Floor Statements

Madam President, today I share with the Senate a remarkable story, a story about a man, who, simply by living and cherishing his American dream, inspired hundreds--if not thousands--to pursue their own.

Dr. Kristaps J. Keggi came to New York in 1949 with his parents and three brothers. They were all refugees fleeing a Communist regime controlling their native Latvia. Dr. Keggi's father, a general surgeon, courageously packed up his family and left for Germany when Kris was only 10 years old. Five years later, sponsored by a church in Brooklyn, NY, the family arrived in the United States--with only one dollar between them all.

Dr. Keggi, then 15, almost immediately started work as an usher at Brooklyn's St. George Hotel. After working and completing high school at the Brunswick School in Greenwich, CT, Dr. Keggi attended Yale College. As an undergrad, Dr. Keggi joined the Yale fencing team. It is no surprise that he was named team captain! Hard work, dedication, and a commitment to excellence earned Dr. Keggi his bachelor's degree in 1955--and a coveted slot in the Yale School of Medicine's class of 1959.

After graduating from Yale Medical School, Dr. Kristaps Keggi spent 2 years completing a general surgery residency at Roosevelt Hospital in New York City. He then went on to finish his orthopaedic training at Yale. A few years earlier, in 1957, Dr. Keggi accepted his commission as a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve. After completing his residency training in 1964, Dr. Keggi served on active duty for 2 years--one of them in Vietnam. He was the chief of orthopaedic surgery with the 3rd Surgical Hospital north of Saigon and on the Cambodian border of the Central Highlands. The facility was a mobile Army surgical hospital--more commonly known as a helicopter transport ``MASH'' unit.

During his service in Vietnam, Dr. Keggi expanded his acute surgical and trauma management skills. He also worked closely with Army corpsmen and helicopter personnel to improve the care and outcomes for injured soldiers. I applaud and admire not only his service to a very grateful nation, but also the care, compassion, and devotion he showed each and every American soldier he treated--men who endured the unimaginable, bled, and paid the ultimate price to keep us safe and free. Our country is a better place because of him.

After completing his Vietnam service, Dr. Keggi returned to Yale in 1966 as an assistant professor. He worked, primarily, in orthopaedic trauma surgery and emergency care. Dr. Keggi immediately saw the need to create staged medical care and advanced trauma management systems. This way, the hospital could provide improved acute medical services to injured patients in New Haven--and all across the country. Dr. Keggi soon obtained a $20,000 grant to develop a trauma program at Yale. His subsequent studies on trauma registries, emergency care of trauma patients, and published scholarly works proved groundbreaking. It was not long before the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation awarded Dr. Keggi another major institutional grant to construct the Surgical Research Building at Yale. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation dollars also helped start the Yale University School of Medicine Physician Associate Program. Over time, the Yale physicians assistant program grew to be one of the very best in the country. Today approximately 900 physician assistants have received their degrees from Yale. This achievement is, without a doubt, thanks, in part, to Dr. Keggi's vision and relentless commitment to help change the field of medicine for the better.

A turning point came in 1986 when Dr. Keggi decided to take a trip to Moscow and watch his daughter Mara row for the United States of America at the first Goodwill games. It was at the games where Dr. Keggi met a group of Latvian surgeons who encouraged him to visit his place of birth--Riga. He agreed. That trip convinced Dr. Keggi it was time to start an exchange program dedicated to orthopaedic teaching and research.

In 1988, Dr. Keggi established the non-profit Keggi Orthopaedic Foundation which funds medical exchange fellowship training programs for orthopaedic surgeons in the United States, Russia, the Baltic nations, and Vietnam. Foreign doctors come to the United States to observe state-of-the-art medical procedures conducted in Dr. Keggi's Waterbury facility. Upon returning to their home countries, those doctors can implement proven techniques in their own practices--helping alleviate patient pain and suffering. That is Dr. Keggi's vision: helping the orthopaedic community worldwide to offer the highest quality patient care. Each and every day he lives out the foundation's mission to be a dedicated, professional, caring, and compassionate team player seeking only to improve patient quality of life. It is clear these young, foreign doctors appreciate Dr. Keggi's wisdom and experience. He is a seasoned teacher who wants his students' careers to shine--but not for their own personal glory. Instead, his goal is to show the world that each of his students can and will perform at exceptional levels--delivering the very best medical care possible. That is his legacy.

Dr. Keggi has made, and will continue to make, an indelible mark on our profession. His ambition helps him to achieve his own goals and dreams--at the same time his example encourages other medical professionals to strive to achieve theirs. In 2008, Dr. Keggi returned to the Yale Medical School faculty as a full time professor. And so, it is only fitting that on September 23, 2010, his beloved alma mater will name him the inaugural Elihu Professor of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation. Yale University established this professorship through a combination of private donors to pay tribute to Dr. Keggi. The position will serve as the cornerstone of a joint reconstruction program at the Yale School of Medicine--a center of excellence in clinical care, research, medical education, and training. It is important to know that Yale has already announced its intention to rename the professorship in Dr. Keggi's honor when he decides to leave the teaching post.

Dr. Keggi's medical and managerial skills have been tested time and time again--from prestigious hospitals to the battlefields of Vietnam. His life's work has brought hope and healing to the physically and emotionally broken. But it is because of his strong family values and devotion to community service that this award is so meaningful to Dr. Keggi. The award shows him exactly how grateful, how proud, and how honored the New Haven community is for his leadership. I am sure Dr. Keggi would tell you that much of his life's success is due, in large part, to the strength of his family. He was blessed to have the love and support of his parents. It was also Dr. Keggi's good fortune that his wife Julia accepted his proposal for marriage. Over the years, Julia has been Dr. Keggi's rock. He regularly says he would not have accomplished his goals without Julia and their three beautiful and talented daughters--Caroline, Catherine, and Mara--by his side.

I am eternally grateful and proud to call Dr. Kristaps Keggi my friend. He is a respected mentor and adviser. I did my orthopaedic training under Dr. Keggi's watchful eye--assisting him in close to 100 operations. It was my great privilege and incredible fortune to work side-by-side with the man who pioneered the anterior approach to total hip replacements. As an internationally renowned expert in hip and knee replacement surgery, it is quite fitting that the Yale School of Medicine has named him the Elihu Professor of Orthopaedics and Rehabilition. I ask that my colleagues join me in sending our warmest congratulations to Dr. Keggi and his family for this well-deserved honor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work done by my colleague from North Dakota and his commitment as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee to try to come to a solution in the Cobell settlement.

He is absolutely right. We still need to work on some policy issues, as well

as some issues in terms of how this will be paid for. He and I both agree we need to settle the Cobell lawsuit. There has been much rhetoric. We both agree we need to settle the Cobell lawsuit.

At the President's insistence, and the House and the Senate majorities, they have repeatedly tried to get this bill enacted outside the regular process. This settlement has been inserted into various bills over the past several months that have absolutely nothing to do with American Indian issues. You ask yourself why. Well, perhaps folks wanted to avoid some scrutiny--scrutiny by Congress, by the press, and, most of all, by those who have been most affected, the stakeholders.

Two weeks ago, I came to the floor and offered an amendment to legislation that addressed some of the more egregious problems with the settlement. I am talking policy as well as pay-for issues. The majority leader dismissed my amendment, and he called it the ``beat up the lawyers'' amendment. Well, he called it that because one of the provisions in the amendment establishes a $50 million cap on presettlement attorneys' fees--$50 million. The settlement says it should be between $50 million and $100 million. My amendment said, let's keep it at that lower figure. Only in Washington, DC, would anyone ever call a $50 million cap on attorneys' fees--$50 million of attorneys' fees--as beating up the lawyers.

Well, because attorneys' fees were capped at $50 million, the majority leader objected to both the Cobell and the Pigford settlements.

There was and still is a good reason for that cap. Every Member of this body should read a couple of op-eds on this Cobell settlement. One was in the August 1 edition of The Hill, the other in today's August 5th edition. The August 1 article: ``Cobell settlement worth doing right, together.'' The one from today: ``Unconscionable Cobell.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both these articles be printed in the Record.

So there are issues of policy dealing with transparency, dealing with the production of records by the attorneys who are involved in this. When you read one of these editorials, the one in today's Hill, ``Unconscionable Cobell,'' written by a law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison:

Number of published court opinions in the case: 80-plus

Amount awarded to plaintiffs by courts at present: $0

Amount to attorneys under settlement: $100 Million. . . .

Amount to each account holder under [this] settlement:

We are talking now about those who have been affected by this--

$1,000.00

What an incredible disparity.

Well, if we were all to take the time to look through these two editorials, the changes to the settlement I have been proposing would not only seem reasonable, they would be absolutely necessary. They point out several real problems with the settlement, including the way the attorneys' fees are handled. I am continuing to work with my colleagues on dealing with that. These are the blunt facts.

So I agree with my colleague from North Dakota, the problems with the Cobell settlement are by no means insurmountable. They can and they must be resolved. In fact, I do not think it would be difficult to resolve the differences we have regarding the Cobell settlement. We can sit down, and we plan to do that, to discuss the issues directly. I think we can get beyond this impasse, and that is what I am committed to do.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor today, as I have week after week since the health care bill was signed into law, with a doctor's second opinion of the health care law. I do this as someone who has practiced medicine, taking care of the families in Wyoming as an orthopedic surgeon for 25 years; as someone who has been the medical director of the Wyoming Health Fairs, to give people low-cost blood screenings so they can have early detection of medical problems to help them find problems early. And early treatment following early detection is something that always works to keep down the cost of their medical care.

I wish to talk about the fact that we have seen again this week a new development, and the development this week is that the American people have spoken. They have done it in the Show Me State of Missouri. The Show Me State has shown Washington that they have rejected the President's takeover of the health care system in this country.

Like so many Americans, voters in Missouri are sick and tired of Washington forcing things upon them, telling them what they need to do, and now telling them what they need to buy--specifically in terms of the Federal mandate that people have health insurance, that they must go out and buy that or face penalties, taxes, fines related to the fact that they make a choice to not buy health insurance.

I think the voters are also tired of being ignored by Washington. That is why 71 percent of the voters in Missouri on Tuesday--71 percent, over 7 out of 10--who went to the polls rejected the demand by Washington that they be forced to buy a product, to buy health insurance. It is part of the law. It is a mandate. They have to have health insurance, have to buy it.

So how did the White House respond to this rejection of what has now been forced down the throats of the American voters? Well, Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, was questioned on this during the White House press conference, and he was asked what it means that voters in Missouri would vote against this Federal mandate, and Gibbs said ``nothing.'' It means nothing. Well, to the voters of Missouri whom I have talked to, this is an insult. It does mean something. They expressed their opinion, and the White House said: Your opinion means nothing to us.

So instead of trying to address the concerns and fix the new law, right now the White House seems to be more focused on a slick public relations program. They have a whole campaign going.

It is interesting because the people of Missouri are not the only ones who are opposed to this law. Later this year, voters in a couple of other States will be voting as well on the impact and the mandate.

A new Rasmussen poll out just this past week says that 57 percent of Americans--I am talking about likely voters; that is how they polled this, likely voters--said this recently passed health care law, in their opinion, is bad for our country. So 57 percent of Americans feel the law that was forced down the throats of the American people, with the American people screaming: Do not pass this law--even today, 57 percent of Americans, as they learn more and more about what is in the law, believe it is bad for the country. That is actually the highest level of pessimism about this law since the law was passed in March.

Support for the law continues to erode. So what happens? Well, the White House comes out with a public relations campaign, and once again they are setting their sights on America's seniors. They did it with a very expensive glossy mailer that went out to the seniors on Medicare. It looked to me like a propaganda piece--very misleading. Once again, they are focused on the seniors. Why? Well, because the seniors are those who are most opposed to the new health care law, the one that takes $500 billion away from Medicare, not to save Medicare, the health care program for our seniors, but to start a whole new government program for someone else.

So this week, what happened? At the end of last week, the new director of Medicare and Medicaid, Dr. Berwick--and we have talked about him on the Senate floor. He is the one who had a recess appointment, the one who is in love with the British health care system, the new director who had the recess appointment who has never come to the Senate to share his answers with the American people. The American people have been denied the right to hear from him. He did not have time to share his views with the American people, but he did have time to introduce a slick new ad campaign to try to sell the new law to Medicare patients.

The health care law is out there now being promoted in a television ad for which the American taxpayer is going to have to pay the bill. The American taxpayers are going to pay the bill, and the ad stars Andy Griffith. During this ad--and we know Andy Griffith from Andy of Mayberry, the television show, and in later years, Matlock. He is used as the spokesman now to our seniors, telling seniors a number of things, making a number of promises. Let's go through them.

One is, he says seniors will have their ``guaranteed benefits.'' Well, only in Mayberry does a $500 billion cut equal better care for American seniors. Even the administration's own actuaries and own specialists in Medicare took a look at this, and they don't even agree with the commercials. They say the cuts are unlikely to be sustainable over time. They say that one in six hospitals and doctors offices related to Medicare providers are going to become unprofitable within 10 years, and many may be forced to close. They say the new law is going to jeopardize patient access to medical care.

Well, then Mr. Griffith says: ``Well, more good things are coming.'' Well, what kinds of things for our seniors on Medicare? When you take a look at how the cuts are out there--there are cuts for home health, which is a lifeline for seniors who try to stay out of

a nursing home. There are cuts to nursing homes for Medicare. There are cuts in physical therapy. There are cuts to hospice, where many people spend the last days of their lives. There are cuts across the board. I do not know how that can be related to ``more good things are coming.''

The President's Medicare experts tell us that benefits aren't going to remain the same because things would happen with Medicare Advantage. One out of four people on Medicare is signed up for Medicare Advantage, and the reason they do it is because there are advantages of being on Medicare Advantage in terms of preventive care, in terms of coordinated care. There are good reasons people sign up for that. Yet there are going to be cuts there.

In the commercial, they also say the law will lower prescription costs, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates that is not true, that the cost of prescriptions will continue to go up.

There are people who look at ads, political ads, different kinds of ads. There is an organization called factcheck.org, and what they did is they said this commercial uses--their words are ``weasel words,'' they say, to avoid telling the truth. Well, that is the fundamental problem. As much as most Americans love to hear from Andy Griffith, we would prefer to hear the truth from President Obama. Instead of spending hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money--taxpayer money--on a misleading ad, the President should put this money toward the $500 billion that has been cut from our seniors on Medicare.

The White House continues to believe the American people do not understand what is in the health care law, and they say that is the reason it is unpopular. They say that if more people understood the law, well, then it would be more popular. But week after week, something else comes out, another broken promise that makes people realize this is not good for them. It is not good for them as patients; it is not good for the providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of the patients; and it is not good for the payers, the people who are paying for their health care, the taxpayers of America. Across the board, people realize, as they learn more and more about what is in this law, that it is not good for them.

When I go to senior centers and visit with seniors, I say: How many of you believe it is going cost you more for our health care? Every hand goes up.

Then I say: How many of you believe the quality of your care is going to go down? Every hand goes up.

You see the same thing if you go to a Kiwanis Club or a Lions Club or a Rotary Club, civic organizations, whomever you visit. Do you think the cost of your care is going to go up? Every hand goes up. Do you think the quality of your care is going to go down? The hands go up again. That is not what the American people want--paying more and getting less.

Well, I think the American people are really getting a good understanding of what is in this bill, and the people of Missouri have clearly reflected that Tuesday in the voting booth.

Earlier this week, I joined Senator Coburn, the other physician in the Senate--there are only two physicians who serve in this body--and other Members of the Senate in sending a letter to Secretary Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. What we requested is that the Department stop running this ad, reimburse the U.S. Treasury for any taxpayer money spent on the ad, and explain which one of the accounts in Health and Human Services paid for this advertisement.

Take a look at this. We as a nation are $13 trillion in debt, and the White House's ongoing propaganda campaign should not be funded by American taxpayers. And that is why, week after week, every week since this bill became law, I have come to the floor to give my second opinion about the health care law and to say that it should be repealed and replaced--replaced with something that is patient centered, not government centered, not insurance company centered, but patient centered. Allow people to buy insurance across State lines. That will help bring down the cost and will help more people to be insured. Give people who buy their own health insurance the opportunity to have the same tax breaks the big companies get. Give people who buy their own health insurance, and others, opportunities through nutrition and diet and exercise and taking responsibility for their own health care. Let them reap the benefits of that. Then, of course, we need to deal with lawsuit abuse and the expense of all of the unnecessary tests, the defensive medicine doctors all across the country will tell you they end up practicing.

Those are the things we need to do--and opportunities for small businesses to join together to bring down the cost of their care. With the individual mandate that is out there and the business mandate, we are seeing more businesses saying: You know, I am not going to want to provide health insurance under this new law. I will just pay the penalty and go on. That is going to make it harder for people.

Here we are with a huge national debt, high unemployment, and a health care law that, in my opinion, would best serve the country if it was repealed and replaced. That is why I come to the floor again today, the last day the Senate is in session, as Senators are heading out around the country to visit with those in their communities. I am hoping the American people continue to speak out and tell their elected representatives it is time to repeal and replace this health care law.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do support the Cobell lawsuit. I have great admiration for my colleague from North Dakota and the considerable work he has done as chairman of the committee. He has worked very effectively and passionately and he also worked with Secretary Salazar to get to a point where we can move forward. We are not quite there yet in terms of the policy or the payment issue. We are not quite there, but I will offer the following alternative to the proposal the chairman has presented to the Senate. It is along the lines of things I have been discussing with Secretary Salazar and the administration.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3754, which was introduced earlier today; that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

I object.

Mr. President, again, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from North Dakota. He is compassionate and makes a compelling argument. We do need to settle the Cobell lawsuit. I ask the leaders to, over the next couple weeks, come together and allow for a very limited debate, possibly a few amendments on the floor, and then an up-or-down vote.

That is the sort of thing we need to do--in the light of day--with the Members of the Senate, not something that continues to be brought forth with the goal of getting a unanimous-consent agreement. We are not there.

I think the ideas I have brought forward are good. They come forward because those are the ideas I have had brought to me through various tribes from around the country who have concerns about the settlement. There have been large meetings of different tribes who have come out in support of these ideas that they have brought to me. I think it is very reasonable for the Senate, if we can arrange for a limited time for debate on the specifics and not be asked in a unanimous consent on the last evening before Members of this body have scattered home to their States, when they are no longer here. They have been told they are not going to vote again until the middle of September.

I think it is reasonable to ask the Senate to have a discussion on this and then a vote. If the Senate, in its wisdom, decides that is what they want and they want to pass this as written, then the will of the Senate has been worked. That is why I raise these concerns tonight.

With great admiration for the chairman, who has worked so well, in a bipartisan way on our committee, we have worked together on legislation on Indian affairs. He is chairman and I am vice chairman. I can understand his concerns and wanting to get this settled. I do too. I feel obligated to bring forth the concerns I have heard from across this country and bring them here.

That is the reason I object to the settlement tonight, and I would love to have our leaders work together to bring this forward to the floor for discussion, debate, and then an up-or-down vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is something my colleagues have not had a chance to review. As a result, and not knowing the specific details and with colleagues now traveling back to their home States, on behalf of them, I do object.

Mr. President, in Wyoming's 120 year history, only 21 people have served as U.S. Senator for our State. One stands out as a compassionate, skilled and illustrious figure. United States Senator Alan K. Simpson is a lifelong public servant who is dedicated to his family, to Wyoming, and to the United States.

Al Simpson has fought to uphold the values and ideals of our country for most of his life. Whether he was serving in the U.S. Army in Germany, the Wyoming House of Representatives or in the U.S. Senate Chamber, his commitment and contributions were evident. When the Nation calls on Al Simpson to serve, he is always there to work and fight for our best interests.

United States Senator Alan K. Simpson served in this Chamber from 1979 to 1997. Fortunately for Wyoming and our Nation, his service did not end when he retired. He has enthusiastically served numerous groups and organizations, which all have benefitted from his presence. From his beloved alma mater, the University of Wyoming, to the world renowned Buffalo Bill Historical Center, Al Simpson devotes his time, talent and treasure. When Al sees an unmet need in our community, he works to see that it is addressed. Wyoming--and America--are better because of him.

This year, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming have selected Al Simpson as their Man of the Year. While Al has received many honors throughout his life, to be honored by the Boys and Girls Clubs is very special to him.

The Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming plays a vitally important role in our State. They serve all youth regardless of economic circumstances. They continue to expand thanks to the generous support of the McMurry Foundation, the Martin Family Foundation, the Daniels Fund, the Casper Star Tribune and the Reader's Digest Foundation. Their inspiration and work has spread to adjacent counties.

The work of the Boys and Girls Clubs' dedicated staff and volunteers creates a positive environment for all children. As a result of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming, hundreds of Wyoming youth will have the opportunity to gain the experiences and build the skills needed for success. Their mission is the same as Al's--to make our community and our Nation a better place.

This award is special to Senator Al Simpson because his life's success is due in large part to the strength of his family. He lovingly called his mother Lorna `the velvet hammer.' His father Senator and Governor Milward Simpson was Al's model for public service and civic leadership. His big brother Pete Simpson explains, ``The extent to which we became men we owe to our father.'' Even Pete helped mold Al into the man who continues to have a positive impact on Wyoming and our Nation. Al readily admits that he and Pete were a spirited duo and gave their parents heartburn. Certainly, Al would have benefitted from the influence of a Boys and Girls Club! However, he was fortunate that the strong love and solid support of his parents carried him through a tumultuous adolescence.

It was Al's good fortune that Ann Schroll accepted his proposal for marriage. Over the years, Ann has been a guiding force for Al. He regularly says he would not have accomplished anything without Ann by his side.

Many years ago, in a high school commencement address, Al said, ``The real reason I made it in life is because there were other people who believed in me, even when I didn't believe in myself. They were people willing to give me a second chance. Those are the people I never forgot in life: parents, teachers, many people who took time with me, and for me. . . . `` Just like Al had folks who stood by him and held him accountable, the staff and volunteers at the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming believe in our youth. Al Simpson is a wonderful choice for the 2010 Man of the Year award. He is thankful for the support he received as a youth and is committed to give all

young people in Wyoming a second chance.

It is because of his strong family values and his sense of duty to his community that the Boys and Girls Clubs Man of the Year is so meaningful to Al Simpson. This award tells this great statesman that Wyoming is thankful for his leadership.

I am so proud to call Al Simpson my friend. He is a respected mentor and adviser. It is fitting and terrific that the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming have named him Man of the Year--and I ask that my colleagues join me in sending our congratulations to Al for this well- deserved honor.

Madam President, this is the second time since I have become a U.S. Senator that I have been asked to provide the President advice and consent on a Supreme Court nominee. Last year, almost to the day, I spoke on the Senate floor on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be on the Supreme Court. So I come to the floor today to speak on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

During the debate in the Senate on Judge Sotomayor's nomination, I laid out the three criteria I use in evaluating an individual to fulfill the responsibilities of filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. First, of course, we want to select the best candidate. Second, the Justice must be impartial and allow the facts and the Constitution to speak. And, third, a Justice has a responsibility to apply the law, not to write the law. Those are the criteria I have used in evaluating Elena Kagan's nomination.

I met with Solicitor General Kagan following her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is personable and she is bright. Her career as an attorney has been exceptional. Although she has limited trial experience, she does understand the important role the judiciary plays in America. It is the second criteria that causes me concern: Solicitor General Kagan's ability to remain impartial. In particular, her actions and judgment as dean of the Harvard Law School as it related to military recruitment is, to me, a serious problem.

Military recruitment on college campuses is protected by what is commonly referred to as the Solomon Amendment. The Solomon Amendment is legislation that Congress passed in the mid-1990s. The Solomon Amendment directs that institutions of higher learning shall not be eligible for Federal funding if they refuse to follow Federal law. Funding shall be denied--denied--if it is determined that the school, as a policy or a practice, either prohibits or, in effect, prevents ROTC access to campus or military recruiting on campus.

In the late 1970s, Harvard Law School adopted a policy that barred organizations that discriminated against any group from recruiting on campuses. The ban applied to military recruiters. Other universities adopted similar policies. But following the passage of the Solomon Amendment, many institutions, including Harvard, adjusted their policies.

Ms. Kagan became dean of Harvard Law School in the year 2003. In 2003, America was fighting two wars. American men and women were voluntarily joining the military to serve and to defend our country. At a time when military recruiters were being allowed on campuses across the country, Dean Kagan was looking for ways to make it difficult for military recruiters to do their job at Harvard Law School. She wrote at the time:

I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy. .

. . This is a profound wrong--a moral injustice of the first

order.

Well, eventually, a legal challenge to the Solomon Amendment was initiated. On two occasions, Dean Kagan signed court briefs opposing the Solomon Amendment. In 2004, when a lower court rejected the Solomon Amendment, Dean Kagan immediately denied military recruiters the same access afforded to other recruiters on campus. She took this action even though the court making the ruling did not have jurisdiction over Harvard Law School. Harvard Law School is located in the First Circuit. The court that made the ruling was the Third Circuit.

The Pentagon notified Harvard that the restrictions on military recruiters violated the law. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the challenge to the Solomon Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit as well as the arguments that were put forth in the brief signed by Dean Kagan, and it did so unanimously. All of the Justices on the Supreme Court, both conservative and liberal--all of them--agreed the Solomon Amendment did not violate the rights of law schools. The law was unanimously upheld, and that is an extremely rare occurrence from a Court usually divided.

For America's judicial system to work, judges must always remain impartial. I do believe that as dean of one of America's most prestigious law schools, Solicitor General Kagan allowed her personal biases to interfere with her judgment. Solicitor General Kagan had very strong opinions about military policies, including President Clinton's don't ask, don't tell policy. Like every American, she is entitled to her personal beliefs and the right to express those views. As the dean of Harvard Law School, she is also responsible to know the law and to not disregard it.

So, then, how can one explain the actions of Elena Kagan while dean of the Harvard Law School? No. 1, she didn't know the law; No. 2, she didn't understand the law; or No. 3, she simply chose to ignore the law because of her strongly held personal beliefs.

Many Americans may be able to get away with these explanations. Such explanations don't work for an individual seeking to become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Elena Kagan has been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. If confirmed, she will be entrusted to make decisions that will impact America for a long time. The decisions she will be asked to make on this Court must be based on the law not influenced by personal experiences or personal convictions.

In the case involving the Solomon Amendment, Dean Kagan failed to meet that standard. I believe Dean Kagan knew the law. I have no doubt she understood the law and wanted to find ways to get around the law.

I will not be supporting Solicitor General Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. I believe she allowed her personal beliefs to guide her. As a private citizen, that may be acceptable.

As a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is not.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Mikole

Bede for her hard work as an intern in my Sheridan office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Mikole is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Sheridan High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in history and minoring in American politics and German. Throughout her internship, she has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Mikole for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Leslie Brazil for her hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Leslie is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Kelly Walsh High School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming, where she is majoring in sociology and criminal justice and minoring in Russian. Throughout her internship, she has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Leslie for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Andrew Crawford for his hard work as an intern in my Indian Affairs Committee office in Washington, DC. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Andrew graduated from McLean High School. He currently attends Wake Forest University, where he is majoring in history and minoring in environmental studies and political science. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Andrew for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Jason Despain for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Jason is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Kelly Walsh High School. He currently attends Brigham Young University, where he is majoring in economics. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Jason for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Emily Elliott for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Emily is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Natrona County High School. She currently attends Saint Michael's College, where she is majoring in political science and minoring in global studies. Throughout her internship, she has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Emily for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Cameron Leach for his hard work as an intern in my Rock Springs office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Cameron graduated from Richland High School. He attended Western Wyoming Community College for his associate's degree in science and will attend the University of Wyoming to receive his bachelor's degree. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Cameron for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Kelsey Montgomery for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Kelsey is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Cheyenne Central High School. She currently attends Grinnell College, where she is majoring in political science. Throughout her internship, she has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Kelsey for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Samuel (S.J.) Tilden for his hard work as an intern in my Indian Affairs Committee office in Washington, DC. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Samuel is a native of Wyoming and graduated from St. George's School. He currently attends George Washington University, where he is majoring in international studies and politics and minoring in francophone studies. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Samuel for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to

express my appreciation to Charles Westerman for his hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.

Charles is a native of Wyoming and graduated from Wheatland High School. He currently attends Washington State University, where he is majoring in journalism and minoring in humanities. Throughout his internship, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.

I thank Charles for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his next journey.