[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 54 (Thursday, April 28, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4448-S4452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President and fellow Senators, I want to start by 
submitting a couple of editorials from papers in the State of New 
Mexico.
  First of all, I want to start with an editorial from a paper in New 
Mexico called the Santa Fe New Mexican. I do not want to editorialize 
too much about this paper, but I think it is fair to say this is not a 
conservative newspaper. I believe it is fair to say it is a pretty 
liberal paper. It is probably even more than mildly liberal, very 
liberal. But I was impressed by their grasp of this issue and a 
statement that was in their editorial.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that these editorials be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico), Feb. 24, 2003]

             Bingaman Should Lead Dems' Filibuster Retreat

       As legendary prizefighter Joe Louis said of an upcoming 
     opponent reputed to be fast on his feet: ``He can run, but he 
     can't hide.''
       Senate Democrats, along with the Republican majority, fled 
     Washington last week as their way of honoring Presidents' 
     Day. The annual recess suspended their filibuster against a 
     federal judgeship vote. The Dems are making an unwarranted 
     stand, and an unseemly fuss, over the nomination of Miguel 
     Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
       The filibuster--protracted talking under senatorial 
     privilege--had consumed a week of debate about Estrada before 
     the senators left town. Now they're gravitating back to the 
     Potomac, and the Dems can hide no longer. Resumption of their 
     verbose balking will make them look ridiculous--at a time 
     when the nation needs statesmen to stand up

[[Page S4449]]

     against the White House warmonger and his partisans 
     commanding Capitol Hill.
       The Democrats have chosen a particularly poor target: 
     Estrada, who came from Honduras as a boy and went on to lead 
     his law class at Harvard, is better qualified than many a 
     Democratic appointee now holding life tenure on one federal 
     bench or another.
       But after confirming so many less-qualified judges while 
     they held power, Estrada's senatorial tormentors now offer 
     ``reasons'' why he shouldn't be confirmed: too young; too 
     bashful about answering leading questions; appointed only 
     because he's Hispanic--or, to some senators' way of thinking, 
     not Hispanic enough.
       What really rankles with the Democrats, though, is 
     Estrada's politics. He's a conservative. Surprise, surprise; 
     we've got a conservative president, and it's the president 
     who makes the appointments to the federal judiciary.
       As the party on the outs, the Dems had better get used to 
     like-minded appointments from the president. If their game-
     playing goes on, a disgusted American public might keep 
     George W. Bush in office for the next six years. The country 
     certainly didn't see any reason to balance Bush against a 
     Democratic Congress when it had a chance just a few months 
     ago. With their spiteful behavior toward Bush appointees, the 
     Dems aren't exactly gaining goodwill.
       If they find the Republican so repugnant, let 'em vote 
     against him; at least they'll be putting their ideals--or 
     their party colors--on display. But this is no Mr. Smith 
     against some diabolical establishment; it's a bunch of sore 
     losers making themselves even more so.
       To break a filibuster by cloture takes 60 senators. The 
     Senate's 51 Republicans need nine of the 48 Democrats, or 
     eight of them and ex-Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont.
       New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman should lead the Democratic 
     blockade-runners. By all measures, Bingaman is a class act; a 
     lawyer who knows that senators have no business 
     obstructing appointments on purely political grounds. He 
     also knows that Republicans aren't going to hold the White 
     House forever; that sooner or later a Democratic president 
     will be choosing judges. And he realizes that Republicans, 
     like their mascot, have long memories.
       The last thing our justice system needs is an ongoing feud 
     over appointments to district and appellate judgeships. Let 
     Judge Estrada's confirmation be a landmark of partisan 
     politics' retreat from the courtroom.
                                  ____


                  [Albuquerque Journal, Apr. 27, 2005]

                Filibuster Puts Bar Too High for Judges

       Despite the cumbersome robes, Texas Supreme Court Justice 
     Priscilla Owen has managed to jump some pretty high bars. She 
     garnered 84 percent of the vote in her 2000 campaign for re-
     election. She received the American Bar Association's highest 
     rating as a nominee for the federal appeals court.
       But since 2001, she hasn't been able to get the time of day 
     on the Senate floor because Democrats will filibuster 
     confirmation. That means Owen has to have a super majority of 
     60 votes--the number it takes to close off a filibuster. That 
     bar is too high.
       Democrats like to stress the number of U.S. District Court 
     judges confirmed during the Bush administration. But the 
     higher courts are the battleground, and there, Democrats have 
     been able to hold Bush's confirmation rate (69 percent) well 
     below that of recent presidents.
       The Senate minority has used the filibuster or the threat 
     of it on an unprecedented scale to deny Owen and 15 other 
     appeals level nominees what the Constitution envisions, a 
     straight majority vote.
       Despite the time-honored Senate rule establishing senators' 
     right to hold the floor and talk until death or until 60 
     votes can be rounded up, the time-honored norm has been to 
     defer to the president, especially when the president's party 
     holds a Senate majority.
       What happens when traditions are trampled in the interest 
     of short-term political goals? Other customs that have worked 
     well become vulnerable to the escalating partisan crossfire 
     over judicial nominees. For example, Judiciary Committee 
     practice has been not to send a nomination to the floor 
     without the accord of the senators from the nominee's state. 
     Now that rule has been broken in the case of Michigan 
     nominees.
       The next level of escalation wasn't too hard to see coming: 
     The majority party threatens to remove the filibuster option 
     on judicial nominees. If that sounds radical, consider that 
     19 Democrats--including Sens. John Kerry, Edward Kennedy, 
     Barbara Boxer and Jeff Bingaman--moved to eliminate the 
     filibuster in 1995 when Democrats wielded majority power.
       What they failed to do then, they may goad the Republican 
     majority into accomplishing with regard to judicial 
     nominations now. It would be an action both parties 
     eventually could come to regret. The filibuster has allowed 
     the minority to apply the brakes to majority will over the 
     decades--but it was not intended to be a stone wall.
       Senate leaders should keep talking and trying to avert a 
     showdown on the filibuster. Democrats might negotiate for a 
     Bush pledge to forgo recess appointments, to seek more pre-
     nomination advice along with Senate consent, and for expanded 
     floor debate.
       But, after every senator has had his moment on the floor, 
     there should be a straight majority vote on the vast majority 
     of this or any other president's nominees.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I want to read the operative paragraph 
from the Santa Fe New Mexican:

       With this spiteful behavior toward Bush appointees, the 
     Dems aren't exactly gaining goodwill.
       If they find [these nominees] so repugnant, let 'em vote 
     against [them]; at least they'll be putting their ideals--or 
     their party colors--on display. But this is no Mr. Smith 
     against some diabolical establishment; it's a bunch of sore 
     losers making themselves even more so. . . .

  This is not Pete Domenici speaking. I am reading from this editorial:

       The last thing our justice system needs is an ongoing feud 
     over appointments to district and appellate judgeships.

  Now, yesterday, or maybe a day before, the major paper in the State, 
the Albuquerque Journal, had an editorial with a very interesting 
title: ``Filibuster Puts Bar [B-A-R] Too High for Judges.''
  It is a very interesting editorial, with a play on words: ``Bar'' 
meaning the bench; and ``Bar,'' with the idea that you have to have 60 
votes, is disavowed by this editorial. There is some nice recognition 
and discussion about the fact that a number of the Senators on the 
other side who are talking about this issue as if there was a 
filibuster allowed for judges--which I do not believe there is--the 
editorial explains that a number of Democrats were for doing away with 
the filibuster in its entirety about 10 years ago. At a point, that was 
a very major discussion here, and it was principally motivated by the 
Democratic Party, to get rid of the filibuster in its entirety. The 
editorial says how interesting and paradoxical it is that some of those 
who did not, at the time, want the filibuster around at all are arguing 
about it existing for judges--this is not conclusive but is 
interesting.
  So I am here because I would like to make my case and explain to the 
Senate why this Senator from New Mexico thinks we should have an up-or-
down vote on the circuit court judicial nominees of the President who 
are pending.
  First, I want to make the point that I am not trying to change 
anything. So when people say, Republican Senators want to change the 
filibuster rule, I am for changing nothing.
  What does that mean? That means I am for leaving the rule as it is. 
What does that mean? That means there is no filibuster rule relating to 
judges now. All the discussion about why should we change the rule is 
not the issue. The issue is, why are we denying circuit court judges an 
up-or-down vote--that is, majority rule--when that is what the 
precedent of the Senate has been for the last 200-plus years?
  For anybody who thinks the filibuster rule is absolutely inherent in 
anything the Senate does, that the rule came down from the Constitution 
to the Senate as: Thou shalt have a filibuster rule, that is not so. 
Look in the Constitution. There is no mention of filibusters. As a 
matter of fact, the document is filled with references to majority 
rule. And where the Constitution requires that we have more than a 
majority, it says so. So look to the Constitution to see if there are 
any times when our Founding Fathers said a two-thirds vote or more than 
a simple majority are necessary, and you will find there are few 
occasions and they are mentioned specifically. Therefore, I would 
assume the Constitution does not require super-majorities for judicial 
nominees. If we tried to say otherwise, I assume it would be thrown out 
in a minute.
  The question then is, what do we Republicans want? What do--maybe it 
won't all be Republicans in the end--we want now? We want judges who 
were nominated by this President for the circuit courts of appeal over 
a long period of time--and I will cite an example shortly--to have an 
up-or-down vote. I hope people understand, all these other questions 
that are asked of them, they beg the issue. The issue is, should a 
circuit court nominee who is otherwise qualified, meaning the American 
Bar Association and the people who work with them believe they are 
qualified, have a vote. That is the issue.
  I cannot believe the majority of Americans, given that set of facts, 
would say no, you need to get two-thirds of the vote under those 
circumstances. What are those circumstances? Those circumstances are 
that some in this body don't like the

[[Page S4450]]

nominees. The Constitution didn't say this is an issue of whether you 
like the nominees. It said, you are voting advice and consent for the 
nominee. So the point is, you exercise your right by saying: I don't 
consent. In advising, I withhold my consent and say no. The 
Constitution doesn't say two-thirds of you must say you have advised 
and you consent. That is the issue.
  As I see it on television and read about it, we can see people 
arguing that we shouldn't change. The filibuster is part of the fiber 
of the Senate. We should not alter it.
  I have explained that it isn't part of the fiber of the Senate with 
regards to judicial nominees. As a matter of fact, even on other issues 
besides judges, it is not certain that it existed when we were founded. 
There is a long period of history when we are not even sure the 
filibuster existed. But I am not here saying the filibuster does not 
now exist. In fact, I am for the filibuster. I didn't vote in favor of 
getting rid of the filibuster. Half of my service in this body has been 
as a minority Senator. So I know what it is to be a minority Member who 
appreciates the filibuster. But I also don't like the filibuster 
sometimes. I get upset. I wonder why it holds up so much legislation.
  I might add parenthetically that I don't like the way the filibuster 
is used around here now because it is used all the time for anything. 
Thirty times a year we have to have cloture filed. We didn't do that 
for 25 of the 30 years I have been here. It was very rare. In its 
earliest vintage, it was on matters of monumental importance to 
Senators, regions, or to Americans. Now every time we have a bill, if a 
few people say, we don't want to let that pass, you have a filibuster.
  I am not for changing the filibuster because of irreverence toward 
the Senate's right to vote. I don't think I am voting to change it when 
I talk about judges, because you don't change if you are trying to say, 
do what we have been doing. I have tried my best to read, first, what 
is a filibuster. I have checked and I have read. I understand.

  How do you get rid of it? I checked and I understand how you get rid 
of a filibuster. But I have also tried to find out when are filibusters 
used, and I have found that in the Senate it is not generally used with 
reference to voting on a nominee for Federal judgeships in the United 
States.
  I am not in favor of our leadership pursuing a process that gives us 
an up-or-down vote, if that process gets rid of the filibuster for 
everything. I have already inquired. I am assured that is not the case. 
I have been assured we won't be voting on that. It will be only 
regarding judges.
  So have we in the past filibustered judges? By that I mean, had a 
judge come down to the floor out of committee ready to be voted on and 
have we killed that judge's chance by filibustering? No, no. Never, 
never. One case is cited, and it is Abe Fortas.
  Abe Fortas was a Lyndon Johnson appointee who was on the bench, 
already confirmed. The issue was, President Johnson wanted to put him 
in a vacancy that occurred for Chief Justice which you know we have to 
vote on. And the Senate got into a debate about whether he should get 
it, and there was great consternation on the floor of the Senate as to 
whether he should be confirmed for that. The truth is, he was not 
killed by filibuster. His name was voluntarily withdrawn. He later even 
left the Supreme Court. But the record is pretty certain that he was 
not killed by filibuster. That wasn't a judicial appointment, anyway. 
But even if you want to tie that in, that did not happen.
  What have Senators around here said about this? I understand each can 
come down here and put it in whatever context they would like. My good 
friend, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, said on February 3, 1998, 
page S295 of the Congressional Record:

       We owe it to Americans across the country to give these 
     nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like 
     them, vote against them. But give them a vote.

  That is not me. That is Senator Kennedy.
  Senator Leahy said, June 8, 1998, page S6521 of the Congressional 
Record:

       I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, 
     whether it is somebody I opposed or supported . . .

  Interesting. I have seen the distinguished Senator from New York--I 
haven't heard him personally, but I have seen him and heard him on 
television with his right fist like this saying: We don't need any 
right wing judges or we don't need the right wing pushing us to appoint 
radical judges.
  I could as well put up my left hand, but I won't, and say we don't 
need anybody telling us to appoint liberal judges. But the 
distinguished Senator from New York said:

       This delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a 
     mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a 
     mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put 
     themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there 
     in limbo.

  That is dated March 7, 2000, page S1211 of the Congressional Record. 
I also told you about the New Mexico editorials.
  So people will understand how gross this abuse of the filibuster is 
and how it is prompted by personal angst, not qualifications, I am 
going to refer to one judge as an example. Let's take the nominee 
Priscilla Owen, Fifth Circuit, and let's look at her in comparison with 
judges who are on that court who have come before the Senate. Let's 
look at the first one, Patrick Higginbotham, nominated by Ronald 
Reagan, graduate of the University of Alabama, University of Alabama 
Law School. How long did it take to get through here? Twenty-six days. 
Nominee Emilio Garza, President Bush appointee, University of Notre 
Dame, University of Texas Law School, judicial experience, Bexar County 
Texas District Court.

  I am sure controversial people had a thing to say, but I am also sure 
this and the previous nominee were recommended or were certified to be 
qualified by the American Bar which, incidentally, most of the time 
this Senator has been here, that was the sine qua non. If you didn't 
have that, you were in trouble. And if you had it, conversely, that was 
pretty good. You must be qualified. That is what the old rule was. I am 
sure they had that. Forty-three days for him to be confirmed.
  Here we have Fortunato Benavides, nominated by President Clinton, 
University of Houston, University of Houston Law School, previous 
experience, 13th Court of Appeals for Texas, Texas Criminal Court of 
Appeals, 99 days to be confirmed. He got nominated and confirmed in 99 
days. There was a lot of commotion about him. He got here for a vote.
  Now we have Priscilla Owen, George W. Bush's nominee, Baylor 
University, Baylor University School of Law, Texas Supreme Court, 1994 
to the present. Both of these nominees were qualified, according to the 
American Bar, both of these, Mr. Benavides, Judge Owen, a lot of 
letters of commendation from those who know about their judicial 
temperament, their qualifications. I told you where she came from, 
where she was educated, where she served. Look at the time she's been 
waiting for a vote--I know Americans will better understand our 
dilemma--1,450 days waiting for us to say what the American people I 
believe would like us to say, and what I think the Constitution says we 
ought to say, and that is yes or no. Not maybe; not, ``well, I don't 
like their ideals so you need 60 votes.'' That is a pretty long time to 
leave a qualified judge hanging here unless you are absolutely certain 
that person is not qualified to be a judge.
  There is a lot more one can say about this, but I believe, as one who 
has been here a long time--I think right now there are only four people 
here sitting longer than I in the Senate--we should get this over with.
  This is hanging over the Senate in a very damaging way. With the 
passing of each day, more and more is said, more and more joining sides 
is taking place, digging in your feet, more and more groups outside are 
adding to the vitriolic nature of the debate. The talking heads--the 
news people who talk all the time on TV and speak on radio and write 
all the time--are choosing sides. They are feeding a frenzy, and we are 
suffering. But most of all, the American people are suffering because 
if we keep on, it is going to be hard to get our work done.
  I close by saying that our friends on the other side are led by a 
Senator whom I honestly and sincerely say is a good leader for the 
minority, Senator

[[Page S4451]]

Harry Reid, an excellent Senator--I believe he is fair and honest. I 
believe he would like to get this issue out of his mind and out of 
here. But he has suggested that if the majority party insists on doing 
what we are entitled to do--voting for these judges up or down by a 
majority vote--if we do that, which, I repeat, is not changing 
anything, the business of America will stop. We will pass nothing here. 
The Senate will be dead. America's business will go nowhere; it will 
disappear. That is an extraordinary threat, a threat that those who are 
making it better clearly understand.
  Does that really mean that we won't get a highway bill, an energy 
bill, an appropriations bill that pays for education, a bill that pays 
for the operation of our military, that we won't get an appropriations 
bill through here that pays for our parks, for the Indian schools of 
our country, and on and on? Have we really reached a point where the 
minority is saying, we are going to insist on enforcing a rule that 
doesn't exist, that denies an up-or-down vote on judges who are 
qualified, and if we don't get our way, Government stops?
  You know, I hope everybody understands that. I hope it doesn't 
happen. I think that editorial I read from suggests that those who do 
that are not going to come out of this with any accolades--nobody is 
going to be proud of that. I believe that is almost a minimum way of 
saying it. I think that will inure to the minority party being 
considered to be irresponsible on behalf of the people of this country.
  I thank the Senate for listening, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I commend Senator Domenici for his 
remarks and for his service and commitment to the Senate and the United 
States. In some ways--I didn't plan it this way--it is kind of 
appropriate that he would speak and that I would follow. Senator 
Domenici has served this country in a long and distinguished career. He 
has been in this Senate for many years. You can tell by his thoughtful 
remarks he cares passionately about his traditions and about the 
responsibilities we have. I care deeply, too, but I am a new guy. I 
just got here. I didn't hear those speeches he quoted. I have read 
them, and I have heard a lot of speeches. I come from a little bit of a 
different perspective.
  For a few minutes, I would like to tell you my opinion on the 
question of judicial confirmations and how I arrived at that. For, you 
see, although I address you as a Senator at this moment, the foundation 
of my beliefs is grounded in the preceding 2 years when I was a 
candidate for the Senate.
  Beginning in January of 2002, the 108th Congress convened, and I was 
an announced candidate for this Senate seat. Shortly into that session, 
something changed in America--or at least changed here--because the 
holdup of judges for days counted, like Senator Domenici just recited, 
began to take place and the filibuster began to be used in a way it had 
never been used in the United States before.
  As a candidate for the Senate, I was asked by members of the media, 
constituents, and Rotary and Kiwanis clubs: Mr. Isakson, if you were 
elected, what do you think the Senate ought to do? My answer was 
instinctively that I think every judge ought to get an up-or-down vote 
because, the way I understand it, that is the responsibility of the 
Senate. But as the intensity of the issue grew and as the campaign 
gained, as campaigns do, and the pressures grew, I did a little 
studying. I wanted to do my own homework. I didn't have history in the 
Senate, but I did have a Constitution.
  On some of those long nights on the road between campaign stops, I 
would read about judicial confirmations, the Constitution, the 
responsibility of the Senate. For a few moments, I want to share, for 
informational purposes, with the Members here and those who may be 
watching or listening exactly what the Constitution says about the 
responsibility of this body.
  It is very interesting. If you read the Constitution--I have a few 
underlined sections here. Everywhere the Constitution requires this 
body or the House to affirm a position by supermajority vote, it spells 
it out. A few years ago, we dealt with an impeachment issue, and the 
Constitution is clear: it takes a two-thirds vote to convict. We have 
dealt with constitutional amendments on a balanced budget and things of 
that nature, and the Constitution is quite clear: it takes a two-thirds 
vote. It is even so clear it says it takes a three-fourths vote of the 
States to ratify the amendment that it takes a two-thirds vote of the 
House and Senate to propose.
  Then let's talk about advice and consent for a second. I want to read 
directly from the Constitution the provisions about the 
responsibilities of this Senate in advice and consent.

       He [referring to the President] shall have the power by and 
     with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties 
     provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.

  That is the first part of a compound sentence. It is saying that it 
is our responsibility to advise and consent on treaties, and it 
specifically requires two-thirds of us to do so for the treaty to be 
ratified.
  Let me go to the second part of that compound sentence:

       And he [the President] shall nominate and, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, 
     other public ministries and councils, judges of the Supreme 
     Court. . . .

  Et cetera et cetera, with no requirement for a supermajority.
  When I was running for the Senate and I was continually asked the 
question by opponents in the primary and later in the general and by 
the media: Mr. Isakson, what do you think about this business of judges 
not getting a vote? And if you are elected, what would you do? I said: 
It is really kind of simple to me. The Constitution says that it is a 
Senator's responsibility to advise and consent. The Constitution 
specifies it every place where it requires a supermajority vote. The 
Constitution, in the same sentence that it designates the 
responsibility for us to ratify treaties by a supermajority, confers 
upon us the responsibility to advise and consent with a majority vote 
of this body.
  Since I have been elected and since I have been on the Senate floor 
and since I have heard all of the speeches, I have heard all of the 
adjectives assigned to the process we are debating. I will not get into 
any of them because they are more marketing than they are substance. 
But this document is not marketing; this document is substance. It has 
made the difference in the United States of America and any other 
country that has ever been formed since the creation of this Earth. 
While it may not be perfect, it is the best man ever did, and it is 
specific in what our responsibilities are. In no way does it say 
``maybe,'' ``sometimes,'' or ``whatever.''

  There is one point made from time to time which I would like to 
elaborate on and respond to. There are those who say: Well, but the 
Constitution, when it establishes the House and the Senate, the 
legislative branch, it says that both shall establish their rules under 
which they operate. Therefore, we are just using a rule to prohibit an 
up-or-down vote on the judges. Well, if you carry that argument to the 
logical extreme, what if we passed a rule that the Senate could pass by 
a majority vote the ratification of treaties? Could we contravene the 
Constitution? I think not, because the Constitution is specific. It is 
as specific in our responsibility for two-thirds to ratify treaties as 
it is specific in our responsibility for us to advise and consent on 
judges. I don't believe we could invalidate, through a rule, that 
responsibility any more than you can extrapolate that because we have a 
rule that includes a filibuster, that it applies to a constitutional 
responsibility and can invalidate our very requirement. It is just not 
really logical. That is not Republican or Democrat, it is not a 
marketing phrase or marketing phrase; it is real simple.
  When I was sworn into the House of Representatives almost 7 years ago 
now, I was elected in a special election, and, unusual in the House of 
Representatives, when you are elected in a special election, you get to 
make a speech when you are sworn in.
  I never worked harder on a speech in all my life because I knew I was 
going to be the only guy out of 435 down there, and I had 1 minute to 
say something intelligent. I struggled with what the right thing to do 
was.
  Finally, I went back to my dad, who is not with us anymore, and he 
went

[[Page S4452]]

back to a quote he used to tell me as a young man. He loved Mark Twain. 
When we had one of those difficult decisions to make, he would always 
say: Son, remember what Mark Twain said. When confronted with a 
difficult decision, do what's right. You will surprise a few; you will 
amaze the rest.
  A decision that is pretty simple has become very complex for this 
Senate. In the end, we should peel back the arguments and look back to 
the foundation under which all of us operate, and that is our 
Constitution. The question is simple and our responsibility is clear, 
and every judge nominated by this President, or any President, deserves 
an up-or-down vote one way or another. It is the responsibility of the 
Senate. It is the direction of the Constitution.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________