Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we are introducing legislation to improve the health of Medicare beneficiaries and the health of the Medicare program itself. Under Medicare, the health and quality of life for millions of older adults and people with disabilities have significantly improved. The rate of chronic disability among adults over 65 continues to decline, but we can do better. A recent report by the World Health Organization showed that the U.S. falls behind 23 other nations in ``healthy life expectancy.'' On average, Americans can expect only 70 healthy years, compared to Japanese citizens who can anticipate 74\1/2\ years of life without disability. Chronic disability robs too many older Americans of active and productive years, and adds $26 billion annually in health care costs as people over 65 lose their ability to live independently. In the next 30 years, the viability of Medicare will be challenged as the baby boom generation ages. Nearly one fifth of the population will be 65 and older by 2025, which means that a larger number of beneficiaries will be supported by a smaller number of workers. The current debate over the future of Medicare often revolves around benefit cuts or tax increases. But an obvious alternative that should be part of the debate is to reduce the demand for Medicare by improving the health of senior citizens. Unfortunately, Medicare today contains few incentives to encourage beneficiaries and providers to take health promotion and disease prevention seriously. This bill will help older adults and individuals with disabilities to improve their health. It will also educate health providers about the best practices for treatment of Medicare patients. Older adults are generally health conscious and are interested in taking steps to maintain their health and independence. Poor lifestyle factors--which include lack of exercise, poor diet, at-risk behaviors, smoking, and alcohol abuse--account for 70% of the physical decline and disease that occur with aging. Experts agree that the potential for better health through health promotion and disease prevention is great. Too often, however, older Americans lack the accurate information that would help them take advantage of these opportunities. This bill will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries are better informed about the lifestyle changes they can make to improve their health, and the preventive health services they can use to prevent disease. To encourage more beneficiaries to use the preventive services that Medicare currently offers, our legislation will eliminate cost-sharing for these services. Prevention saves lives and saves money. The incidence of cancer in adults over 65 is approximately eleven times higher than in persons under 65. Most cancers can be treated and many can be cured if detected early. But cancer screening tests are significantly underused by Medicare beneficiaries. Thirty-eight percent of women over 65 who have survived breast cancer (and remain at risk) do not receive an annual mammogram. Our bill will waive cost-sharing for mammography, screening pelvic exams, colorectal cancer screening, prostate cancer screening, bone mass measurement, hepatitis B vaccine and its administration, and diabetes self-management training. Despite the great potential of preventive services to improve the quality of life for older Americans, few clinical guidelines focus on preventive care for this population. Our bill calls for a task force to conduct studies to determine which preventive services in primary care are most valuable to senior citizens. A separate demonstration project will determine effective means to reduce smoking by Medicare beneficiaries. Cessation of smoking can reduce the risk of lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. In 1997, smoking-related expenditures were estimated to cost the Medicare program a total of $20.5 billion. There are substantial defects in the quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Medical research has established that early use of a beta blocker after a heart attack reduces the risk of mortality and rehospitalization. Yet 51 percent of older adults fail to receive this treatment when it is indicated. In fact, patients at the highest risk of death in the hospital are least likely to receive a beta blocker. Every senior citizen deserves quality health care. The gaps between the best medical practice and actual practice must be narrowed. Our bill asks the Department of Health and Human Services to determine which areas in the treatment of Medicare beneficiaries do not meet the highest professional standards, and to determine the best practices in those areas. Steps will then be taken to inform health care professionals about these standards for treatment. The opportunities for better health care and budget savings are great, if care can be delivered to beneficiaries with high-cost chronic conditions in a more coordinated and effective way. Our legislation authorizes demonstration projects to develop innovative approaches to increase the quality of care and reduce costs for Medicare beneficiaries in skilled nursing facilities. Similar demonstration projects are authorized for beneficiaries with serious or chronic illness who do not reside in nursing facilities. In ways like this, we do more--much more--to preserve and strengthen Medicare, and achieve substantial long-term savings as well. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve this important goal. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, the bill summary, and the relevant fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia 3 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator a question on my time? Does that stethoscope show any beating hearts over there on that side of the aisle?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in again offering this amendment to restore the reputations of two distinguished military officers who have unfairly borne the sole blame for the success of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor at the beginning of World War II--Admiral Husband E. Kimmel of the United States Navy and General Walter C. Short of the United States Army. The Senate passed this same amendment as part of last year's Department of Defense Authorization Act, but unfortunately it was dropped in conference. Now, our amendment is part of this year's House version of the Defense Authorization Act. At last, we have an excellent opportunity to correct a serious wrong from World War II that has unfairly tarnished the reputation of our military and our nation for justice and honor. Admiral Kimmel and General Short were the Navy and Army commanders at Pearl Harbor during the attack on December 7, 1941. Despite their loyal and distinguished service, they were unfairly turned into scapegoats for the nation's lack of preparation for that attack and the catastrophe that took place. Justice for these men is long overdue. Wartime investigations after the attack concluded that our fleet in Hawaii under the command of Admiral Kimmel and our land forces under the command of General Short had been properly positioned, given the information they had received. The investigations also found that their superior officers in Washington had not passed on vital intelligence information that could have made a difference in America's preparedness for the attack. These conclusions of the wartime investigations were kept secret, in order to protect the war effort. Clearly, there is no longer any justification for ignoring these facts. Since these initial findings, numerous military, governmental, and congressional investigations have concluded that the blame for this attack should have been widely shared. This amendment, and the case for Admiral Kimmel and General Short, have received strong support from former Chiefs of Naval Operations, Army Chiefs of Staff, and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, Admiral Carlisle Trost, Admiral J.L. Holloway III, Admiral William J. Crowe, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, General Andrew J. Goodpaster, and General William J. McCaffrey. Our amendment recommends that the President posthumously advance Admiral Kimmel and General Short to their highest wartime rank in accord with the Officer Personnel Act of 1947. Admiral Kimmel and General Short are the only two officers eligible under this act who did not receive advancement on the retired list. The amendment involves no monetary compensation. It simply asks that now, at this late date, these two military leaders finally be treated the same as their peers. I first became interested in this issue when I received a letter 2 years ago from a good friend in Boston who, for many years, has been one of the pre-eminent lawyers in America, Edward B. Hanify. As a young Navy lawyer and Lieutenant J.G. in 1944, Mr. Hanify was assigned as counsel to Admiral Kimmel. He accompanied Admiral Kimmel when he testified before the Army Board of Investigation, and he later heard the testimony in the lengthy congressional investigation of Pearl Harbor by the Roberts Commission. Mr. Hanify is probably one of the few surviving people who heard Kimmel's testimony before the Naval Court of Inquiry, and he has closely followed all subsequent developments on the Pearl Harbor catastrophe and the allocation of responsibility for that disaster. I would like to quote a few brief paragraphs from Mr. Hanify's letter, because it eloquently summarizes the overwhelming case for justice for Admiral Kimmel. Mr. Hanify writes: The odious charge of ``dereliction of duty'' made by the Roberts Commission was the cause of almost irreparable damage to the reputation of Admiral Kimmel, despite the fact that the finding was later repudiated and found groundless. I am satisfied that Admiral Kimmel was subject to callous and cruel treatment by his superiors who were attempting to deflect the blame ultimately ascribed to them, particularly on account of their strange behavior on the evening of December 6 and morning of December 7 in failing to warn the Pacific Fleet and the Hawaiian Army Department that a Japanese attack on the United States was scheduled for December 7, and that intercepted intelligence indicated that Pearl Harbor was a most probable point of attack. Washington had this intelligence and knew that the Navy and Army in Hawaii did not have it, or any means of obtaining it. Subsequent investigation by both services repudiated the ``dereliction of duty'' charge. In the case of Admiral Kimmel, the Naval Court of Inquiry found that his plans and dispositions were adequate and competent in light of the information which he had from Washington. Adequate and competent in light of the information which he had from Washington. Mr. Hanify concludes, ``The proposed legislation provides some measure of remedial justice to a conscientious officer who for years unjustly bore the odium and disgrace associated with the Pearl Harbor catastrophe.'' Last year, the Senate took a giant step toward correcting this great wrong by passing our amendment. I urge the Senate to support this amendment again this year.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 12 minutes. At the outset of this debate, I express my sincere appreciation to the leadership on both sides, particularly on our side, Senator Daschle, as well as to Senator Lott, to permit an opportunity to vote on a matter which I think is of central concern and importance to families all across this country. I think the timing of this is enormously significant for the reasons we will point out in the time available this afternoon. The American people have waited more than 3 years for Congress to send the President a Patients' Bill of Rights that protects all patients and holds all HMOs and other health plans accountable for their actions. Every day that the conference on the Patients' Bill of Rights fails to produce agreement on meaningful patient protections, 60,000 more patients endure added pain and suffering, and more than 40,000 patients report a worsening of their condition as a result of health plan abuses. For more than 3 months, we have participated in a charade of a conference that refuses to make progress on these basic issues. We have tried to reach agreement with the Republican leadership on the specific patient protections that are critical to ending abuses by HMOs and other managed care plans. But the Congress has failed to guarantee patients even the most basic protections. This is not rocket science. It is long past time for this Congress to stop protecting HMO profits and start protecting patients' health. The House passed a strong bipartisan bill last year to give patients the rights they need and deserve. It has the support of more than 300 leading organizations representing patients, doctors, nurses, working families, small businesses, religious organizations, and many others. The House bill has overwhelming bipartisan support. One in three House Republicans voted for this legislation. President Clinton would sign that bill today, this afternoon. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in Congress and the Republican conferees appear to have no intention of reaching a conference agreement that can be signed into law. We have repeatedly asked the Republican conferees to produce an offer on the critical issues that need to be resolved such as whether all patients will be protected by the reforms and whether patients can sue for injuries caused by HMO abuses. Republican staff submitted a document on Sunday night which they claim is a starting point, but it falls far short of what is needed to start a serious discussion. That isn't only our opinion. That happens to be the opinion of the principal Republican sponsors in the House of Representatives. We continue to hope that the conference can be productive, but so far it has been an endless road to nowhere. The clock is ticking down on the current session of Congress. It is time to take stronger action. Make no mistake, we want a bill that can be signed into law this year. There is not much time left. We need to act and act now. The gap between the Senate Republican plan and the bipartisan legislation enacted by the House in the Norwood-Dingell bill is wide. And the intransigence of the Republican conferees is preventing quality progress. The protections in the House-passed bill are urgently needed by patients across the country, yet the Republican leadership is adopting the practice of delay and denial that HMOs so often use themselves; delay and deny patients the care they need. It is just as wrong for Congress to delay and deny these needed reforms as it is for HMOs to delay and deny needed care. It is wrong for HMOs to say that a patient suffering a heart attack can't go to the nearest hospital emergency room. It is wrong for Congress not to take emergency action to end this abuse. It is medical malpractice for HMOs to say that children with rare cancers can't be treated by a qualified specialist. And it is legislative malpractice for Congress not to end this abuse. It is wrong for HMOs to deny access to patients to clinical trials that could save their lives. And it is wrong for Congress not to guarantee that the routine costs of participating in these lifesaving trials are covered. The Clinton administration announced yesterday that Medicare will cover the medical costs for senior citizens participating in clinical trials. Congress should demonstrate equal leadership and do the same for all patients. The House-Senate conference has made almost no progress on issues of vital importance to patients across America. The slow pace is unacceptable. After many weeks, despite the rhetoric from the Republican conferees, only two issues have been settled. They were virtually identical in both bills. While there seems to be conceptual agreement on a few more provisions, we have yet to reach agreement on the actual legislative language. The critical issues of holding health plans responsible for their actions and assuring that every American with private insurance is protected have not even been discussed seriously. Staff of the Republican conferees have provided proposals that they portray as a step towards consensus. Those who support genuine patient protections on both sides of the aisle are committed to making real progress towards a successful resolution of the differences between the Senate bill and the bipartisan House bill. However, the GOP proposals fall far short of what is needed to give patients the protections they need. With a minor exception, their proposal would essentially maintain the current gaping loophole that allows so many health plans to escape responsibility when they make decisions that cause injury or death of the patient. The Republican author pretends to indicate a sudden willingness to hold health plans accountable in some circumstances, but the American people would be shocked to see the details of this proposal. It is a sham. It is little more than a slap on the wrist for HMOs that refuse to comply with the law. It does nothing to address the vast majority of cases in which patients are injured or killed because of the health plan abuses that arbitrarily deny or delay needed care. It is riddled with restrictions and limitations. It would protect employers from liability when they were the ones who made the decisions that led to injury or death. In countless cases where persons were injured or even killed by the wrongful actions of their health plan, there would be no remedy. It would force patients to go through an external appeals process, even if the disputed benefit could no longer help the patient because the injury was irreversible or because the patient has died. Our amendment requires patients to exhaust the external appeals process before turning to the courts, but there is a key exception that allows patients who have already been harmed, or the family members of those who are killed, to go directly to the court. Few, if any, patients would ever be helped by the Republican proposal. It gives the appearance of a remedy without the reality. The Republican proposal on the scope of the patient protections is another smokescreen. It does nothing to provide realistic guarantees for any individual not covered by the original Senate Republican bill. In fact, the proposal would reduce current protections for millions of Americans in many HMOs by explicitly preempting State laws. The result is that teachers, farmers, firefighters, police officers, small business employees, and many others would be turned into second-class citizens with second-class rights. Here is the list: 23 million to 25 million State and local employees. These are the teachers, these are the firefighters, these are the police officials, these are the nurses, these are the doctors. They are effectively excluded from the GOP coverage. Not so under the Norwood- Dingell proposal. I don't know why they want to have second-class citizens with second-class rights for those individuals. All Americans deserve protection against HMO abuses. No patient should be denied adequate protection because of where they live or where they work. The Republican claim that they have offered a serious compromise rings hollow for the millions of patients across this country who deserve protection for their rights, their health, and their lives. We are committed to passing a bill that protects all patients. At this point, the conference does not seem to be willing to produce a bill that will do the job, so we intend to pursue other options to enact these critical protections. President Clinton has repeatedly urged the conference to complete work on a strong bill he can sign into law. That bill should include the key provisions of the Norwood-Dingell measure. It should not be delayed by controversial and unrelated tax or other proposals. Our amendment contained the House-passed bipartisan consensus reforms written by Georgia Republican Charlie Norwood and Michigan Democrat John Dingell. It says we are putting patients first, not HMO profits. It says medical decisions will be made by doctors and patients, and not insurance company accountants. The amendment establishes important protections for all patients, including coverage for emergency care at the nearest hospital, access to needed specialty care, transitional care for certain patients, direct access to obstetrical and gynecological care, coverage for routine costs of life-saving clinical trials, prohibition of improper HMO financial incentives and HMO gag clauses on physicians, and many other protections. It establishes a fair, prompt, independent appeal process for all decisions involving medical judgments. It holds health plans accountable by holding them liable in cases where patients are injured or killed by HMO abuses. It protects employers from liability, with an exception only if they actually participate in the decision that results in injury or death in the particular case. It prohibits punitive damages if the HMO follows the recommendation of the independent reviewers. The Senate stands, today, at a major crossroad for millions of patients across this Nation. We have an opportunity to provide long- overdue protections for all Americans in managed plans. We have an opportunity to hold HMOs accountable for their abuses. For the first time, the Senate has the opportunity to vote on the bipartisan compromise that passed the House overwhelmingly last year. Last October, the House passed the Patients' Bill of Rights. Month after month after month, the Senate has refused to give patients across the Nation the protections they deserve. Today, at long last, the issue is out of the back rooms where it has been stalled for so long. The issue is in the open, and it is time for the Senate to vote. I withhold the remainder of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself half a minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina 1 minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am prepared to yield whatever time is going to be yielded. I am prepared to yield. If Senators reserve some time to speak, I will reserve time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this important step to compensate workers who became sick from occupational exposure to beryllium, radiation, and other toxic substances as part of the Cold War build-up. I commend my colleagues Senator Thompson, Senator Voinovich, Senator DeWine, and Senator Bingaman for their leadership on this issue. During the cold war, thousands of men and women who worked at the nation's atomic weapons plants were exposed to unknown hazards. Many were exposed to dangerous radioactive and chemical materials at far greater levels than their employers revealed. The debilitating, and often fatal, illnesses suffered by these workers came in many forms of cancer, as well as other illnesses that are difficult to diagnose. This provision brings long overdue relief to these workers and their families. The Department of energy investigated this issue. It found that workers who served for years to maintain and strengthen our defenses during the cold War were not informed or protected against the health hazards they faced at work. Only during the Clinton Administration has the government openly acknowledged that these workers were exposed to materials that were much more radioactive--and much more deadly--than previously revealed. I commend Secretary Richardson for his leadership in bringing this issue to light, and for his efforts to close this tragic chapter in the nation's history for the thousands of workers and their families whose lives were affected. On of the earliest instances of the health dangers of beryllium occurred during World War II at the Sylvania Company in Salem, Massachusetts. At this plant, doctors first identified cases of beryllium disease, an acute and often fatal lung illness that seemed similar to tuberculosis. At the time, the company used beryllium in manufacturing fluorescent light bulbs. Some of the earliest radiation experiments were conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge as part of the Manhattan Project. Scientists at MIT were also among the first to conduct experiments with beryllium oxide ceramics for the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Corporation. Many of the first cases of beryllium disease occurred among these scientists. We have an opportunity today to remedy the wrongs suffered by these Department of Energy workers. Our amendment creates a basic framework for compensation. It is the least we can do for workers who made such great sacrifices for our country during the cold war. They have already waited too long for this relief.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my good friend from Texas--he is my good friend--talks about freedom. He has put his finger on an issue. He wants to give freedom to the HMOs and not provide the important services to patients. That is his kind of freedom. I always enjoy listening to the Senator from Texas. I remember listening to him in 1993 when we had President Clinton's economic program. The Senator from Texas, I remember--someone can correct me-- said: If we pass President Clinton's economic bill, we are going to have unemployment all around the nation, all around the nation. If we pass President Clinton's bill, we are going to have interest rates right up through the top of the roof. We heard that speech. Phil Gramm was wrong then, and he is wrong tonight. This issue is very basic and fundamental. It is an important one. This bill should have passed and become law in the last Congress. The first HMO bill to make sure that patients' rights were going to be protected was in 1997. It took us 2 years to get this legislation out of our committee. It took months of delay to get it before the Senate. It was passed almost a year ago. We still have not been able to have an agreement that will protect patients. That is what is at issue, when you come right down to it. As much as Phil Gramm might like to say it, it isn't just Senator Kennedy saying it. It is the fact that 300 organizations--representing the doctors and nurses in this country and every other health and medical group-- support our position today. Two Republican leaders on this issue in the House of Representatives stood before their constituency earlier today and said that they believed we ought to take this action this afternoon. I ask my friends from Oklahoma and Texas: What particular rights don't you want to provide to the American people who are included in our Patients' Bill of Rights? What about the ability to hold plans accountable? Is that unacceptable? What about making sure that children get specialists? Is that unacceptable? What about having clinical trials? Is that unacceptable? What about guaranteeing women access to an OB/GYN? Is that unacceptable? What about having the right to get prescription drugs? Is that unacceptable? What about prohibiting gag rules? Is that unacceptable? What about independent external appeals? Is that unacceptable? When you cut through the rhetoric--and we welcome the opportunity to cut through the rhetoric--you tell us that you are going to vote against this this afternoon. You spell out for us those agreements made in conference. We challenge you to lay out on the floor of the Senate this afternoon these various agreements that were made. The last agreement that was made was in March of this year. That was the last one in open session. We want to know what kind of protections you are not prepared to give the American people. We stand to protect the consumers, protect the patients, protect the children, protect the women, and protect the disabled in this country. That is what this is about. In the movie ``As Good As It Gets'' last year, that wonderful picture for which Helen Hunt won the Oscar, there was a wonderful scene that everyone remembers. Helen Hunt starred as a mother whose child was not being provided needed care by her HMO. And every parent across this Nation laughed as they commiserated and said that is the way it is. The consumers of America understand what is going on here. The question is whether the Senate of the United States is going to understand. We have an opportunity to do something about it. I hope the Senate will vote for the Daschle amendment. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have 7 or 8 minutes left. Usually, the proponents have the opportunity to do the final summation. I wonder if my friend and colleague from Oklahoma is willing to do that. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time not be charged to either side.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President it is a privilege to take this opportunity to honor Mr. and Mrs. J. Walter McCann of Burlington, Massachusetts. On Saturday, June 10, they will celebrate their golden wedding anniversary of 50 years together. They have been proud residents of Burlington since 1959, successfully raising 7 children, 16 grandchildren and one great granddaughter. These two distinguished Americans have seen extraordinary advances in our state and our country in their lifetime. They are part of the great generation that saw the nation through the Depression and World War II, and their strong values give us all a deep and enduring sense of what it means to be an American. Ruth Gertrude McCann is the youngest of eight sisters and one brother. She was born in her parents' home at 58 Warren Street in Arlington, Massachusetts on June 29, 1921, the beautiful daughter of Annie and Charles Dennen. Over the next three decades, ``Ma'' or ``Mom'' became an accomplished athlete and opera singer. She made a recording of her own, and gave a distinguished performance at Radio City Music Hall in New York City. There, she met and fell in love with Walter McCann, and they've had a wonderful marriage ever since. As she likes to say, ``Walter, why did you lead me to the altar?'' The answer is obvious to all. In their neighborhood in Burlington, Ruth was every child's mom, especially when making jelly from the grapes picked on the hill behind her home, or ringing the metal triangle on the porch to call the children home each night for dinner. She loved her children's activities, and was often at Glee Club or Athletic Booster events, at bingo or bowling, or in the grandstand even on cold days at Pop Warner games. Her husband often traveled, and she became the ``Little Birdie in the Window'' who guided her family as it grew. Joseph Walter McCann was born on January 21, 1920 in Lowell, Massachusetts in his family home, the second son of four children raised by Alma and William Francis McCann. An energetic young man, ``JW'' or ``Walter'' was an avid skier at Tuckerman's Ravine in New Hampshire each winter. He loved to ``walk uphill in the snow'' for the love of the sport with his cousin Jackie Stowell, his childhood best friend. His wife and children have warm and vivid memories of his enormous trust and faith in the federal and state governments, whose actions were often eloquently and vigorously debated at the dinner table. His ``stand up and be counted'' philosophy of life was always challenging to those around him, and his quick wit entertained all who came to know him. As a father, he would often take the family camping and nourish them with ``Campers Delight'' for dinner. Returning home from business trips, he was always well informed by the ``Little Birdie in the Window'' about his children's activities--and even about their mischievous behavior. His children were in awe that he knew so much. But most of all, each of his children and grandchildren will always remember listening to him read stories, especially at Christmas, and the loving phone calls made by Santa to each one of them every year. Mr. President, on this special occasion, I congratulate Walter and Ruth McCann as they enjoy and celebrate their golden anniversary together. Their commitment to the principles and values of their marriage, their family, and their country deserve to be recognized and saluted. I wish them a very happy 50th wedding anniversary, and continuing wonderful times together in the years to come.