John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, at this time, it is my understanding that this time is reserved for the minority party.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today, on the 6- month anniversary of the signing into law of what has commonly across the country come to be called ObamaCare. I come as a physician, someone who has practiced medicine in Wyoming since the early 1980s, taking care of thousands and thousands of patients across the cowboy State-- families. I bring that experience to the Senate floor. I have a doctor's second opinion, now that here we are, 6 months out. It is akin to looking at an x ray after something has happened, going 6 months later and taking a look at the x ray to see what has occurred to the patient. Six months ago when Obama signed his new health care bill into law, he said: ``All of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally confront the reality of reform.'' Here we are 6 months later. The American people have been confronted with the reality of the President's reform, and they do not like it. The American people who listened to Speaker Pelosi say: First, we must pass the bill before you get to find out what is in it, now have learned more and more what is in it, and they don't like it. The American people watched as this body came together, cobbled together legislation with things such as the ``Cornhusker kickback'' and special treats for different Senators so we would agree to vote for the bill, and the American people don't like it. As a matter of fact, there was a Rasmussen poll that just came out Monday, and as of Monday this week, 6 months after the bill was signed into law, 61 percent of the American people want Washington to repeal this new health care law--61 percent want it repealed. Once again, instead of listening to the American people, the President continues to try to sell his law. He tried it again yesterday in a back yard. He continues to make promises he knows he cannot keep and that have not been kept with this new law. Now that we are 6 months into the new law, I wish to walk you through some of the President's promises and the reality that the people of this great country are living with as they look at what has been crammed down their throats. Promise No. 1 by the President: If you like your current health care coverage, you can keep it. According to a new Obama administration regulation--this is the President's own administration, writing the regulation--a majority of Americans who get their insurance through work will not be able to keep the current health care plan they have. Even the White House admits it. The President keeps saying it, but the White House admits it is not true. Promise No. 2: The law will bring the cost of medical care down and reduce the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office disagrees, saying it erases savings. The Actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services says the new law will increase health care spending. Let's look at promise No. 3. This says the law will strengthen Medicare. It actually cuts Medicare by $\1/2\ trillion--$500 billion cut from Medicare. The seniors of this country are furious. To make matters worse, this money is not being used to save Medicare or to strengthen Medicare. The money is being used to start a whole new government program for other people. There is a rebellion among the seniors of this country. Let's look at another promise the President made. He said: The law will create jobs. We have 9.6 percent unemployment in this country. We continue to learn about companies that want to employ people, that want to create jobs, but instead those companies are cutting their payrolls in order to deal with the massive new tax increases included in the law. If you look at the incentives that are given to small companies, in terms of helping them with health care costs, the incentives are the ones that say: If you want to get something, you want to cut the number of employees you have and cut the salaries of the people you are still going to employ. That does not create jobs. This law does not create jobs. Then, of course, President Obama also promised that the Federal Government would not ration care. Then I would say why did the President make a recess appointment of a man to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid who has repeatedly acknowledged and said the government must ration care? He has a long history, but he did not come to the Senate to explain a number of statements he has made about redistributing wealth, rationing care. He does not need to explain it to the Senate. He needs to explain it to the people of this country. That is Donald Berwick, a physician from Massachusetts, still refusing to testify before Congress and the American people. He has been invited again to come today. There will be people waiting in a room to which he has been invited. We will see if he does arrive, but I doubt it. You wonder why Americans are sick and tired of Washington. It is no surprise; yesterday, when speaking at the event in Virginia, the President focused on provisions of the new law that go into effect today. As Paul Harvey used to say: ``Now the rest of the story.'' Some of the changes the President touted yesterday actually don't start right away. Many Americans will not see how these changes will impact them until after January 1 of 2011. But yesterday, USA Today, the newspaper, actually ran a big story--a full-page story almost--on the new provisions. The thing that was so interesting about the story is, the story outlined the basics of each provision--a little thing there. Then underneath each one of the basics it had several paragraphs of things they called be aware: The basics are this, but be aware that this may happen to you, and this may happen to you and this may not apply or this may apply. All those things are to alert the American people that there is a lot more to it when you look at this over 2,000-page bill and the so many agencies that are being brought forth to write rules and regulations-- so many things the American people will still learn about this bill, and as they learn those things they will like it even less. The story outlined the basics and then the ``be awares'' of each provision. I think it is very important for the Americans who are listening and who are focused on this to be aware of these ``be awares,'' that they are so much longer than the provisions. What I would like to do is walk through some of them with you. The law does allow young adults to stay on and be added to their parents' health insurance plan until age 26. That is what we hear. Make sure to read the fine print. One of the things the Obama administration published was the so- called grandfather regulation--not when the bill was signed into law but in June. This Washington White House regulation defines the rules that employers must follow if they want the health coverage they currently offer their employees to be exempt from the new law's mandates. It says be aware that children are not eligible to be added to their parents' grandfathered employer group plan if the child can access coverage in other ways, if they have a job--another very complicated situation of rules and regulations. Second, the law now requires insurers to cover more preventive services--immunizations, mammograms, colonoscopies. It is important for people to take responsibility for their health and things such as screening mammograms and immunizations; those help people in the long run. It says insurers cannot charge copayments or deductibles for these added benefits. Then let's get to the ``be aware'' section. Be aware these cost savings only apply to new health insurance plans, not the so-called grandfathered plans, so you have them describing the grandfathered plans and who can be a part of it and who cannot. There is more to this than meets the eye. Also, be aware--don't be surprised if you see your insurance premiums go up. The President wants to sell Americans on the good things in the law, what he considers the good things in the law, but he has failed to mention that mandating insurers to cover these extra benefits is going to cause premiums to go up. Another: Insurance companies can no longer cap the amount they will pay over a person's lifetime. Americans need to be aware, however, that insurance plans that had lower premium costs because--they say, how do you get premiums down? They did it by limiting lifetime amounts. It says those people now may be forced to pay higher insurance premiums. Another: The law designed new rules preventing insurers from denying coverage to any child under the age of 19 who has a preexisting medical condition. So what did the Washington Post say about that? What did the Los Angeles Times report? They both printed articles this Tuesday, 2 days ago, warning consumers that major health insurance companies--what are they going to do about this? They are going to plan to stop selling new child-only covered products completely. Is this going to help kids with preexisting conditions, this law? As these insurance companies plan to stop selling new child-only coverage products, that is not going to help. It is because of this law. The health care law allows parents to wait until their child is sick before buying a policy. When only sick people buy health insurance, premiums have to go up. As the rate increases, more people drop their coverage. This certainly is going to hit lower income families hard. Some uninsured parents, while they can't afford family insurance, often decide to buy a child-only policy to ensure their kids have coverage. But according to these new reports, families all across America will have fewer health insurance options because of the new law--fewer options for families, fewer options for patients, not more. This Congress had a historic opportunity to make patient-centered health care reforms to bring down the cost of medical care in this country. We had a historic opportunity, and this Congress missed it. The one thing the American people wanted out of health care reform was lower costs. But increased Washington mandates passed by this Senate only serve to produce fewer insurance choices, increased costs, and insert the Federal Government between patients and their doctors. It is time that we start talking honestly about how this law--even the things on which Republicans and Democrats agree--affected patients and their families. That is why I believe this health care law needs to be repealed. It should be repealed and replaced with better ideas. And there are better ideas--better ideas that were rejected by the majority in this Senate, who refused to listen, who refused to listen to the American people who were bringing forth better ideas, changes such as allowing people to buy insurance across State lines--that is going to bring down the cost of care, and it is going to help about 12 million people who did not have insurance get insurance; offering premium breaks to folks who make healthy lifestyle changes--absolutely critical; dealing with lawsuit abuse to help eliminate some of this defensive medicine and the increased cost of that practice. We need to allow small businesses to join together, to pool together in order to offer affordable health insurance to their workers, get better deals with insurance costs. These are changes that put patients in control of their medical decisions, not the government. People ask me, as a doctor, what I think about this, what I think about this law. I will tell you, having practiced medicine for over 25 years, we need to do something. This wasn't it. This law is bad for people. It is bad for people who are patients. It is bad for people who are providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of the patients. It is bad for payers, the taxpayers of this country who will foot a significant amount of the bill. The people who get their insurance through work--what is the impact going to be on those jobs and those businesses? This is a bill that is bad for people. We can and we must fix a broken health care system, but we can do it without undermining choice, which is what this health care law has done; without undermining competition, which is what this health care law has done; and without undermining innovation, which is what this health care law has done. And we need to do it without raiding Medicare to start a whole new government entitlement program. We can do it without raising taxes that kill jobs in a bad economy. That is why, as we are here today, 6 months after the enactment of this bill becoming law, the Obamacare law, 6 months later, 61 percent of the American people want it repealed. It is now time to repeal and replace this health care legislation and replace it with something that will work for the American people because that is what this country wants, that is what this country needs, that is what this country and the people of this country have been asking for all along, but the members of the majority and the White House refused to listen. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, for the past 6 months I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to offer my doctor's ``second opinion'' about the health reform law. Day after day, week after week, we continue to see disturbing news reports uncovering the law's consequences-- consequences that restrict individual freedoms, erode patient access to medical care, and increase our Nation's debt and deficit. Specifically, I have listened closely as President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly try to convince the American people that the health care law does not cut Medicare. Having practiced medicine for well over two decades, I can tell you that the Nation's Medicare patients and Medicare providers are not fooled. They know the Democrat's health care law cuts over $500 billion from the Medicare Program. They know the law does not use that money to make sure Medicare is strong and solvent for generations to come. They know the law raids Medicare and uses the money to start a brand new entitlement program for the nonelderly. America's seniors, and the medical professionals who treat them, understand that if we take over $500 billion away from Medicare then patients will lose benefits. They understand that if we take over $500 billion away from Medicare, then the quality of care will go down. They understand it will be increasingly difficult to see a doctor-- especially in rural and frontier States like Wyoming. And they understand the local community hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes, and skilled nursing facilities will struggle to keep their doors open. Over the August work period, I traveled all across the State of Wyoming--talking to folks at town meetings, parades, picnics, fairs, and rodeos. Everyone agrees Medicare is going broke--and that the new health care law does nothing to fix the problem. In fact, it only serves to make a bad situation worse. I want to share with the Senate a guest editorial printed in the Casper Journal. Written by Kathy Blair, a board certified orthopedic physical therapist, the article explains how proposed Medicare reimbursement cuts to physical and occupational therapists will limit patient access to medical care. On Friday, June 25, 2010, the Obama administration released its proposed 2011 Physician Fee Schedule rule and regulation. The draft rule sets Medicare payments for individual physician services. As Kathy's editorial explains, the new health care law requires the Administration to institute a so-called Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction--MPPR. Originally designed to impact payment for multiple surgeries performed simultaneously, the administration now plans to apply the MPPR policy to physical and occupational therapy services. This move is expected to cut Medicare physical and occupational therapy payments next year by 12 percent. I thank Kathy Blair for bringing this important matter to the Senate's attention and ask unanimous consent to have her editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the Senate returns to give a doctor's second opinion of the health care law. As the Presiding Officer knows because he has been here for so many of these speeches every week since this bill was signed into law, I have come to the Senate floor as a physician, an orthopedic surgeon, as someone who has taken care of families in the State of Wyoming since 1983, to give a doctor's second opinion of the new health care law and what I view is the impact it is going to have on health care in this country. The Presiding Officer knows that during the debate and discussions at the time of the health bill and now the health care law, I had many reservations. My concern was that it was going to be bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients--and bad for payers, the people paying their health care costs, as well as the taxpayers of this country. When the health care bill was signed into law, Democrats were extremely proud of it, and they were actually eager at that time to tell all of America about their vote. As a matter of fact, the Senate majority leader, Senator Reid, said: This is a happy day. We are going to hear an earful, but it is going to be an earful of wonderment and happiness that people waited for a long time. Here we are just 6 months later, but the new law is not greeted with happiness. It is not greeted with wonderment. Now the Democrats of this country are singing a very different tune. In fact, 56 percent of Americans want the law repealed. Each week, as I have given my second opinion, I have said it is time to repeal and replace this health care law. Now Democrats are completely changing their message about the new law. Now they no longer say the law will lower costs. They no longer say it will improve care. Instead, they now admit the law has some shortfalls, and they are talking about how they are working to improve it. This law needs to be repealed and replaced. I think that now the people of America know what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said, ``First we have to pass the law before you get to find out what is in it.'' That is what she said. Well, now the people of this country have found out what is in it, and they recognize that it is not good for the country. There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal last Friday. Kimberly Strassel talked about the health care law, and she said: A total of 279 House and Senate Democrats voted for ObamaCare. Now not one is running an ad touting that vote. How can they, given the headlines? But she does quote a number of Democrats who are running for election this year, and those Democrats are talking about why they voted against--against--the bill that the President claimed would be good for the country. These are Democrats voting against what they call ``massive government health care.'' That was one Member of the House. Another said she voted against the ``trillion-dollar health care plan.'' A former Governor of Georgia, a Democrat, said: Not only is ObamaCare ``financially devastating,'' it is ``the greatest failure, modern failure, of political leadership in my lifetime.'' While Congress was out of session in August, Politico ran a story entitled ``Dems Retreat on Health Care Cost Pitch.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I thought it was so important that more Americans should know about this. The article explains that: Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to ``improve it.'' Well, this new Democratic message strategy on health care was developed by key Democratic strategists and pollsters, and it was detailed in a 24-slide PowerPoint presentation. The language in the presentation is remarkable, and it is radically different from what President Obama and the Democrats on this floor promised during the debate about health care. This new Democratic spin demonstrates that people who voted for this bad law now recognize how unpopular it is with the people of this country and how it will never live up to the grand promises. That is why people all around the country were saying, ``Don't vote for this'' as people in this body were cramming this bill--and now law--down the throats of the American people. Well, rather than walk through all 24 slides, I wish to hit some of the highlights of the new Democratic health care message. Let's take a look at what they call ``Challenging Environment.'' They say: Straightforward policy defenses fail to be moving voters' opinions about the law. They say: The public is disappointed, anxious, and depressed by the current direction of the country--not trusting. Voters are concerned about rising health care costs and believe costs will continue to rise. That is in spite of promises made on this floor that it wouldn't happen. They say: Women in particular are concerned that the health care law will mean less provider availability--scarcity an issue. They say: Many don't believe health reform will help the economy. Well, there is a reason people don't trust Washington. There is a reason the policy defenses in the new law fail to move voter opinions, and it is because the new law is not good for patients; the new law is not good for providers--the nurses, the doctors, the hospitals, the home health aides, hospice care; and the new health care law is not good for the people who are going to be paying the bill. Let's take the next slide and make it personal. It says: Use personal stories coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law benefits people at the individual level to convey critical benefits of reform. Well, there are a lot of personal stories they won't tell you, and those are the personal stories including the small business owners all across this country who are being strangled by the redtape in this law, strangled by rules and regulations and expense. That is why we are looking at 9.6 percent unemployment in this country--because of the lack of certainty for small businesses and the increased expenses they are having to deal with as a result of this law. They won't tell you the stories about patients with preexisting conditions who did have insurance but now have been penalized by the new law because they played by the rules. Let's look at another slide. It says ``improve the law.'' The recommendation of the pollsters to the Democrats is ``use transition or bridge language to meet public where they are and relax their defenses.'' The American people know what they are talking about. Then they say: The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps many people. Now we'll work to improve it. The question is, does this new law help you, the American citizen, at home? That is the question. That is what people ask themselves. What is the impact of this going to be on my own health care? Is the new law helping you? Is the new law helping small businesses that can't seem to qualify for the tax credit the administration and the congressional Democrats promised, in spite of the fact that 4 million postcards were sent out to small businesses, and only a very small percentage of those could qualify for any of these tax opportunities? Were those people willing to cut the salaries of the employed and lay off others? That is why we voted against this bill. Is this new law helping individuals who, thanks to the new administration grandfathering rules and regulations, will lose their employer-sponsored health insurance plan? Is the new law helping seniors, who will see more than $500 billion robbed from Medicare-- seniors on Medicare Advantage, a program they signed up for intentionally because they know there is an advantage to being on that program, because it works with preventive care and it coordinates care? That is all gone. Is the new law helping the 18 million people who will find themselves locked into the Medicaid Program? Is the new law helping the millions of Americans who will see their health insurance premiums go up next year to comply with benefit mandates in the law? Instead of working to improve the law now, those on the other side of the aisle should have improved it before it was passed. Members of my party repeatedly wanted to work with Democrats to improve this legislation. Unfortunately, we were shut out of the process. Let's look at the next chart. It says ``blunt'' the mandate. Part of the new Democratic spin is to blunt the mandate. It says: Tap into the individual responsibility to blunt opposition to the mandate to have health insurance. Mandate? What is this mandate? It is a mandate that everybody in America has to have insurance. All individuals have to have it. All employers have to offer it. People either must buy insurance or employers must provide insurance. There is a mandate. Currently, 20 States are suing the Federal Government about the mandate. It also says: Those who choose not to have insurance and use the emergency room for routine care are increasing costs for the rest of us who have insurance. Well, let's look at a report from the Centers for Disease Control, which came out in May. It confirms that, as opposed to what this slide says, the uninsured don't visit the emergency room more often. Do you know who does? It is Medicaid patients. It shows that more than 30 percent of Medicaid patients under the age of 65 visited emergency rooms in this country at least once in 2007. This health care law locks 18 million more Americans into Medicaid, forcing them into the emergency rooms, because doctors frequently cannot afford to see them in their offices. So the question is: Will these 18 million more Americans who have been locked into Medicaid be able to find a physician to treat them? If not, how will the emergency rooms of this country cope when these patients use the ER as their primary care provider? We all know that the health care law was modeled after the Massachusetts State health reform plan. The Boston Globe reported on July 4 of this year that recent State data proved emergency room visits rose in Massachusetts by 9 percent, from 2004 to 2008--about 3 million visits a year. According to the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and their policy plan, providing insurance coverage may have actually contributed to the ER visit increase. But the goal was to lower the number of visits to the emergency room. Let's look at another chart that talks about what health care coverage Members of Congress have. It says: Supporters of the law and those campaigning need to highlight that Members of Congress will participate in the same plan. It is important to remember that the only reason Members of Congress are on the same plan is because Senators Coburn and Grassley fought for this. It is also important to remember that members of the congressional leadership, their staffs, White House employees, and other Federal employees will not be on the plan. Then let's look at the new head of Medicare and Medicaid, Dr. Berwick, who is someone named to that post in a recess appointment. His name didn't surface during the entire debate of the health care bill. Nobody was in charge of Medicare and Medicaid during the health care debate. Why? Because the President chose to not even name someone. When he finally named someone, this is someone who is in love with the British health care system. He made a number of quotes about rationing of care and ways that he envisioned the British health care system to be so much better than the U.S. health care system. Yet, Dr. Berwick has, as a result of his contract, from the group he worked with in Boston before taking this new job--a job that the President made a recess appointment for--somebody who never came to Congress to testify, never presented himself to the American people--I don't know what he is hiding. He doesn't have to live under the plan forced down the throats of the American people because his contract, when he left Boston, said that he will get care under them for life. So will his wife. So he is making rules and regulations that apply to the rest of the country but not to him. Let's look at another slide having to do with Medicare cuts. The new Democratic spin says: It is critical to reassure seniors that Medicare will not be cut. Then it says: Free preventive care. This is absolutely absurd and untrue. It is clear that the new law cuts $500 billion from our seniors on Medicare. It is not to save Medicare. It doesn't just start a whole new government program for someone else, but when I talk to seniors--and I have done this all over the last month, traveling around the State of Wyoming, visiting parades, picnics, fairs, and rodeos--the seniors say: If you want to change Medicare to save Medicare, we can deal with that, but not to start a whole new government program for someone else. The final slide I think is most telling. It is a slide that is a list of the don'ts. The new Democratic spin says: Don't assume that the public knows the health reform law passed, or if they know it passed, understand how it will affect them; don't list benefits outside of any personal context; don't barrage voters with a long list of benefits; don't use complex language or insider jargon; don't use heated political rhetoric or congratulatory language. And believe it or not, it also says on the slide the Democrats' pollsters put out: Don't say the law will reduce costs and deficit. Well, let's take a look at some of the quotes we heard leading up to passage of the law--promises by the President of the United States, by House Speaker Pelosi, and by Majority Leader Reid. The President met with Senate Democrats in December of 2009, before a vote in the Senate. He said: We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care. He says: Families will save on their premiums. He said: This will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade. Now the Democrats are being told: Don't say the law will reduce costs and the deficit. Isn't that what the President said to the Democrats in December of 2009? The American people have been misled. They can see through this. That is why they were screaming: Do not pass this law. Yet what the President said and now what the American people know to be the truth is the exact opposite. Let's look at what House Speaker Pelosi said. In March of this year she said: This is a triumph for the American people in terms of deficit reduction. This isn't going to reduce the deficit. Now, finally 6 months after it has been passed into law, the Democrats are admitting that this is not a triumph for the American people in terms of deficit reduction. Then Senator Reid, from that desk on the Senate floor, in November of last year, said: One of the major goals of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is to lower Federal health care costs and reduce the deficit. He then said: Our bill does that. The bill signed into law does not do that. And now even the Democrats, with their new spin, are saying that we better not keep saying it because the American people don't believe it. That is why 56 percent of the American people want this law repealed and replaced. The American people are sick of the spin. They deserve the truth about the new law and how it will impact their lives. It is clear that this law is not good for patients, it is not good for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of the patients--and it is not good for the payers--the taxpayers of this country and the people who pay their own health care costs. We need to repeal and replace this new law with a plan that will actually help our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, a good measure of the strength of a community is how they come together in a crisis. From June 4 to June 18, 2010, Fremont County, WY, experienced a 100-year flood. The spring runoff from the snowpack in the Wind River Mountains was heavier than usual, causing the Big Wind, Little Wind and Popo Agie Rivers to reach flood stages. Just when the citizens didn't think it could get worse, a cold front passed through, with rain and hail in lower elevations, and three to 6 feet of snow in the mountains. Lander, Riverton, Hudson, and the Wind River Indian Reservation were all threatened. As the flood waters rose, the Fremont County commissioners led by Chairman Doug Thompson and Vice Chairman Pat Hickerson along with the Joint Tribal Councils chaired by Ivan Posey and Harvey Spoonhunter came together to request a disaster designation from Wyoming's Governor Dave Freudenthal. As the 32 square miles of Fremont County were threatened by flood, the citizens rolled up their sleeves and worked together to protect life, livestock, and property. Under the steady guidance of incident commander, Craig Haslam, along with Joe Moore from Wyoming Homeland Security, 52 local, county, State and Federal agencies coordinated flood mitigation efforts. According to Fremont County resident Bill Sniffin, it was the biggest disaster effort of its type in Wyoming's history. It was inspiring to see Wyoming's National Guard working side-by-side with the Fremont County folks. The 400 soldiers, under the command of General Edward Wright and Colonel Luke Reiner, bagged sand, transported folks from houses, and were at the ready for whatever the community needed. Christian Venhuizen, at the Wyoming National Guard Public Affairs, served as information officer keeping the public and media informed throughout the entire flood. Kathi Metzler, director of Fremont County Emergency Management, and her assistant Vonda Huish opened a temporary office so they could manage the logistics that is part and parcel with coordinating so many different agencies. It was comforting having Kathi and Vonda close by to orchestrate the flurry of activity. We can only estimate the number of hours volunteers devoted to keeping the flood waters at bay. Some estimate 35,000 hours, others say it might be up to 50,000 hours. Almost a half million sandbags were filled. Folks donated their pickups and trailers to haul property and livestock to higher ground. This is quite an investment for a county with only 36,000 people. While the help of the government agencies was so important, neighbors helping neighbors kept damage to a minimum. Jim Buline and his son Robert, Lee Hansen and his son Jace, Travis Becker and his son Lars are a few of the many neighbors and friends who helped Charlie and Linda Griffin save their home on their historic ranch. Students from Wyoming Catholic College devoted all their time to help anyone in need. Jeri Trebelock and her staff from the Popo Agie Conservation District organized and worked with volunteers for bank stabilization to protect the Hunhke and Guschewsky homes as well as a mobile home park. In addition, all the Popo Estates landowners came together helping each other with sandbagging to protect their homes. These are just a few examples of the community spirit demonstrated by the folks in Fremont County. On Thursday, August 5, 2010, folks from Fremont County will gather at Mr. D's Grocery Store for a ``We Survived the Flood of 2010'' party. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the citizens of Fremont County and the 52 local, State, and Federal agencies for a job well done.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.