Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Peggy Shadduck Palombi of Lexington, KY, on being recognized as one of America's top professors in the 2005 U.S. Professors of the Year Program by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education.

The annual U.S. Professors of the Year Program was established in 1981 to reward outstanding professors for their dedication to teaching, commitment to students, and innovative instructional methods. It is the only national program to recognize college and university professors for their teaching skills.

Ms. Palombi, an associate professor at Transylvania University, in Lexington, KY, has been recognized by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education for her tireless work in exhibiting excellence at Transylvania University. Ms. Palombi sets an example of excellence for both colleagues

and students alike. She inspires her students to achieve academically and contribute to the community.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking Ms. Palombi for her dedication and commitment to the education of America's future. In order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must have professors like Peggy Shadduck Palombi in our institutions of higher learning, in our communities, and in our lives. She is Kentucky at its finest.

Mr. President, I pay tribute to the members of the Society of Physics Students, SPS, in the Department of Physics at the University of Louisville. The SPS will be celebrating 2005 as the World Year of Physics. The celebration will coincide with the 100 year anniversary of the publication of Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Quantization of the Electromagnetic Field, and the Energy- Mass Relationship.

The University of Louisville chapter has been recognized for achievement by numerous national physics organizations. Their recent accomplishments include the Blake Lilly Prize for Outreach, a national SPS designation as Outstanding Chapter, along with the Marsh White Award for Education and Outreach from the Sigma Pi Sigma National Physics Honor Society. In light of these efforts, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in recognizing the Society of Physics Students at the University of Louisville for their celebration of 2005 as the World Year of Physics.

Mr. President, I am glad that we are debating this bill on the floor of the Senate. Despite some concerns which I will discuss later, I supported this bill in the Finance Committee. I have heard a lot in the last few weeks from some of my colleagues talking about how we can't afford the so-called tax cuts that this bill was expected to contain. As we have been saying for weeks, the growth package is not about tax cuts. It is about stopping tax increases, tax increases that will affect American families.

The so-called tax cuts that Democratic Members of Congress are talking about are nothing more than keeping current tax law in place. There are dozens of provisions that American families and employers have come to rely on that will expire at the end of this year, if we do not pass this bill. These are provisions that are important to our constituents and to our economy. Let's take a look at some of the items that are in the bill before us.

First, the research and development tax credit will expire at the end of this year unless we act. This is an important provision of the Tax Code that spurs innovation and new technologies. A majority--believe me--of Senators have supported this provision in the past. The bill before us not only extends this provision, it also adds some improvements to make it more relevant to today's economy.

A lot of other important provisions also expire if we do not pass this bill. The deduction of tuition expenses, that provision affects 36,000 Kentuckians; the tax deduction for teacher classroom expenses, this one affects 38,000 Kentucky teachers; and the low-income saver's credit affects 94,000 low-income Kentucky taxpayers. These are Kentuckians that do not deserve a tax increase. I am going to do all within my power to make sure they don't get one.

I am extremely disappointed that this bill does not contain a provision that I considered to be a vitally important one--keeping the tax rate on dividends and capital gains income from increasing. It is very important that we extend this 15-percent rate through the end of the budget window. As this bill moves through the legislative process, I will fight to make sure that the bill that the President ultimately signs includes these vital provisions. It is very hard to dispute the positive impact that the 15-percent rate has had on the macroeconomy. Dividends paid by companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 have been up over 50 percent since this tax change was implemented. Capital gains revenues from taxes to the Federal Government is estimated by some to exceed the CBO forecast by billions of dollars in fiscal year 2006.

But let's talk about which taxpayers are benefiting from these 15- percent rates. In my State, Kentucky, 18 percent of taxpayers benefited from the reduced rates on dividend income, and 13 percent benefited from the lower rate on capital gains income in 2003. These numbers are especially interesting when you consider that Kentucky has a median income that is below the national average. This does not even count the millions of workers and retirees who hold these assets inside their 401(k)s. As we all know, these dividends are very important to the elderly. Many of our retired folks rely on dividends to supplement their fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security.

While it is true that the lower rates do not sunset until the end of 2008, it is

important that we send a message to the economy by extending these rates this year. If we have not made these provisions permanent, investors and financial markets will grow increasingly uncertain about the future tax treatment of dividends and capital gains as 2008 gets closer. We cannot risk adding unwanted volatility to the markets and the economy which continue to grow.

Again, let me be clear, the proposals that we are planning to extend in this package are not new tax proposals, they are simply current law. If we do not extend these provisions, we will cause a substantial increase in the tax bills of American families and businesses.

I also express my concern about two provisions currently part of this bill that I strongly oppose. First is a provision that will limit the ability of taxpayers who itemize their taxes to take a deduction for their full charitable contributions, as they do under current law. This change would amount to a tax increase on some taxpayers who make small charitable contributions, and I strongly oppose it.

The second is a provision that will change accounting rules for the oil industry. The accounting rules at issue are not some loophole for the oil industry. All taxpayers with inventories can elect to use LIFO inventory rules--all. It would be unfair to impose different rules standards on only one industry and would set a dangerous tax precedent.

Additionally, as my colleagues well know, we just passed an energy bill this summer. It contains incentives to increase refining production which is so desperately needed and which we have been neglecting for too long. To turn around and take away these incentives just a few months later, as this bill does, makes no sense whatsoever. Our focus needs to be on trying to increase domestic production of oil and refining capacity, and this provision will do exactly the opposite.

I am planning to support this bill on the floor of the Senate, but I am only doing so with the expectation that we will improve it and that the bill that lands on the President's desk will ultimately reflect the views of the full Senate and this Congress.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dustin Vande Hoef of Senator Grassley's office be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of deliberation on S. 2020, the Tax Relief Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I pay tribute to the Kentucky Community and Technical College System of Versailles, KY for their hurricane disaster relief efforts. KCTCS has opened their doors to the displaced student victims of Hurricane Katrina through Operation Rebuilding Lives.

The KCTCS statewide system of 16 colleges on 65 campuses has adopted emergency policies offering displaced students greater accessibility to financial aid, scholarship opportunities, and online course sessions. In addition, all KCTCS colleges have sponsored hurricane relief fundraising events ranging from blood drives to relief supply donation drives.

I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking the Kentucky Community and Technical College System for their efforts. Their commitment to providing relief assistance to the displaced students of Hurricane Katrina is admirable and I commend the KCTCS for the Operation Rebuilding Lives initiative.

Mr. President, Earlier today, an amendment I have worked closely with Senator Dodd from Connecticut on was passed as part of the budget reconciliation package. The amendment is based on legislation we introduced which would provide a new, one-time screening benefit for abdominal aortic aneurysms, AAAs, under Medicare for certain, eligible beneficiaries.

I am pleased this amendment was accepted, and I appreciate the hard work from Senator Dodd in helping get this amendment passed. I hope that we can continue working to ensure that this provision is included in the final reconciliation package.

AAAs occur when there is a weakening of the walls of the aorta, the body's largest blood vessel. The artery begins to bulge and can lead to a rupture and often severe internal bleeding. In cases where an artery ruptures, the survival rate is less than 15 percent, and approximately 15,000 people die from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms each year.

When detected before rupturing, AAAs are treatable and curable in 95 percent of cases. Nearly all AAAs can be detected through an inexpensive ultrasound screening. Once detected, a physician can monitor small aortic aneurysms and begin treating the risk factors, such as high blood pressure and smoking. Large or rapidly growing aneurysms are often treated using either an open surgical procedure or a less invasive stent graft, both of which serve to repair the artery.

It is estimated that between 5 to 7 percent of adults of the age of 60 have AAAs.

Our amendment targets AAA screenings to Medicare beneficiaries with a family history and those who exhibit risk factors recommended for screening by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, specifically men who smoke. The amendment also limits screening to those eligible beneficiaries who participate in the Welcome to Medicare Physical.

This amendment could save thousands of lives each year, and I am pleased we were able to include it in this package.

Mr. President, today I and some of my colleagues, in a bipartisan effort, introduced the Integrity in Professional Sports Act. I especially thank my colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain, for working with me on this important legislation. I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Stevens, and Senators Grassley and Rockefeller, for cosponsoring our bill.

This is certainly not a bill any of us wanted to introduce. We wish Congress did not have to get involved in the issue of drug abuse in professional sports. Unfortunately, this might be the only way to get professional sports to finally clean up its act.

As a former major league baseball player and member of its Hall of Fame, protecting the integrity of our national pastime is a matter near and dear to my heart. I know it is near and dear to the hearts of so many across America. We have heard a lot of talk over the last year about the leagues working to implement new, tougher drug-testing standards. So far, that is all it has been, a lot of talk. Major League Baseball and its baseball union told us over a month ago they hoped to have a new agreement in place by the end of the World Series. The World Series is over and there is still no agreement. The time for talking is over. The leagues have had their chance and have failed to lead. Now we are going to do it for them.

We are, in a way, obligated to act since they cannot. We must not only ensure that our Federal drug laws are not being circumvented, but we also need to restore some integrity to the games that tens of millions of Americans enjoy so much. We must act for the sake of our children who see these players as heroes and want to emulate them. Like it or not, professional athletes are role models. They need to set a better example to kids who see them smashing home runs or sacking the quarterback and want to be like them. Unfortunately, too many professional athletes are injecting themselves and popping pills with false hopes and dangerous health effects. Now these acts are being emulated by kids even in high school because of the pressure they feel to perform at such a young age. We have a duty to help bring this to an end.

As Members of Congress, we can play an important role in educating the public on the terrible health effects from steroids. Illegal performance-enhancing drugs are a serious problem in professional sports and they need to stop now. I hope my colleagues will continue to join us in this bipartisan cause. I look forward to working with both sides of the aisle on moving this bill forward swiftly.

I yield to my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

This bill is an attempt to finally make a dent--even a small one--in the

mandatory spending that is threatening to engulf the Federal budget.

With mandatory spending currently accounting for over 50 percent of all Federal spending and projected to grow higher--it must be on the table whenever we examine the budget and the deficit.

In addition to serving on the Budget Committee, I also serve on three of the committees that passed language that is now part of the bill that we have before us.

I can tell you that in each of those committees, it took a lot of hard work and a lot of compromise to arrive at the language in this bill.

Difficult compromise means that hardly anyone is 100 percent happy with the final product.

For instance, I am disappointed that the Finance Committee did not include restrictions on intergovernmental transfers in its package.

Intergovernmental transfers are financing schemes that some States use to pull down more Federal Medicaid dollars than they are entitled to.

For example, some States overpay local government health care providers, and then require the providers to return the excess funds to the State.

The Finance Committee missed an important opportunity to curtail these abuses, and I hope we can rectify this as the bill moves through Congress.

There are, however, parts of this bill that I think are of staggering importance to this country.

In particular, I worked with Senator Domenici and others in the Energy Committee to see that ANWR language was included in this reconciliation bill.

As prices continue to rise at the gas pump, and a barrel of oil continues to be high, America needs to increase its domestic supply of energy and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

Several months ago, I traveled to ANWR and saw firsthand how energy companies will develop it into a viable energy source.

After visiting sites in Alaska, there is no doubt in my mind that we can develop ANWR in a safe and effective manner.

Once developed, ANWR will provide the United States with nearly 1 million barrels of oil a day or 4.5 percent of today's consumption for the next 30 years.

This nearly matches the oil that we import from Saudi Arabia each and every day.

I also want to address the fact that much of the debate here on the senate floor yesterday, and last week in the Budget Committee, was not about this bill that we have before us today.

The ranking member of the Budget Committee wants to talk about a bill that we will likely mark up in the Finance Committee next week--the growth package.

The ranking member and his colleagues are constantly talking about how we can't afford the ``tax cuts'' that the growth package is expected contain.

My answer to that is this: The growth package will not be about tax ``cuts''. It will be about stopping tax increases.

Let me say that again: The growth package will not be cutting taxes; it will be stopping tax increases that will affect American families.

Although my friends on the other side of the aisle may not want to admit it, there are large tax increases on the horizon unless this Congress acts.

I am referring to the tax increases our constituents will feel in their pocketbooks and wallets if we fail to extend current tax law.

The so-called ``tax cuts'' the other side keeps refering to are really nothing more than just keeping current tax law in place.

There are over 40 provisions that American families and employers have come to rely on that will expire at the end of this year if we do nothing.

These are provisions in current law that are important to our constituents and to our economy.

Let's take a look at the items that the Finance Committee, which I serve on, will likely examine soon.

First, there is the alternative minimum tax hold-harmless provision. That one alone will cost about $30 billion to extend for just 1 year.

Madam President, 80,000 Kentuckians face a tax increase if that provision is not extended. And, looking at our neighbors, 235,000 Ohioans and 30,000 West Virginians will also face tax increases if it is allowed to expire.

The R&D tax credit will expire at the end of this year unless we act.

This is an important provision of the Tax Code that spurs innovation and new technologies and one that I and many others here support.

In fact, the bill introduced in the Senate in the last Congress to make this provision permanent had 40 cosponsors, including 22 Senate Democrats.

A lot of other important provisions will also expire if we do not act:

The deduction of tuition expenses--affects 36,000 Kentuckians;

The low-income savers credit--affects 94,000 Kentuckians;

The tax deduction for teachers for their classroom expenses--affects 38,000 Kentucky teachers;

And the low-income savers credit which, in 2003, affected 94,000 low- income Kentucky taxpayers.

These are Kentuckians who do not deserve a tax increase. And I am going to do all within my power to make sure that they do not get one.

But again, our friends on the other side of the aisle will say that I am just telling half the story.

What about the dividends and capital gains 15 percent rate extension, they will ask.

After all, they argue, you Republicans want to extend that and that only helps the rich.

Well, first of all, it is really hard to dispute the positive impact that the 15 percent rates have had on the macro-economy.

Dividends paid by companies in the S&P 500 are up 59 percent since the tax cut was implemented, and capital gains tax revenue to the Federal Government is set to exceed the CBO forecast by $16 billion in fiscal year 2006.

But let's talk about which taxpayers are benefiting from these 15 percent rates.

In my State, 18 percent of taxpayers benefited from the reduced rate on dividend income and 13 percent benefited from the lower rate on capital gains income in 2003.

Again, to look at some of our neighboring States, in West Virginia 17 percent of taxpayers reported dividend income and 11 percent reported capital gains income.

In Ohio, 24 percent reported dividend income and 16 percent reported capital gains income.

This is especially interesting when you consider that both Kentucky and West Viriginia have median incomes below the national average.

And yet a large number of our taxpayers report receiving capital gains and dividend income.

And this does not even count the workers and retirees who hold these assets inside their 401(k)s and other tax-deferred saving vehicles.

The fact is, dividends are important to millions of families.

According to 2002 irs data, nearly two-thirds of the taxpayers reporting dividend income had adjusted gross incomes below $75,000.

And the average dividend received by those with A.G.I.'s below $75,000 was over $1,700.

As we all know, these dividends are very important to the elderly.

Many of our retired folks rely on dividends to supplement their fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security.

While it is true that these lower rates don't sunset until the end of 2008, it is important that we send a message to the economy by extending these rates this year.

Investors and financial markets will grow increasingly uncertain about the future tax treatment of dividends and capital gains as 2008 gets closer, if we have not done our job by making these provisions permanent.

We just cannot risk adding unwanted volatility into the markets and the economy--which continues to grow.

So, again, let me be clear--the proposals that we are talking about extending in the growth package that we will likely see soon are not new tax proposals--this is simply current law.

If we do not extend these provisions we will cause a substantial increase in the tax bills of American families and businesses.

In closing, I wanted to say a word to those who are complaining about the ``cuts'' in spending contained in this deficit reduction package on the floor today.

The facts show that spending has grown rapidly in the last few decades.

In just 3 years, from 2001 to 2004, total Government spending increased by 23 percent--an increase of over $400 billion in just 3 years.

Despite what we might hear today, we have greatly increased spending in a number of areas--including education and veteran's health care, in addition to homeland security.

Let's keep that in mind as complaints are being made about the bill before us today.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and I look forward to further debate.

Mr. President, I proudly rise today to recognize Mr. Sam Moore for his outstanding contribution to Kentucky Agriculture.

Mr. Moore has served as president of the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation since December 1998 following 7 years of service as first vice president. He has been a member of the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation board of directors since 1975 and is a distinguished member of the American Farm bureau board of directors. Mr. Moore, a Butler County native and father of six has been an active member of Kentucky's agricultural community all his life. In 1973, Mr. Moore was selected an outstanding young farmer by the Kentucky Jaycees, and the following year he won a similar designation from the Kentucky Farm Bureau. As Kentucky's representative in the 1974 national young farmer competition, he received a special citation as one of the top entrants. In 2003, he was selected as Man of the Year in Kentucky Agriculture by Progressive Farmer Magazine.

Mr. President, Mr. Moore has announced he will retire after 30 years of outstanding service to the Kentucky Farm Bureau. The people of Kentucky are extremely fortunate to have had Mr. Moore's leadership over the years. I have had the honor and privilege of working with Mr. Moore on a variety of

issues and have found his dedication and commitment to agriculture admirable. He and his wife Helen serve as a wonderful example to the citizens of Kentucky and I would like to take this moment to recognize his service to the Commonwealth.

Mr. Moore, the citizens of Kentucky are grateful for all you have done for Kentucky and for the agricultural community.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Ashley Jeffers of Alvaton, KY. Ashley was recently awarded a $15,000 college scholarship as part of the Girls Incorporated National Scholars Program.

Ashley experience at Girls Inc. of Bowling Green, KY is a testament to her impressive work ethic, initiative, and leadership skills. She joined Girls Inc. at the age of 14, and was hired shortly after to help teach classes. Eager to expand the center, Ashley learned about other Girls Inc. national programs and incorporated new classes into the existing program at Bowling Green. Inspired by her experience working with other young women at Girls Inc., Ashley has decided to pursue a career in social work following her studies at Western Kentucky University.

The Girls Inc. National Scholars Program was created in 1992 by a $6.1 million gift from Lucille Miller Wright, a volunteer pilot during World War II, who wanted to help young women overcome financial barriers to attending college. Since 1992, the National Scholars Program has awarded over $1.8 million to 304 girls.

By inspiring other young women to become strong, smart, and bold, Ashley Jeffers does justice to the legacy of Lucille Miller Wright. She is an example of how young Americans can have a positive influence on their communities by participating in mentorship activities such as Girls Inc.

I congratulate Ashley on this achievement. She is an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky. I look forward to seeing all that she will accomplish in the future.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of John Roberts to be the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, particularly the Chief Justice, is one of the most important duties we have in the Senate. I hope we can put politics and partisanship aside and swiftly confirm him.

Earlier this year, we found ourselves in an unprecedented position. The Democratic minority decided to use Senate rules to block judicial nominees. The minority tried to take away the power of nomination that the Constitution gives the President. But President Bush was solidly reelected last fall, and during the campaign he stressed the type of judges he would nominate--those who respect the law and the Constitution and who will not legislate from the bench.

The American people knew what they were getting when they reelected President Bush. President Bush kept his word. His judicial nominees have been highly qualified and worthy of confirmation. The minority's obstructionism ended earlier this year, or at least for now. Many on the left want to see a filibuster against John Roberts, but I have no doubt that John Roberts will be confirmed soon. Our job is to determine the qualifications of the nominees. Then we should vote to approve or oppose them. Anything else is to disregard the oath we took when we joined the Senate.

Our job is not to oppose nominees because we think their views are different from ours. We should not oppose nominees to keep our political base happy. Regardless of all the excuses, nominees deserve a vote. That is it.

John Roberts is extremely qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and he is as qualified to be Chief Justice. He is, no doubt, one of the most qualified nominees to come before the Senate since I have been here. He is a brilliant legal scholar, an accomplished attorney, and a fine judge. I will strongly support him.

I do not need to spend too much time restating John Roberts' qualifications. They have been stated. He graduated with honors from Harvard college and its law school. He clerked in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and for Chief Justice Rehnquist when he was an Associate Supreme Court Justice.

John Roberts also worked for the Attorney General, the White House counsel and Solicitor General in previous administrations.

In private practice, he was one of the best appellate and Supreme Court litigator's in the Nation. He argued an unprecedented 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Now he is a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, where he has been since we confirmed him unanimously in 2003.

His resume is not what convinces me that he will be a fine Chief Justice. What is clear is that John Roberts respects the law and Constitution and will be faithful to the proper role of a judge. In his confirmation hearings, Judge Roberts used an example to explain the proper role of a judge. It has been stated before. He said a judge is like an umpire, not a player or a coach. And similar to an umpire, a judge applies the rules to the situation at hand. An umpire doesn't rewrite the rules or enforce what he thinks the rules ought to be.

I know a little bit about umpires. I have dealt with them, and all types of them, for years. Some are liberal and some conservative with the strike zone. Some were unpredictable and made the strike zone up as the game went along. The worst umpires decided the outcome of the game by playing favorites or enforcing their own version of the rules. The best umpires applied the rules as written in the rule book and let the rules and the players dictate the outcome of the game.

As Judge Roberts said, that is how judges should act. The law, and not judges, should decide the outcome of the cases. The rules of the game, the writing of the laws is done by Congress. The President implements and enforces the laws, the judiciary settles disputes by applying laws and the Constitution. Judges are not lawmakers as umpires are not players. If umpires want to be players, that umpire should quit and join a team. If a judge wants to write laws, he should run for Congress.

We have seen courts try to replace Congress and legislatures. Social issues have been taken out of the political process and decided by unelected judges. The voice of the people has too often been ignored. Activism of a few judges threatens our judicial system.

If judges keep exercising powers not granted to them, the public and its servants may tune out the courts and ignore them altogether. That would be bad and we would all suffer. I think Judge Roberts sees that danger. As Chief Justice, he will protect the Constitution and reputation of the courts.

At his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts recognized the damage of an activist judiciary. Their activism undermines the authority and respect needed to overturn truly unconstitutional actions. Courts must not be activists and settle public policy disputes. Judge Roberts also sees that danger, and I trust he will work hard to keep the Court within its boundaries and implore judges to exercise restraint in decisionmaking. A key part of that restraint is to not wade into public policy disputes. I imagine it is tempting for judges to impose their personal views when making decisions.

But I believe Judge Roberts will exercise restraint and encourage the Federal court system to do the same.

Many of my colleagues are frustrated over Judge Roberts not revealing his views on public policy.

As Chief Justice, Judge Roberts is not going to act like a Senator. He will not let his personal views influence his decision and rulings.

The complaints of some of my colleagues led me to believe that they did not understand the role our Founding Fathers intended for the courts. Congress is the policymaking branch of government. The President and the administration enforce the laws. And the courts act as neutral decisionmakers when disputes arise.

But my colleagues know this.

And so I fear they see the courts as a political arm to implement their liberal policy agenda.

To them--the Supreme Court is a super legislature. But that is not what our Framers envisioned. And that is not how Judge Roberts will use his position as Chief Justice.

The left turns to the courts to impose their agenda because they cannot advance it through elections. They cannot pass their laws through Congress or legislatures. They cannot even get elected by running on their liberal policies. So they must use the courts to impose their agenda.

What is that agenda?

Unlimited abortion on-demand; banning schoolchildren from saying the Pledge of Allegiance; banishing the Ten Commandments from public places; rewriting the definition of marriage; and banning arms for self-defense.

That agenda does not sell with America or in Congress.

So the last great hope for liberals is the judicial bench. And that is why they oppose nominees who do not agree to their liberal activist agenda.

The only thing stopping the rewriting of our Constitution are judges that will support the rule of law.

John Roberts is one such judge. He will not write new laws from the bench.

As Chief Justice, he will set an example for the court system to follow the same principles.

Many Senators have expressed frustration at not knowing Judge Roberts' political views. I do not know his views either.

I have not asked him. And I will not ask him.

They do not matter. I trust him not to let his political beliefs influence his decisions.

During his hearing, Judge Roberts rightly declined to answer how he would rule in specific cases.

The current Supreme Court Justices also declined to answer similar questions.

Answering those kind of questions would corrupt and politicize the process.

Judicial nominees would turn into politicians campaigning for office to get confirmed--pledging to vote a certain way in order to gain votes.

They would also have to make promises to the President in order to get nominated.

Judges must be selected based on their qualifications.

I have not asked Judge Roberts about his personal political views. I have not asked him about his legal views. I do not need to know how he will rule in a certain particular case--because I know his approach to the law--and that is all I need to know.

John Roberts will lead by example and earn the respect of the other Justices and the American public. He will also be joined on the Court by another new Justice.

I trust President Bush will choose another highly qualified nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

If the new nominee is in a similar mold and has the same respect for the rule of law, then I will be glad to support the next nominee.

I have seen comments from some of my Democrat colleagues that they will filibuster certain nominees. That is most unfortunate. And it could bring us back to the point where we were earlier this year.

I hope and pray the minority does not do this.

But make no mistake about it. We will ensure that the next nominee receives fair treatment in the Senate and gets a vote.

I thank President Bush for keeping his promise to nominate outstanding individuals to our courts.

I thank Chairman Specter for ushering this nomination swiftly through his Judiciary Committee.

And I thank John Roberts for his service to our country.

I vow very strongly to vote for him when his vote comes up tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate Jay Davidson on his reception of an America Honors Recovery Award given to him by the Johnson Institute, a nationally recognized organization dedicated to helping people overcome alcohol and substance addiction.

Mr. Davidson has dedicated his life to the cause of fighting addiction. He does this by serving as the president and CEO of The Healing Place, based in Louisville, KY. Under Mr. Davidson, this center has achieved a success rate of 65 percent, which is five times the national average. The efforts of The Healing Place have been so successful that this year Governor Ernie Fletcher has announced that it will serve as a model to 10 other shelter and recovery centers throughout Kentucky. In fact, this model has been effective enough that other branches of The Healing Place have been opened in Lexington, KY, Raleigh, NC, and Richmond, VA.

The citizens of Kentucky are fortunate to have the leadership of Jay Davidson. His example of dedication, hard work and compassion should be an inspiration to all throughout the Commonwealth.

He has my most sincere appreciation for this work and I look forward to his continued service to Kentucky.

Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate five seniors within the region of West Kentucky, who have been recognized as National Merit Semifinalists. Their recent national recognition has given Kentucky reason to be proud.

The semifinalists are Mary Broadbent from Paducah Tilghman High School, Kyle Brockman from Heath High School, Sara Chen from Tilghman High School, Allison Crawford from Lone Oak High School, Callie Dowdy from Murray High School, Nicholas Ledgerwood from Heath High School, and Joseph Moore from Graves County High School. These students will go on to compete later this year for status as a National Merit Finalist and possible college scholarships.

I hope that you will join me today in both recognizing and congratulating these five high school seniors in their academic achievement. Their dedication and academic excellence serves as an example and inspiration for students throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I wish them continued success throughout their academic careers.

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate two outstanding Kentucky schools of distinction. Phelps Elementary School of Phelps and St. Raphael the Archangel of Louisville are recipients of the 2005 Schools of Distinction Award. This honor is presented nationally to 20 schools, of kindergarten through 12th grade, which have demonstrated exceptional commitment to achievement and innovation in education.

Phelps Elementary School and St. Raphael the Archangel were selected from more than 3,000 participating schools nationwide. Both schools were chosen as winners based on merit in each of 10 categories: overall academic achievement, literacy, science, mathematics, teamwork, leadership, collaboration, professional development, technical excellence and technical innovation. Phelps Elementary School was recognized for outstanding science achievement while St. Raphael the Archangel was recognized for outstanding professional development.

For their efforts the two schools will each be rewarded with a $10,000 cash grant along with their school representatives receiving an all-expense paid trip to Washington, DC, to participate in an awards ceremony. These two schools represent the best in educational excellence and innovation. It is truly an honor to commend Phelps Elementary School and St. Raphael the Archangel as two of the finest schools in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the employees of the Mother's Cookie Company and WAMZ-FM Radio in Louisville, KY, for their commitment to philanthropy through their participation in a charity softball game to benefit St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.

The employees from Mother's Cookie Company assembled a team to take on the WAMZ-FM Hamz softball team. For the past 2 years, this Louisville radio station has assembled players to compete against area businesses willing to provide a location, umpires, and players to raise money to benefit the St. Jude Children's Hospital. While the team from Mother's Cookies lost a close game by a score of 7-8, they won big raising money for St. Jude's Children's hospital. Their donation of $1,264.65 was the largest single game donation generated this season.

I believe the employees of these two companies in Louisville are examples of how every American can contribute to the care and maintenance of community by participating in activities that bring people together, and unselfishly dedicating their time and resources to a worthy cause. Companies that give back to the community and employees who share their time with others form the backbone of the American economy, and are the foundation of a strong neighborhood. The men and women who work at the Mother's Cookie Company not only took the time to raise money for medical research, but also bake more than 60 percent of the Girl Scout cookies in America throughout the year.

I commend the employees of Mother's Cookie Company and WAMZ-FM Radio in Louisville, KY, for their dedication to community service. They are an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky, and I thank them for their generosity.