Floor Statements

I will assume I was next in the queue. I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture for bringing this conference report up. You know, I just want to point out to the American people that even though the total of this bill is $100 billion--That's--I rounded that off a little bit--only $25 billion gets to production agriculture. We could add in some conservation programs and watershed and this type of thing and probably get that up a little higher but not a lot.

What I am trying to say, better than half of this bill does not go to the farm and ranch producing community in this country, and yet the bill is $100 billion.

I have been on the Appropriations Committee since 1993. For 12 years, I have served with my colleagues in this body and have gone through a lot of conferences. I have chaired some. I have been ranking in some. There are a lot of good things in this bill that help my State of Montana and agriculture across this Nation, but if there is one shortcoming--I say, not very much of it gets to the farmers and ranchers out of this $100 billion. I was a county commissioner. I understand WIC. I understand nutrition programs. I understand food stamps for those folks who really need help. I'll tell you what, it is born in every one of us who comes out of the farm and ranch community: we do not like to see people hungry. We have always been like that.

With regard to this conference, we had four or five items that were very important that we have to address in this body, and we were closed down. Categorical exemptions, which my friend from Idaho just spoke on a few minutes ago, in forest rehabilitation, forest legacy, forest health--all of those programs are designed to help our timber communities take advantage of the great resource that is around them, and also it does a lot for fire prevention.

Another thing about this amendment we had on the prevention of the slaughter of horses for human consumption, we did not get that resolved. I invite any of my friends who voted for that amendment to come to my office and answer the phones because I'll tell you what, last Saturday there was a horse sale in Billings. If anything prompts some calls, just let somebody go to the next horse sale.

Then we got down to the country of origin labeling that was put into law and signed by the President of the United States in the 2002 farm bill. It is the law of the land, and an overwhelming majority of both this body and the House of Representatives voted to put it there. Yet we are denied the money to write the rules and regulations and implement the law and put it into effect.

This year, they just said: We are going to go voluntary for 2 more years. I am going to tell you something, that has not worked. Now, there is nothing done here that is done in the dark of night. It is the law. Did we accomplish getting it implemented in this bill? No, we are delayed for two more years.

What is even worse, there was no debate and no vote in the conference committee while the conference was going on. Just like I said, I have chaired conference committees on appropriations, and we did not leave that room until all of the issues that were still on the table were dealt with, folks got to debate them, we listened to them, and we got an up-or-down vote.

I am not really concerned about the results of a vote; I am concerned about a vote. So this was something that was done that absolutely was beyond my belief.

We know that our cattle producers are pretty proud of their product. They produce a good product. We do not feed a lot of cattle in Montana, but we raise a lot of feeder cattle. They go to Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska to be finished out. They produce a great product for America's dinner tables, the greatest source of protein we have in our diet. They also want to know where it comes from, and that is being denied our producers today.

I heard from my colleagues who say they should delay COOL until the farm bill. They say the law will not work and we need to rewrite it. I agree with some of that, but there are provisions right now that are in the current labeling law that need to be implemented.

So I seriously doubt that any of my cattle producers can be convinced at this point that Congress intends to make a good-faith effort to improve the law as it stands today. We have had three years to work on that law, and the only thing Congress has delivered to the hard-working ranchers in my country is one delay after another, and that is unacceptable.

We have given the meat packers years to volunteer and voluntarily label the meat. Not one packer has done that. Now, we have labeling on that. We have certified Angus beef, and we have a lot of house brands and house labels and some breeds of cattle promote their production, but nothing says ``USA.'' These delays are not designed to help us improve this important law; they are just a way that the packers get their way.

In all likelihood, this evening the Senate will debate this issue, and tomorrow we will pass this conference report. I did not sign the report, and I shall vote against it tomorrow even though there are some very good things in here, but enough is enough.

Given the hysteria of the meat packers, one would think that COOL assistance would destroy the whole industry, and one would think origin labeling is some outlandish, unheard of concept when it has been around for the last four years. Packers whine about labeling products in the United States, and the packers are engaged in country-of-origin labeling in foreign markets. I do not see what the difference is? It feels to me like you have been discriminated against for your product? And those who do not want labeling, are you not proud of your product? Are you afraid to put your brand on it? Afraid to put a label on it? What is the problem?

Most of our major trading partners require country-of-origin labeling on imported beef and beef products. I could go all night about the situation in which we find ourselves in regarding to beef trade with Japan. We took a pretty tough stand. I believe that it is time that markets be opened.

New Zealand passed a COOL law just last week at the very same time that this conference was shirking its duty to the American cattle producers.

By the way, New Zealand is not afraid to put a label on their lamb. One can go to any grocery store, and the package says, ``New Zealand lamb.'' They are proud of that product. Yet we do not want to do that. Consumers in the United States do not deserve to know where their beef comes from, but foreign consumers do. That is the message we are sending on this conference report tonight.

We know that foreign consumers demand U.S. beef. It is pretty plain. I have talked to the consumers in Japan. They are getting ready to serve these beef bowls. It is the most desired product we ship there. Yet by their standards, they have decided to keep

our product off of their market. They have nerve enough to come here and expect us to accept theirs when they have a larger problem than we do in that arena. So Congress is telling the producers that they lose out again in this conference report with a delay provision put in at conference with no debate and no vote.

I will cast a vote against the conference report when it comes up tomorrow. This is a terrible way to do business in the Senate. We can do better in this body. We can respect everyone's opinion and everybody's amendment and everybody's bill, but give them a vote.

We are going to talk about a judge one of these days, and we are going to say he deserves an up-or-down vote. This issue does, too. There is no difference. And we were denied it.

So I am disappointed, but yet we move along and there will be another day when again we will saddle up and try to get this legislation implemented, which basically is the law of the land. Make no mistake about it, this hurts our credibility. We better start taking our job very seriously. Instead, we are taking ourselves too seriously.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the introduction of my bill, the Medicare Telehealth Enhancement Act of 2005.

Now, not all of us live in the big city--like New York City or Chicago--but that should not mean that all of us cannot receive the same quality health care. Since I have been in office, I have spent a lot of time making sure that folks who live out in the hinterland--like the small towns of Scobey or Jordan or Wolf Point across Montana--still get quality health care, like everyone else. I do not want distance to be a barrier to care.

One of the ways we have bridged these divides is through telehealth-- actually using technology to draw people together and deliver care. Now, across the great State of Montana, we have doctors consulting with patients who may be 200 or 300 miles away. That means those folks who live in the middle of nowhere do not have to drive 400 miles roundtrip, just to get a medical opinion on symptoms they may have or minor changes which may need to be made to their diabetes equipment, or feedback from an x-ray at a local clinic, from a specialist. That is a big deal, especially when roads are icy and the temperature is below zero.

I have sponsored the Medicare Telehealth Enhancement Act of 2005, which is a bill to improve the provisions of telehealth services under the Medicare Program and provide grants for the development of telehealth networks.

Specifically, my bill will: facilitate the provision of telehealth services across State lines, Licensure, as it affects providers who consult diagnose across State lines, remains a significant barrier to accessing such services, and call for Medicare reimbursement for remote medical and health services for all remaining institutions eligible to participate in Medicare but not currently eligible to be reimbursed for telemedicine/telehealth services.

Include an expansion of Medicare-covered originating telehealth sites, prioritizing eligibility for nursing homes, dialysis centers, and community-based mental health centers.

Revise ``originating site'' language to ensure telehealth service providers are reimbursement-eligible when patients are located at sites with telehealth capabilities, regardless of originating site designation.

Expand Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services to all geographical areas, recognizing eligibility for telehealth sites among urban populations as well as rural and underserved populations.

Allow for ``eligible practitioners'' furnishing telehealth services to include physical and occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, and other certified providers, as well as those the Secretary of Health and Human Services approves.

Amend Medicare coverage to all remaining medical services currently covered under the CPT procedure codes but not eligible to be reimbursed when provided via telemedicine/telehealth, and medical services that are provided using store-and-forward technology.

Authorize a grant program through the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth of HRSA for the development of telehealth networks and defines nonprofit and for-profit alliances as grant-eligible provided the grant recipient is a nonprofit.

Reauthorize the Telehealth Network and Telehealth Resource Centers grant programs through 2012.

Shortages of health care workers across the spectrum are nothing new.

We have all witnessed this disturbing trend of shortages in nursing, radiology, mental health professions, and many other health professionals for quite some time. While the ultimate solution to this problem lies in a variety of actions, telehealth has proven a solution to this mounting crisis. I have long supported efforts in technology to improve the efficiency and quality of health care, and make it easier for folks in rural areas to get the health services they need. Telehealth is one answer to the access and affordability problems facing health care today, and I hope my bill will increase the ease with which folks obtain their critical health services.

Telehealth applications have a record of cutting costs, increasing choice and reducing medical errors in facilities and communities across the country. Telehealth also provides services to elderly who may not otherwise be able to get to a health care facility for care. This is growing increasingly important in rural America--especially in my State of Montana. Montana's demographics have been changing over the past few years, and our health care providers continue to see more and more patients over the age of 65. We now have more elderly people per capita than most States in the union, and by 2025, Montana is predicted to rank third in the Nation in the number of people over the age of 65.

We must charge forward to modernize and improve healthcare through the application of information technology. Healthcare expenditures in 2003 totaled $1.7 trillion--a number that is growing faster than the overall economy. Increased adoption of health information technology has the potential to save this country billions of dollars and thousands of lives. I want to do what I can to bring more money to the State of Montana for telehealth services and expand the availability of these services to more patients in more areas than ever before. I will continue my efforts, both through bringing money to Montana to make this happen and by passing meaningful, common-sense legislation to get rid of the over-burdensome red-tape that often gets in the way of good care.

I think it is essential to bring quality health care to all comers of Montana and other rural States. It is high time we bring back the dynamic days of these frontier areas by creating and maintaining vibrant and thriving communities, which have so much to offer their residents, including one of the most important basic needs--health care.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the introduction of my bill, the Medicare Telehealth Enhancement Act of 2005.

Now, not all of us live in the big city--like New York City or Chicago--but that should not mean that all of us cannot receive the same quality health care. Since I have been in office, I have spent a lot of time making sure that folks who live out in the hinterland--like the small towns of Scobey or Jordan or Wolf Point across Montana--still get quality health care, like everyone else. I do not want distance to be a barrier to care.

One of the ways we have bridged these divides is through telehealth-- actually using technology to draw people together and deliver care. Now, across the great State of Montana, we have doctors consulting with patients who may be 200 or 300 miles away. That means those folks who live in the middle of nowhere do not have to drive 400 miles roundtrip, just to get a medical opinion on symptoms they may have or minor changes which may need to be made to their diabetes equipment, or feedback from an x-ray at a local clinic, from a specialist. That is a big deal, especially when roads are icy and the temperature is below zero.

I have sponsored the Medicare Telehealth Enhancement Act of 2005, which is a bill to improve the provisions of telehealth services under the Medicare Program and provide grants for the development of telehealth networks.

Specifically, my bill will: facilitate the provision of telehealth services across State lines, Licensure, as it affects providers who consult diagnose across State lines, remains a significant barrier to accessing such services, and call for Medicare reimbursement for remote medical and health services for all remaining institutions eligible to participate in Medicare but not currently eligible to be reimbursed for telemedicine/telehealth services.

Include an expansion of Medicare-covered originating telehealth sites, prioritizing eligibility for nursing homes, dialysis centers, and community-based mental health centers.

Revise ``originating site'' language to ensure telehealth service providers are reimbursement-eligible when patients are located at sites with telehealth capabilities, regardless of originating site designation.

Expand Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services to all geographical areas, recognizing eligibility for telehealth sites among urban populations as well as rural and underserved populations.

Allow for ``eligible practitioners'' furnishing telehealth services to include physical and occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, and other certified providers, as well as those the Secretary of Health and Human Services approves.

Amend Medicare coverage to all remaining medical services currently covered under the CPT procedure codes but not eligible to be reimbursed when provided via telemedicine/telehealth, and medical services that are provided using store-and-forward technology.

Authorize a grant program through the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth of HRSA for the development of telehealth networks and defines nonprofit and for-profit alliances as grant-eligible provided the grant recipient is a nonprofit.

Reauthorize the Telehealth Network and Telehealth Resource Centers grant programs through 2012.

Shortages of health care workers across the spectrum are nothing new.

We have all witnessed this disturbing trend of shortages in nursing, radiology, mental health professions, and many other health professionals for quite some time. While the ultimate solution to this problem lies in a variety of actions, telehealth has proven a solution to this mounting crisis. I have long supported efforts in technology to improve the efficiency and quality of health care, and make it easier for folks in rural areas to get the health services they need. Telehealth is one answer to the access and affordability problems facing health care today, and I hope my bill will increase the ease with which folks obtain their critical health services.

Telehealth applications have a record of cutting costs, increasing choice and reducing medical errors in facilities and communities across the country. Telehealth also provides services to elderly who may not otherwise be able to get to a health care facility for care. This is growing increasingly important in rural America--especially in my State of Montana. Montana's demographics have been changing over the past few years, and our health care providers continue to see more and more patients over the age of 65. We now have more elderly people per capita than most States in the union, and by 2025, Montana is predicted to rank third in the Nation in the number of people over the age of 65.

We must charge forward to modernize and improve healthcare through the application of information technology. Healthcare expenditures in 2003 totaled $1.7 trillion--a number that is growing faster than the overall economy. Increased adoption of health information technology has the potential to save this country billions of dollars and thousands of lives. I want to do what I can to bring more money to the State of Montana for telehealth services and expand the availability of these services to more patients in more areas than ever before. I will continue my efforts, both through bringing money to Montana to make this happen and by passing meaningful, common-sense legislation to get rid of the over-burdensome red-tape that often gets in the way of good care.

I think it is essential to bring quality health care to all comers of Montana and other rural States. It is high time we bring back the dynamic days of these frontier areas by creating and maintaining vibrant and thriving communities, which have so much to offer their residents, including one of the most important basic needs--health care.

Mr. President, because I support innovation and continued economic growth, I am pleased to announce my cosponsorship of S. 627, the Investment in America Act of 2005 sponsored by my colleague Senator Hatch.

With a permanent R&D tax credit, companies will no longer have to worry about the potential for expiration and may more accurately gauge long-term investment for research and development. Certainty to the market will help provide much-needed stability and assist U.S. companies in overseas competition. This permanent tax credit will allow companies the flexibility they want, and gives them the time needed to develop new and innovative ideas.

In global terms, it is extremely important that the United States remains a leader in a variety of sectors, from technology to manufacturing. Countries such as France, Japan, Australia, Pakistan, Spain, India, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, United Kingdom, and Canada all have permanent R&D credits. If we want to stay competitive, we must put our country on at least equal footing to that of our foreign competitors.

In Montana, over 100 companies engage in research and development and stand to benefit from the R&D tax credit. When Steve Lethert, controller of Wood's Powr-Grip Company from Laurel, MT, visited my office, he expressed that a permanent tax incentive is vital to his company's growth. This bill will not only help the United States economy at large but will benefit those in the Big Sky State.

In March 2004 when Senator Hatch proposed to extend the credit for 18 months during debate of the Jumpstart Our Business Strength, JOBS, Act of 2004. I was pleased to support that measure, and hope that the Senate will soon provide permanency to such an advantageous tool for our businesses.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman for his continued efforts to ensure a strong national defense. I am well aware of the tight budget structures the subcommittee faced when marking up the bill. I would like to draw attention to two important programs for future consideration that may have great benefit to our military.

The refurbishment of aircraft fuselages and engines, ships, and jet engine turbine blades requires the removal of paint and other coatings, but can be extremely costly if, while removing the coating, the underlying surface is damaged. I am told that laser technology is able to detect, in real time, when coatings have been removed, thus avoiding damage to the item being serviced. Further, I am told the Air Force Research Laboratory has expressed interest in spectroscopy-based technology as it may assist them in developing robotic systems for coatings removal of large off-aircraft components, as well as developing systems in the future for de-coating large on-aircraft components.

Providing for a lightweight replacement for Air Field Matting, AM2, is among the Top Ten mission critical technology needs of the Department of Defense. AM2 is an outdated 40-year old system currently used by the Air Force, Marine Corps and Army to establish temporary airport systems in the field. I have learned it may be too heavy to deploy easily and unsuitable for missions where mobility and speed are necessary. Lattice Block Structures may be an option to serve as a stronger, lighter and more portable replacement to the antiquated AM2 matting. Fiscal year 2006 funding for Lattice Block Structures could enable DOD to more rapidly establish temporary airfields in support of critical military missions.

Mr. President, this week, I learned of another young person from Montana who had been killed in Iraq. PFC Andrew Bedard was only 19 and died Monday when the Humvee he was driving hit a roadside bomb.

Andrew Bedard was from Missoula and a 2004 graduate of Hellgate High School. He joined the Marine Corps shortly after graduation and had only finished basic training earlier this year in San Diego. He had been in Iraq for close to only one month, when his life ended because of another improvised explosive device, or ``IED'' while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province. The military had recently launched a new offensive against insurgents in western Iraq.

Those who knew him best describe Andrew as a personable, positive guy who was friends with most people he ran into and cared a great deal about his family and friends. I actually met Andrew a few years ago when he and I were involved in a fender bender in Missoula. He was courteous and respectful, and I can say that he was a fine young man.

Like me, Andrew was in the U.S. Marine Corps. If they can find solace in anything, his loved ones must know that his country is proud of his honorable service in upholding the freedoms and ideals which make this country great.

My heart and prayers go out to the Bedard family, as well as the loved ones of all others lost in this War on Terror. Private First Class Bedard, unfortunately, was the 13th man with Montana ties to die in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001. Other Montanans who have been killed in combat in Operation Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom are:

SPC Travis Arndt of Great Falls was the 12th man with Montana ties to lose his life in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Marine LCpl Nicholas Bloem of Bozeman was killed in Iraq on Aug. 3, the day after his 20th birthday, when a roadside bomb was exploded under his amphibious assault vehicle. He was one of 14 Marines killed from the Ohio-based 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Division.

Marine Cpl Raleigh Smith, 21, of Troy was killed two days before Christmas 2004 by enemy fire in Fallujah, Iraq.

Marine LCpl Nathan R. Wood, 19, a Great Falls native who has moved to

Kirkland, WA. He was killed Nov. 19, 2004, as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq.

Army SSG Aaron N. Holleyman, 26, of Glasgow was killed Aug. 30, 2004, in Khutayiah, Iraq, when his military vehicle hit an improvised explosive device.

Marine LCpl Kane M. Funke, 20, who attended high school in Kalispell before moving to Vancouver, WA. He was killed Aug. 13, 2004, as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq.

Marine Cpl Dean P. Pratt, 22, of Stevensville, who died Aug. 2, 2004, also as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province.

Army PFC Owen D. Witt, 20, of Sand Springs was killed May 24, 2004, in Ad Dawr, Iraq, when his armored high-mobility-multipurpose-wheeled vehicle rolled over.

Army Reserve 1 LT Edward M. Saltz, 27, of Bigfork was killed Dec. 22, 2003, in Baghdad when the convoy in which he was riding was hit by an improvised explosive device.

Army Ranger PFC Kristofer T. Stonesifer, 28, of Missoula was killed Oct. 21, 2001, in a Blackhawk helicopter crash in Pakistan as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Army 1 LT Josh Hyland, a Missoula soldier who enlisted in ROTC at the University of Montana on Sept. 12, 2001, was one of four Americans killed in Afghanistan when a bomb detonated underneath a wooden bridge they were passing over.

This old Marine was lucky to come home from service in Korea. These brave souls for whatever reason were not. I thank them for what they did to protect my family and others across this country and around the world. They did not die in vain and will not be forgotten. We, as a nation, mourn the loss of every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution offered by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Pete Domenici. For many years, I have supported his efforts to identify a week in October as National Character Counts Week. The important aspect of this legislation is its focus on children. Children growing up in these times often face much more difficult experiences and must mature more quickly than when I was young. One of fastest growing problems in Montana is the rate of methamphetamine use and addiction by teens. All it takes is one try--teens get hooked trying to recreate that first rush. It is vitally important to encourage young people to have positive role models in their lives in

order to develop a strong, positive character to avoid the temptation to try meth or engage in other dangerous behaviors. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I thank Senator Domenici for his leadership.

Mr. President, today I join several of my colleagues in support of S. 1496, the Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005.

The Federal Duck Stamp Program has become one of the most popular and successful conservation programs ever initiated. Enacted in 1934, the Duck Stamp Act requires every waterfowl hunter to purchase a duck stamp in order to legally hunt migratory waterfowl. Through the purchase of the Federal duck stamp, sportsmen from across the country have contributed billions of dollars annually to the economy. Nearly $2 billion of this revenue has been used for wildlife conservation.

Times have changed and I believe it is time to modernize the way sportsmen buy duck stamps. The Electronic Duck Stamp Act will change the way Montana sportsmen and hunters across the country purchase their duck stamp. This concept follows on the heels of other programs used by sportsmen to purchase their hunting licenses, permits, and conservation stamps through means of the Internet. The 24-hour access to purchase these stamps will be especially useful in Montana and other States with rural communities. The e-duck stamp will be more cost effective and hunters will be able to forego a trip to town before heading to the field.

The Electronic Duck Stamp Act requires the Secretary of the Interior conduct a 3-year pilot program under which, hopefully, Montana and 14 other States may issue the electronic stamps. The price for the stamp will remain unchanged at $15. Stamps may be purchased over the phone or Internet giving sportsmen additional flexibility. Purchasers will receive immediate access to a verification number which will allow them to legally hunt waterfowl. This number will then eventually be replaced by an actual paper stamp.

This will be a very popular program and will benefit many American men and women who enjoy hunting waterfowl. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this piece of legislation for not only my State of Montana but other States as well.

Mr. President, today I opposed the Harkin amendment No. 1921, on the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program.

Most of us know the important role that the Community Service Block Grant Program plays in addressing the needs of folks on limited incomes in Montana and across this country. The programs it encompasses go a long way toward softening some of the conditions and addressing the causes of poverty. The range of services include everything from low- income energy assistance, nutrition and housing programs, Head Start education, and other vital services offered by community action agencies.

I strongly support the CSBG Program--I always have--and I will continue to support full funding of CSBG again in the fiscal year 2006 Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. The Senate version of the bill funds CSBG at almost $637 million, while the House of Representatives funded the program only at $320 million. Earlier this year, I signed a letter to my colleagues on the Senate's Appropriations Subcommittee on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, outlining my support for funding CSBG at $650 million fiscal year 2006. All the Senate needs to do now is its work in passing the fiscal year 2006 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill and getting it to conference where this important program and the countless others' funding levels may be reconciled with the House bill.

I have no doubt the CSBG Program will be funded sufficiently this year, contrary to the benchmark the House of Representatives has set. Given that this situation will be resolved with the completion of the appropriation process, along with the fact that I do not believe we should hold up this continuing resolution and other important appropriation bills, such as the Defense bill which provides funding for our men and women in harm's way, or shut down the Government because of this amendment--for something I feel confident will be funded anyway. Voting for this amendment would have shut down the Government, thereby completely eliminating any of the funding mechanisms in place to continue helping those most in need. I was not willing to jeopardize their well-being.

Madam President, after listening to my friend from Colorado and my good friend from South Carolina, and then to look at the statement that I have, it appears we are all saying about the same thing, but we just all haven't had the opportunity to say it yet. I will try to put a little different slant on it.

We know the qualifications of this man, Judge Roberts. He has consistently shown me excellence in all aspects of his previous academic and his professional career. He is widely thought of as one of the best legal minds in the country, is highly respected by his colleagues as a fairminded, brilliant, and temperate jurist. He graduated from Harvard College summa cum laude. He did it in only 3 years. He then graduated from Harvard Law School at the top of his class.

Less than 3 years ago, Judge Roberts was confirmed by a unanimous vote to the DC Court of Appeals, which is often referred to, as my friend from Colorado says, as the second highest court in the land. He was also a partner in the prestigious law firm of Hogan & Hartson. He specialized in U.S. Supreme Court litigation, arguing numerous cases before the very Court to which we seek to confirm him today. Further, he had an active practice in appellate law.

I guess what we look for in the men and women we like to see on the country's highest Court is pretty much found in all the qualifications of Judge Roberts. He had worked in the private sector. He also worked in the White House under President Ronald Reagan as Associate Counsel. In addition, he earned a highly prestigious clerkship on the Supreme Court for Chief Justice William Rehnquist--that in 1980 and 1981. Then he was nominated by this President and went before the Judiciary Committee.

We watched those hearings with a great deal of interest. I speak not as a member of that committee or even as an attorney, but what we heard more than anything else--and this is important to my State of Montana-- is that we will have a qualified, fair, and competent Supreme Court Justice. That is important. When questioned on all of those qualifications, fairness, and competence, no one challenged any part of those elements. In this respect, Judge Roberts earned the ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, which is the highest rating that association offers. There was no challenge there.

He continually impressed my colleagues in the Senate by showing his immense knowledge of the law while reflecting his vast understanding of the rule of law and the importance of precedent. There was no challenge there.

What becomes important is that we know that our Supreme Court Justices understand their duty is to interpret the law as it is reflected in the cases that come before them and refrain from personal biases and from legislating or putting their biases into those cases.

He impressed me when he said that he wanted to be the umpire. He didn't want to be the pitcher or the batter; he just wants to call the balls and the strikes. I appreciate that. I spent a lot of years on a football field, and I was one of those who wore the striped shirt. When I look back on that game, maybe our judiciary should be a little bit like this great American sports feature of football. When you think about it, 4 old referees--some of them overweight

whom I could talk about--go out on a field of 22 young men who are hostile, mobile, and bent on hurting each other, and we have very few problems because those striped shirts are the arresting officers, the judges, and the penal officers. They do it in 30 seconds, and they do it without very many complaints. Thus the discipline of the game: 22 young men in armor and dead set on winning the contest.

Throughout his hearings before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Roberts proved over and over that he understands the role of the judiciary as an interpreter and not a legislator and why it is important to our governmental system that our judges across America refrain from overstepping their duties. The law is the law. Yes, it can be a subject of interpretation, but look how simple our Constitution is. It doesn't use very many big words. They are very simple. There is a lot of difference between the word ``may'' and the word ``shall,'' and you can interpret them.

He explained his judicial style during his hearings by saying:

I prefer to be known as a modest judge . . . It means an

appreciation that the role of the judge is limited, that a

judge is to decide the cases before them. . . .

They are not to change it or use their biases to execute a judgment. That is pretty important.

When you look at his private life, the values of how he has progressed in his professional life, how he has carried himself and what is personally important to him--family, being a good husband, a provider--we see all of those values that we Americans hold in very high esteem.

Then we move it over into now what kind of a judge will he be. He was questioned on a lot of social issues that the courts have no business even considering. That falls on us, the elected representatives of America, and our constituency. What their values are should be reflected here. Yet what I heard was questions on human rights.

It is a wonderful thing, this Constitution we have. The Constitution was not written for groups, it was written for you as the individual. It is your personal Bill of Rights and how we structure our Government and the role of each one of those equal entities and how they relate and interact with each other--the executive, the judicial, and the legislative.

It is important to me and the people I represent that we have judges on the bench who will not prejudge cases. He may have a bias one way or the other, but what does the law say as it pertains to me as an individual citizen? This judge made his own commitment to listening, to hearing both sides of the case, and is committed to a fair and reasonable outcome, whether the judge personally likes or dislikes the eventual results. His approach to the law, simply put, is one of restraint. He is shown not to be an ideologue with an intent of imposing his views or his biases on the law.

Will he always rule in a way that would be consistent with my philosophy? I would say no. I have a feeling, though, however he rules will be fair, and he will not compromise any of the principles of the law as written. He explained:

As a judge I have no agenda, I have a guide in the

Constitution and the laws that are precedents to the court,

and those are what I apply with an open mind after fully and

fairly considering the arguments and assessing the considered

views of my colleagues on the bench.

I am not sure if it is the job to really draw a consensus when you have nine men and women who have strong views of the law and the Constitution and maybe would interpret them in many different ways, but what this man has shown us is strong character, integrity, and his immense knowledge of the law.

Uphold the Constitution, which protects us all--and we have heard a lot about that lately. People who are maybe short of patience would come up to us and ask, What is taking Iraq so long to get a constitution? I said, You know, it took almost 3 years to put ours together.

I still question: If we had had television and news channels, spin meisters, commentators, and reporters who seemed to inject their bias every now and again into the news, I am not real sure we would have a Constitution yet.

This man has shown us he has all the qualifications to be a judge, especially a judge on the highest Court in the Nation.

On behalf of my constituents in Montana, and from all that I can read and all the information I can gather, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting aye on Judge Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States.

When the premise was wrong, he wasn't afraid to challenge the premise. That is unique when coming before any kind of a committee in a legislative body. That is what impressed me. The premise is assumed instead of factual. That is the importance to all of us when making judgments that affect so many of us in our daily lives.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, we understand in the House bill there is one section that deals with the country-of-origin labeling. This has been one of the most heated debates we have had in the livestock industry. It seems like it comes up every year.

In 2002, a mandatory country-of-origin labeling law was passed in the farm bill. I remind my colleagues it is the law of the land. It was signed into law. USDA was directed to start writing the administrative rules that all meat being imported into the United States have a label on it and also that meat domestically produced would also have a label saying: ``Made in the U.S.A.'' That was in 2002. That was 3 years ago. We have gone through this debate, and I know sometimes it gets carried away and is very emotional. I understand in the House bill there is another delay in putting the rules into effect.

Now, whether you agree or do not agree with the mandatory law, it is the law of the land. This old business of delay and delay and delay does not do anything for our beef or pork producers because there is no consistency in the law. They do not know what to expect and what to do.

In Montana, my producers are tired of waiting. The USDA published a proposed rule on mandatory country-of-origin labeling on October 27, 2003.

The public had a chance to comment. In fact, they even extended the comment period to give folks extra time to weigh in on this important issue. Three years have gone by, and here we are--no progress on labeling. This is unacceptable. The Department needs to publish a final rule, and they need to do it now. It is long past time to implement country-of-origin labeling. It is the law of the land. If you don't like the law, then repeal the law. But let's move on. At a minimum, at least let us take a look at the rule. Congress voted to delay COOL once already, and the anti-COOL forces are at it again. But we don't know what the labeling requirements will look like. So the USDA needs to act and to take a leadership role, and it needs to be published.

My producers in Montana will not tolerate another day of delay in this important program. We need to get it done, and it needs to be done right. And it needs to be mandatory. If Congress votes to make COOL voluntary, they may just as well repeal the law because voluntary COOL, or country-of-origin labeling, will not work.

In October of 2002, the Secretary did publish guidelines for a voluntary labeling program. Any retailer who chose could begin labeling their products. There is a lot of misconception and misinformation. Some would contend that if we have a mandatory labeling law, that would take precedence over a marketing label. In other words, if you wanted to label beef as certified Angus beef, they couldn't do that. Sure, they can do that. They can do it as long as it is domestically produced, and the vast majority of it is, or any other marketing tool that a State should have or that a product should have can still be published, but we have to have a label USA.

Since we put it off and the voluntary rule has been in effect, I wonder if anybody knows how many people took advantage of that voluntary program. It doesn't take long to count them: zero, none, zilch. Some of my friends say before we mandate a program, let's try making it voluntary. Well, we tried that. It has been a 3-year period. Nobody has used it. Nobody participated in a voluntary labeling program. Now it is time to shift the balance of power to the world of agricultural marketing.

Overwhelmingly, the folks who support country-of-origin labeling are small cow/calf producers. These are the people who work hard every day to raise healthy calves, produce a product, highest quality beef in the world. They take a lot of pride in their products. They want consumers to know that their beef was made in America, made in the good old USA. But they don't have a whole lot to say about this decision, though, because after they sell their calves, they go to a feedlot, and from the feedlot they go into processing. From processing they go into the retail channels. Somebody doesn't want to say this is a product of the USA. Costly, have to trace, herd ID--all of those things, yes, there will probably be a little work to it. But labeling is no more than putting the label on of their own logo. It is time we did it.

Cow/calf people right now have not had much luck in sharing our pride with our product. That is why Congress must act. Congress has acted. We have passed mandatory COOL 2002. It is the law of the land. That is the way it should be. Yet every year when Congress takes up Agriculture appropriations, we face another attempt on the part of some to prevent cattle producers from marketing their products as U.S. origin. What I am saying today is; enough is enough. Congress passed the law. Let's implement it. Producers are tired of waiting around. If you don't like the law, then repeal the law. But don't keep us in this limbo of standing here and waiting for something to happen, knowing that it never will.

I know we will try and deal with this, whether it be on the Senate floor--I would probably prefer not because the chairman of the Agriculture appropriations said maybe this is a time that we should have a little scrap in conference, and that is where I think it should be done. I trust his judgment on that. But, nonetheless, I want everybody to know--and I want the House of Representatives to know-- that this is irresponsible. You passed that law just like we did. If you didn't like the law, then for goodness' sake, stand up and have nerve enough to repeal it. But if it is not repealed, let's implement it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I congratulate Thomas A. Grau, CPCU, who is near the end of his term as the 100th president of the Nation's largest insurance association, the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, IIABA. He was elected to IIABA's executive committee in September 1999, and was installed as the organization's president last October. Tom is an executive with the Cogswell Agency in Great Falls, MT.

During Tom's year as president, IIABA accomplished a number of milestone achievements. It sought--and earned--the honor of a major policy address to its members by President Bush in April. The association met its goal of having 5,000 agencies on board as members of its Trusted Choice' branding initiative, and did so 6 months

ahead of schedule. It continued its momentum in the area of agency technology and paid off the mortgage on its headquarters in Alexandria,

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