Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise, too, on behalf of South Dakota's cattle producers to voice my support for country-of-origin labeling and also to express my profound disappointment in the tactics that were employed to derail country-of-origin labeling in the bill under consideration this evening.

I have been a supporter of mandatory country-of-origin labeling since first being elected to the House of Representatives in 1996. I offered the country-of-origin labeling amendment in the House Agricultural Committee 2002 farm bill deliberations. Figuratively speaking, that was a bloody battle. Anyone who was in the room will tell you we spent 4 hours fighting over this issue about whether to include country-of- origin labeling in the 2002 farm bill. The truth of the matter is, even though at that particular point in the process we were not able to get included in the House farm bill, we were later on, when the bill went into conference with the Senate, the Senate adopted a provision, and we were able to retain that provision. So when the 2002 farm bill conference report was reported to the floor of the House and the Senate, it included mandatory country-of-origin labeling. It was passed overwhelmingly by the House and the Senate, put on the President's desk and signed into law. In fact, it was signed into law by the President back on May 13, 2002.

I assumed at that time that we had achieved a major victory for the ranchers that we represent, the cattle producers in places such as South Dakota and other areas of the country. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Even though country-of-origin labeling has been the law of the land since that day, it has been on the receiving end of an onslaught of attacks and delays. Where I come from, a deal is a deal. The Congress, the elected Representatives of the people of this country, through the 2002 farm bill, adopted a provision that would implement mandatory country-of-origin labeling. Under the 2002 farm bill, country-of-origin labeling was set to be implemented by September in 2004. The fiscal year 2004 agriculture appropriations bill--and at that time I was not in the Congress--delayed implementation until September of 2006. And now the conference report we have before the Senate today will delay it even further, until 2008.

It always ends up being done in the dark of night. As was noted earlier by several of my colleagues in the Senate, the House negotiators came to this process and walked away from the table, not even giving us an opportunity to debate this in the light of the day. It would be great to have the debate on the floor, but even in the conference there was not an opportunity for Members of the Senate to have their voices heard through a vote on that particular provision.

If you want to rewrite the 2002 farm bill, don't do it in a conference committee, for crying out loud. Let's do it in the light of day. Let's at least give the members in the conference committee an opportunity to vote up or down on this issue. I believe if the members of that conference committee had that opportunity, those in favor of country-of-origin labeling would have prevailed.

I have heard the arguments against mandatory country-of-origin labeling more times than I can count. While I respect my colleagues and their views, I disagree with those who oppose this program and wish to delay it to death.

My colleague from Texas suggested this is a bad thing, we cannot implement this. How do we know? We have not implemented it yet. We passed the law. The people's representatives of the Congress spoke out in favor and made it part of the 2002 farm bill. We have lots of people, naysayers, now saying it will never work. How do we know? It has never been implemented.

The deal we struck back in 2002, and the commitment we made to the producers of this country and to the consumers of this country, has now been derailed not once but twice. Literally, it is death by a thousand cuts to the producers across this country who believe the Congress had taken their side and made a commitment to implement this legislation.

My colleague from Texas--again, whose views on this I certainly respect--suggests we just have a voluntary system. The people who are opposed to doing this mandatory country-of-origin labeling, how do you expect them to come out and voluntarily say, we are going to do it. They are the very folks who are fighting, resisting, opposing, trying to delay and ultimately kill the country-of-origin labeling provision that was a part of the 2002 farm bill that ought to be the law of the land today.

Everything that we have in this country has a label on it. The tie I am wearing this evening says ``Made in China.'' The glasses, as I get older, I need for reading purposes, say ``Made in China.'' Even the holder for the glasses has a labeling on it. The pen I hold in my hand says ``Made in Japan.'' Literally everything we purchase in this country has a label. We know where things come from, where they originate. In the last farm bill, we even implemented for fish, for fruit and vegetables. Yet we do not want to know where the meat comes from that the consumers of this country consume on a daily basis? Does anybody understand or recognize the inconsistency in that argument?

It will not be very far from here that producers in this country will be forced to implement an animal ID system, and somehow we cannot implement a country-of-origin labeling system. Yet we are going to ask producers to trace the origin of those animals as a food safety precaution.

I argue, again, that country-of-origin labeling is an opportunity for our producers to differentiate their product from those products raised elsewhere in the world. We have the highest quality, and our producers are proud of what they raise in this country. They want

to be able to differentiate it, but they are going to be required in the not-too-distant future, as a food safety measure, to implement an animal ID. We have a number of pilot programs underway across the country today. When one of those is adopted as some sort of a national standard, producers will be expected to trace the origin of those animals. The only question is, Who is going to pay for it?

It is a slap in the face to this Nation's livestock producers and consumers. This recent delay is unacceptable. It is unwarranted. Who loses? The livestock producers who grow and raise quality products in this country, who want an opportunity to market and differentiate their products, and ultimately, the consumers of this country who have a right to know where the meats they purchase, day in and day out for consumption by themselves and their families, comes from. Special interests have won out this day over the will of our producers, our consumers, and the elected representatives in the Senate. That is a sad day.

I will oppose this Agriculture appropriations conference report for that reason.

I yield back my remaining time.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the ladies of American Legion Auxiliary Post 62 from Humboldt, SD. These ladies ranging from 60 to 80 years of age have not only been active supporters of our young men and women serving abroad but have dedicated themselves to providing support for their community and Nation.

This small group of dedicated members holds an annual fundraiser where this year they raised a considerable sum. The ladies of Post 62 were able to give an average of $150 to the following organizations: the West Central FFA, the Community Club Fund, the Volunteer Fire Department, Buddy Walk, the Special Olympics, and the Creative Arts Festival for Veterans. In addition to donating to this long list of charitable organizations they also purchased new dictionaries for all third graders in South Dakota's West Central School District.

I am proud to highlight the accomplishments made by the Ladies of Post 62 in Humboldt, SD, and I gladly congratulate them on their many and generous contributions to the State of South Dakota and to our Nation.

Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call for the regular order on my amendment No. 2193 and would like to speak in support of that.

I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senators Conrad, Crapo, Brownback, Talent, Chafee, and Burns, in support of an amendment that is pending at the desk that would provide funding to the Office for Advancement of Telehealth, located under the Health Resources and Services Administration.

Telehealth is not only an important component of health care in rural States like South Dakota; it is important to patients and health care providers throughout the United States.

Telehealth is an innovation that promises greater access and higher quality health care with reduced costs. Telehealth uses telecommunications and information technologies to provide health care services at a distance. These communications and information technologies provide people access to quality health care in underserved areas.

Three years ago, Congress enacted a bill called the Health Care Safety Net Amendments Act of 2002. This legislation was approved unanimously in the Senate and passed the House with only five dissenting votes. Section 211 of the bill provided the authority for Congress to fund at least $60 million for certain telehealth activities.

Sadly, 3 years have passed and Congress has yet to appropriate a dime for these important provisions. My amendment provides $10 million for the telehealth activities authorized by the 2002 Health Care Safety Net Amendments. This is one-sixth of the authorized amount and less than one percent--one-seventh of one percent--of the budget for HRSA.

Specifically, my amendment would appropriate $2.5 million for the development of 10 telehealth resource centers. These centers, two of which are required to be located in a State with less than 1.5 million people, would help assist the telehealth community in breaking down barriers to the adoption of telehealth.

My amendment also provides $5 million for network grants and grants for telehomecare pilot projects. In order to be efficient and effective, telemedicine must have strong telecommunication networks.

In addition to these grants, my amendment provides $2.5 million for grants to State health licensing boards to develop and implement cooperative policies that reduce statutory and regulatory barriers to telehealth.

S. 1418, the Wired for Health Care Quality Act, introduced by Senator Enzi on July 18, specifically reauthorizes Section 330L(b) of the Public Health Service Act, which allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to State professional licensing boards to reduce statutory and regulatory barriers to telemedicine. My amendment simply appropriates funds for this authorization.

Last year, the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth within HRSA was funded at only $3.9 million. OAT was only able to make 14 competitive grant awards. The budget for this lead agency for telehealth has been cut by \1/3\ over the past 5 years.

Congress spoke when it passed with broad bipartisan support the Health Care Safety Net Amendments Act of 2002. It is time to put our money where our mouth is and start to put some real resources in this area.

Last year, we provided absolutely no funds for the telehealth safety net provisions. Surely we can find a way to provide $10 million in the entire budget for one of the most promising opportunities to help control the rising cost of health care.

My amendment does not break the budget caps. It merely reallocates $10 million for telehealth services from the billions in administrative costs in this budget. On July 8, 2005 a letter was sent to Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin on behalf of over 200 individuals and telehealth organizations across the country, supporting an increase in funding for telehealth.

My amendment answers their call for funding and wider adoption of telehealth.

Telehealth has the promise of delivering quality, efficient health care to individuals in remote, isolated or even devastated areas. Telehealth applications have been proven effective in extending medicine's reach to underserved areas across the Nation.

The $10 million provided by my amendment, while modest, will have an impact on almost every health activity in this giant bill.

Additionally, my amendment is fully offset by reducing the departmental management accounts of the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education pro rata by .0065 percent. The Congressional Budget Office has declared this amendment as budget neutral.

This is a very small investment in the future of our Nation's health care system. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Of all the things we will debate in this particular bill about how to lower health care costs, how to make quality health care more available to more people, the promise of telehealth can do more to meet that critical objection than almost anything else. This is taking state-of- the-art technology and thinking, state-of-the-art information systems and applying them in a way that can meet health care needs across the country, not just in rural areas, but also in urban ones. It is high time we took advantage of this incredible asset and put it to work for health care needs of Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the American Hospital Association in support of my amendment. Some examples of the organizations that support my amendment are the following: Home Care Technology Association of America; Center for Telemedicine Law; Federation of State Medical Boards, Consumer Health Access Through Technology Coalition; American Telemedicine Association; National Rural Health Association; Northland Healthcare Alliance; University of Missouri Health Care; Northcentral Montana Healthcare Alliance; Avera McKennan Telehealth Network; Avera St. Luke's; Rapid City Regional Hospital Home Care Department; Horizon Health Care, Inc.; Sioux Valley Telehealth; Sioux Valley Visiting Nurses; South Dakota Board of Nursing.

Mr. President, I send a modification to my amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?

I ask unanimous consent to lay it aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and send to the desk amendment No. 2193, as modified.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask the amendment be laid aside.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the rising cost of prescription drugs has squeezed not only the budgets of American consumers but also the budgets of America's health care providers. The rural hospitals in my State of South Dakota serve as a lifeline to thousands of constituents living in medically underserved areas. They cannot afford to have the cost of their inpatient and outpatient drugs rising faster than the rate of inflation.

In 1992, Congress created the 340B program to lower the cost of drugs purchased by a limited number of entities serving a high number of low- income and uninsured individuals, such as federally qualified health care centers and nonprofit hospitals providing care to a disproportionate share of Medicaid patients.

Under the 340B program, pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to provide eligible 340B entities discounts on outpatient drugs as part of the manufacturers' Medicaid participation agreement. The rising cost of prescription drugs has created the need to modify the 340B program and extend these discounts to the inpatient side of disproportionate share hospitals, as well as to critical access hospitals.

Today, I and my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, are providing relief on the cost of drugs purchased by America's health care providers by introducing the Safety Net Inpatient Drug Affordability Act.

Our bill extends the 340B discounted drug prices to inpatient drug purchases of disproportionate share hospitals and allows critical access hospitals to participate in the 340B program. This not only saves hospitals money on the cost of drugs, it relieves them from the burden of carrying two different inventories for inpatient and outpatient drugs.

Our legislation also generates savings for the Medicaid program by requiring hospitals that participate in the 340B program to rebate Medicaid a percentage of their 340B savings on inpatient drugs administered to Medicaid patients. Specifically, the Safety Net Inpatient Drug Affordability Act would require disproportionate share and critical access hospitals to determine the acquisition cost of drugs used on Medicaid patients and apply the minimum Medicaid rebate percentages applicable to outpatient-dispensed brand name and generic drugs.

Extending the 340B program to critical access hospitals also helps reduce expenditures in the Medicare Program. Critical access hospitals are a vital part of the rural health care delivery

system. They provide emergency outpatient and limited inpatient care to individuals in remote rural areas. Out of the 61 hospitals in my State of South Dakota, 37 qualify as critical access hospitals.

Outpatient care in critical access hospitals is reimbursed by Medicare at 101 percent of reasonable costs. Allowing critical access hospitals to participate in the 340B program will lower the cost of drugs in the outpatient setting and ultimately lower the cost of care provided by these hospitals. Decreasing the cost of care in critical access hospitals lowers the amount the Medicare Program expends on reimbursement.

The Safety Net Inpatient Drug Affordability Act is commonsense legislation that reduces the cost of drugs for health care providers serving society's most vulnerable citizens. Lowering the cost of care in these settings means lowering the cost of health care for all American taxpayers. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in getting this bipartisan legislation passed and signed into law.

Mr. President, the rising cost of prescription drugs has squeezed not only the budgets of American consumers but also the budgets of America's health care providers. The rural hospitals in my State of South Dakota serve as a lifeline to thousands of constituents living in medically underserved areas. They cannot afford to have the cost of their inpatient and outpatient drugs rising faster than the rate of inflation.

In 1992, Congress created the 340B program to lower the cost of drugs purchased by a limited number of entities serving a high number of low- income and uninsured individuals, such as federally qualified health care centers and nonprofit hospitals providing care to a disproportionate share of Medicaid patients.

Under the 340B program, pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to provide eligible 340B entities discounts on outpatient drugs as part of the manufacturers' Medicaid participation agreement. The rising cost of prescription drugs has created the need to modify the 340B program and extend these discounts to the inpatient side of disproportionate share hospitals, as well as to critical access hospitals.

Today, I and my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, are providing relief on the cost of drugs purchased by America's health care providers by introducing the Safety Net Inpatient Drug Affordability Act.

Our bill extends the 340B discounted drug prices to inpatient drug purchases of disproportionate share hospitals and allows critical access hospitals to participate in the 340B program. This not only saves hospitals money on the cost of drugs, it relieves them from the burden of carrying two different inventories for inpatient and outpatient drugs.

Our legislation also generates savings for the Medicaid program by requiring hospitals that participate in the 340B program to rebate Medicaid a percentage of their 340B savings on inpatient drugs administered to Medicaid patients. Specifically, the Safety Net Inpatient Drug Affordability Act would require disproportionate share and critical access hospitals to determine the acquisition cost of drugs used on Medicaid patients and apply the minimum Medicaid rebate percentages applicable to outpatient-dispensed brand name and generic drugs.

Extending the 340B program to critical access hospitals also helps reduce expenditures in the Medicare Program. Critical access hospitals are a vital part of the rural health care delivery

system. They provide emergency outpatient and limited inpatient care to individuals in remote rural areas. Out of the 61 hospitals in my State of South Dakota, 37 qualify as critical access hospitals.

Outpatient care in critical access hospitals is reimbursed by Medicare at 101 percent of reasonable costs. Allowing critical access hospitals to participate in the 340B program will lower the cost of drugs in the outpatient setting and ultimately lower the cost of care provided by these hospitals. Decreasing the cost of care in critical access hospitals lowers the amount the Medicare Program expends on reimbursement.

The Safety Net Inpatient Drug Affordability Act is commonsense legislation that reduces the cost of drugs for health care providers serving society's most vulnerable citizens. Lowering the cost of care in these settings means lowering the cost of health care for all American taxpayers. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in getting this bipartisan legislation passed and signed into law.

Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

Mr. President, it is my distinct pleasure to take this opportunity to inform my colleagues in the U.S. Senate about a special event taking place in the beautiful Black Hills of South Dakota. In Rapid City, on October 7 through October 9, the 19th Annual He Sapa Wacipi and Fine Art Show, otherwise known as the Black Hills Pow-Wow, will be held. Hundreds of dancers from throughout the Northern Plains and Canada will celebrate, compete, and engage in fellowship.

It is also a time of coming together and enjoying the fine art and authentic handmade crafts of many gifted artisans. There will also be contemporary indigenous music and handgame tournaments, which have become quite popular with the Native youth in our State. This year, for the first time, educators and officials with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, will be in attendance with exhibits and presentations that will help foster the possibilities of careers in space and technology for South Dakota youth.

The Tribes of the Great Sioux Nation are a uniquely family-oriented culture that has always placed great emphasis and importance on relationships with family and friends. Worthy of note, is the Indian way of life that means when you walk into their home, you never leave hungry. Their hospitality is legendary. They are kind and generous and will give from the bottom of their hearts. They embrace their spirituality as a part of who they are and they respect and honor their Creator.

Their desire to continue their language and traditions is very dear to their hearts. For many years, the language of the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota was in danger of being lost. But in the last 30 to 40 years, it has begun to flourish and is being restored,

thanks to those educators, elders and all who recognize its beauty and significance in our time. The coming generations will be a testimony of the importance of this legacy.

I would like to take this opportunity to give special recognition to the He Sapa Wacipi Pow-Wow Association and all the volunteers who selflessly give of their time and effort to bring this event together every year. It is a lot of work, but the end result is a spectacle of beauty and pageantry every year. They can be very proud of all their efforts and I officially acknowledge and honor them for their dedication.

Mr. President, today I voted in opposition to the Harkin amendment to H.J. Res. 68. I opposed this amendment not because of its substance, because I am strongly on the record supporting the Community Service Block Grant Program. I voted earlier this year for an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution that would increase funding for a number of community development programs by a total of $2.073 billion. This funding increase was for important programs such as community development block grants and community service block grants that give a helping hand to those who need it most and help get them back on their feet.

No, I did not oppose the amendment because of its substance. I opposed it because of its timing. We are here on the last day of the fiscal year, and the bill before us would provide stopgap funding for a majority of the Federal Government until we finish the appropriations process here in Congress. We cannot hold up this bill today to provide stopgap funding for the Federal Government. The House of Representatives passed this bill last night and has adjourned. If the President does not sign this bill before midnight tonight the Federal Government will shut down.

We cannot allow important programs and agencies of the Federal Government to go without funding--especially in this great time of need. Numerous Government agencies are working around the clock in emergency recovery efforts to assist those impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the gulf coast.

The issue that the Senator from Iowa brought up is extremely important, and I am certain that the Senate will quickly restore funding to the level that allows the CSBG Program and other community development programs to operate effectively.

Last night the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives said it would be ``unacceptable'' to allow the Government to shutdown. I agree. Failing to pass this stopgap funding bill today without amendments would do just that. It would shutter the windows of many vital Federal Programs--including those programs deeply involved in hurricane recovery efforts, funding for our troops, and other essential programs. This is unacceptable indeed.

I know how important the CSBG and CDBG Programs are to my home State of South Dakota. I often discuss with my constituents how these programs impact the lives of many South Dakotans. I also realize how this current funding situation would impact our State. That is why I am determined to work with my colleagues at the appropriate time to restore funding. But we cannot shut down the rest of the Federal Government today at this critical hour.

Finally, I fear this is the kind of vote that the other side makes the Senate take up just for attempted political gain and for crass political motives. I fought a hard campaign last year, and I know first hand how votes can be twisted during an election year--when tension is high and there is little time for substantive explanations. I am making this statement today to set the record straight. Those on the other side may someday try to use this vote for their political advantage, but I resolved to make the responsible vote and keep our Government from facing a shutdown and resolving the funding issue on CSBG at the correct time.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. This is a historic moment, Mr. President, as many of my colleagues have already noted. This moment marks only the 17th time in the history of our Republic that the U.S. Senate has considered a nominee to be Chief Just1ce.

As one of the Senate's newest Members, it is a great privilege for me to participate in this process. To have had only 16 individuals lead the judicial branch of government in our history illustrates the most important characteristic of the judicial branch, and that characteristic is lifetime tenure.

I believe the guiding question for each of us in determining a nominee's fitness for this post should be whether the person is dedicated to applying the Constitution to every case considered by the Court, and not adding to or changing the Constitution's text to suit his or her own personal policy preferences.

I was pleased to have met privately with Judge Roberts just yesterday. I came away from that meeting even more convinced that this man has the ability and temperament necessary to lead the Supreme Court. I believe Judge Roberts is dedicated to the rule of law and the principle of judicial restraint, and most importantly, will not substitute his own policy preferences for those of the elected representatives in the executive and legislative branches of our government.

The Supreme Court gets the last word on some of the most challenging and divisive issues of our day. Because Federal judges and justices have lifetime tenure, we must ensure that those who populate Federal bench are people of strong character and high intellect, with a passionate commitment to applying the law as it is written, rather than legislating from the bench.

Judges and justices must say what the law is, not what they believe it should be. That is the job of the Congress. That is what the authors of the Constitution intended.

I believe Judge Roberts' career embodies these principles. As Judge Roberts stated during his hearing, judges are like umpires, and umpires don't make the rules, they apply them. I do not believe Judge Roberts will engage in the judicial activism that we have witnessed on the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in the past few decades.

Even in the recent past, we have witnessed several instances of judicial activism. Judicial activism manifests itself when justices detect ``penumbras, formed by emanations'' in the Constitution, as Justice Douglas did in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut--in other words, judges who rely on their personal views rather than the Constitution when deciding matters of great importance.

We have seen what damage the Supreme Court is able to do when it is composed of individuals who are not committed to judicial restraint. Instead of acting as umpires and applying the law, some on the Supreme Court and the Federal bench are pitching and batting.

The most recent example came in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, decided just this past June. As you know, Mr. President, the Constitution says the government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation. However, in the Kelo case, the Supreme Court emptied any meaning from the phrase ``for public use'' in the fifth amendment.

In Kelo, the Supreme Court held that a city government's decision to take private homes for the purpose of economic development satisfies the ``public use'' requirement of the fifth amendment. This case makes private property vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as the government's purpose for the taking is deemed ``economic development.''

While I understand that many of the principles reflected in the Constitution are written broadly, and sometimes can be subjected to conflicting interpretations, I think we can all agree that the Supreme Court cannot be adding or deleting text from the Constitution. Yet that is what happened in the Kelo case. The majority effectively deleted an inconvenient clause in the fifth amendment.

The Supreme Court is also engaging in a troubling pattern of relying upon international authorities to support its interpretations of the laws of the United States. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Court cited the disapproval of the ``world community'' as authority for its decision. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court cited a decision by the European Court of Human Rights as authority for that decision. Most recently, in Roper v. Simmons, the Court cited the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child--a treaty never ratified by the United States--as authority for that decision.

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty. Democratically elected Members of the Senate, accountable to the people, have refused to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court chose to ignore this fact and based their judgment in part on a treaty never ratified by the United States. Clearly, some on the Supreme Court are substituting the policy preferences of democratically elected representatives with their own. This is judicial activism at its worst.

As we near the completion and expected confirmation of Judge Roberts, I want to take a moment and look ahead as the President will soon make another nomination to the Supreme Court. It is important that the nominee to replace Justice O'Connor share Judge Roberts' commitment to judicial restraint and dedication to the rule of law. It is important because the Supreme Court will be considering several cases in the near future that may have far-reaching consequences.

The Supreme Court will probably consider the Pledge of Allegiance case that was recently decided in the Ninth Circuit at the district court level. In that case, the district court held that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. However, in the Fourth Circuit, the appellate court came to the opposite holding--that the Pledge of Allegiance did not violate the establishment clause. Where there are conflicting holdings in the lower courts, the Supreme Court must become the final authority on the matter, and it is important that Judge Roberts and individuals who share his approach are on the court to confront this issue.

During the next term, the Supreme Court will also consider a case about a State's parental notification law and possibly a case about partial-birth abortion. Again, these are instances where the Supreme Court will have the last word on one of the most divisive moral issues of our time. It is critical that those who confront these cases are deferential to the elected branches of our government, exercise restraint, and follow the law.

After our confirmation vote tomorrow on Judge Roberts, the President will forward his nominee to fill the seat vacated by Justice O'Connor. It will then become our duty in the Senate to provide our advice and consent on that nomination. It is a responsibility that we should all take very seriously. The manner in which we handle that nomination will say a lot about the Senate as an institution.

I read in today's edition of the Washington Post that several of our Democratic colleagues, as well as the Democratic National Committee chairman, are already threatening to filibuster the next nominee to the Supreme Court. It is shocking to me that they are threatening a filibuster of the next nominee before they even know who the nominee is going to be. They are even threatening to filibuster possible nominees who were just confirmed to the appellate courts and explicitly included in the Memorandum of Understanding that seven Democrats and seven Republicans signed onto last May.

That is wrong and the American people will see it for the blind partisanship that it is. I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they have sworn to uphold the Constitution through their representation in this body, not to thwart its intent or reshape its application to suit the nattering liberal elite and their special interest groups. I implore my Democratic colleagues not to blindly abuse the filibuster. These threats are symptomatic of the breakdown of the nomination process, and they must stop.

The process by which justices and judges are nominated and confined has degenerated to a point where ideological litmus tests are too often applied and nominees are torn apart by personal attacks.

The nomination process should not be brought down to the level of personal attacks on the nominee or fishing expeditions into the nominee's political allegiances. I believe there is a lot of room for improvement in the process, and I hope to see such improvement as we consider the next nominee.

One ideological litmus test I am hearing about a lot these days is that the Supreme Court must somehow maintain its ``balance.'' Where in the Constitution does it say that a certain balance must be maintained on the Supreme Court? According to the Constitution, the President is entitled to nominate the individuals he desires to have on the courts, and we in the Senate must determine whether the nominee is fit and qualified. There should be no ideological litmus test for nominees. If a nominee is fit and qualified, he or she should be confirmed.

I believe Judge Roberts is eminently fit and qualified to serve as the next Chief Justice. I will proudly cast my vote for him, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

I send the following bill to the desk.

Mr. President, as I traveled across my State of South Dakota this August, I heard from many constituents about the high cost of health care. Concerns about the cost of health care are not limited, however, to the people of South Dakota. These concerns span across state lines and across the minds of people of all ages.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the issues of access and cost of health care.

My State of South Dakota is rural. In South Dakota, 46 out of our 66 counties are classified as medically underserved areas--areas that have insufficient health resources, manpower or facilities to meet the medical needs of the population. This poses a significant challenge in providing health care to the 750,000 residents of South Dakota.

Providing high quality affordable health care will take the cooperation of both the public and the private sector. The use of technology in the delivery of health care has been a proven method in providing quality care while reducing cost.

Telehealth uses telecommunications and information technologies to provide health care services at a distance. It provides individuals in remote underserved areas access to specialists and other health care providers through the use of technology. This means that when my constituent in Gregory, SD, needs his skin examined by a dermatologist, he does not need to travel the 185 miles to Sioux Falls.

The practice of telemedicine, however, has been underutilized and underfunded despite numerous studies praising the ability of telehealth to deliver care to individuals in remote areas.

The adoption of telehealth has been hampered by legal, financial, and regulatory barriers.

My legislation, the Fostering Independence Through Technology Act of 2005, takes a step in the right direction of breaking down the barriers that prevent the adoption of telehealth. It provides incentives for home health agencies to purchase and utilize home monitoring and communications technologies. My legislation is pro technology, pro quality, and pro savings.

Specifically, my bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create demonstration projects that would encourage home health agencies to utilize remote monitoring technology. Utilizing technology in the home health setting would reduce the number of visits by home health aides while still providing quality care.

Each demonstration project is required to include a performance target for the home health agency. This target will be used to determine whether the projects are enhancing health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries as well as saving the program money.

Each year, the home health agency participating in the pilot will receive an incentive payment based on a percentage of the Medicare savings realized as a result of the pilot project.

The demonstration projects would be conducted in both rural and urban settings because medically underserved areas exist across the country. One project, however, is required to be conducted in a state with a population of less than one million.

Technology is improving each and every day. I ask then, why one of the biggest industries in our Nation--health care--is not utilizing this technology to reduce costs and improve the quality of care delivered. Breaking down the barriers that prevent wider adoption of telehealth will improve our system of care and lower the cost of health care for individuals across the country.

The practice of telehealth brings medicine to people, people who live in medically underserved areas and people who are too frail or too ill to leave the comfort of their homes.

My legislation answers the call for wider adoption of telehealth and provides Medicare beneficiaries independence without sacrificing quality of care.

It is time for Congress to tackle the legal, financial, and regulatory barriers that are preventing the implementation of technology into the health care field. The legislation that I am introducing today takes a giant step in this direction and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, as I traveled across my State of South Dakota this August, I heard from many constituents about the high cost of health care. Concerns about the cost of health care are not limited, however, to the people of South Dakota. These concerns span across state lines and across the minds of people of all ages.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the issues of access and cost of health care.

My State of South Dakota is rural. In South Dakota, 46 out of our 66 counties are classified as medically underserved areas--areas that have insufficient health resources, manpower or facilities to meet the medical needs of the population. This poses a significant challenge in providing health care to the 750,000 residents of South Dakota.

Providing high quality affordable health care will take the cooperation of both the public and the private sector. The use of technology in the delivery of health care has been a proven method in providing quality care while reducing cost.

Telehealth uses telecommunications and information technologies to provide health care services at a distance. It provides individuals in remote underserved areas access to specialists and other health care providers through the use of technology. This means that when my constituent in Gregory, SD, needs his skin examined by a dermatologist, he does not need to travel the 185 miles to Sioux Falls.

The practice of telemedicine, however, has been underutilized and underfunded despite numerous studies praising the ability of telehealth to deliver care to individuals in remote areas.

The adoption of telehealth has been hampered by legal, financial, and regulatory barriers.

My legislation, the Fostering Independence Through Technology Act of 2005, takes a step in the right direction of breaking down the barriers that prevent the adoption of telehealth. It provides incentives for home health agencies to purchase and utilize home monitoring and communications technologies. My legislation is pro technology, pro quality, and pro savings.

Specifically, my bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create demonstration projects that would encourage home health agencies to utilize remote monitoring technology. Utilizing technology in the home health setting would reduce the number of visits by home health aides while still providing quality care.

Each demonstration project is required to include a performance target for the home health agency. This target will be used to determine whether the projects are enhancing health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries as well as saving the program money.

Each year, the home health agency participating in the pilot will receive an incentive payment based on a percentage of the Medicare savings realized as a result of the pilot project.

The demonstration projects would be conducted in both rural and urban settings because medically underserved areas exist across the country. One project, however, is required to be conducted in a state with a population of less than one million.

Technology is improving each and every day. I ask then, why one of the biggest industries in our Nation--health care--is not utilizing this technology to reduce costs and improve the quality of care delivered. Breaking down the barriers that prevent wider adoption of telehealth will improve our system of care and lower the cost of health care for individuals across the country.

The practice of telehealth brings medicine to people, people who live in medically underserved areas and people who are too frail or too ill to leave the comfort of their homes.

My legislation answers the call for wider adoption of telehealth and provides Medicare beneficiaries independence without sacrificing quality of care.

It is time for Congress to tackle the legal, financial, and regulatory barriers that are preventing the implementation of technology into the health care field. The legislation that I am introducing today takes a giant step in this direction and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Colman, SD. The town of Colman will celebrate the 125th anniversary of its founding this year.

Located in Moody County, Colman was founded when the Milwaukee railroad extended its line reaching the town in 1880. It was originally known as Sankey and then Allentown. The city eventually changed its name to Colman in honor of the Colman Lumber Company, a local business.

I would like to offer my congratulations to Colman on their anniversary and I wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.