders: . . . have to answer for how their subordinates live and what they do after work. That is in the field manual. In a July 19, 2000 article in the New York Times, General Clark stated: There is no, nor has there ever been during my times here, a climate of homophobia on post. General Shinseki, on July 21, 2000, stated in a DoD News Briefing: We take full responsibility for what happened to Private Winchell. . . . There is General Shinseki taking responsibility. There is a general. We take full responsibility for what happened to Private Winchell. General Clark has failed to accept similar responsibility in this case and doesn't deserve the promotion. On another matter, I believe there is some remaining time.

Mr. KENNEDY. May I reserve the remainder of my time? Is this on the Senator's time?

Mr. KENNEDY. Since I had the floor, I want this additional comment I would like to make on another subject, but I also want to respond to the questions of the Senator, so I will be glad to do whatever you would like.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is not difficult, I think, since I have 40 minutes. I will use my remaining time and ask that my comments be inserted into another part of the Record so it doesn't interfere, and then I will be glad to answer any questions of the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

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.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.