[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 57 (Monday, May 2, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2569-S2572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF ROY BALE DALTON, JR., TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                       MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF KEVIN HUNTER SHARP TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                      MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nominations of Roy Bale Dalton, Jr., 
of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of 
Florida, and Kevin Hunter Sharp, of Tennessee, to be United States 
District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
of debate, equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we return from Easter recess, judicial 
vacancies around the country remain at historically alarming levels, as 
they have for the last 3 years. With 1 out of every 9 Federal 
judgeships still vacant, and judicial vacancies around the country 
remaining at 95, we have serious work to do.
  I thank the majority leader for scheduling votes on two more 
nominations to fill judicial emergency vacancies. Roy Bale Dalton, Jr., 
has been nominated to fill a judgeship in the Middle District of 
Florida and Kevin Hunter Sharp has been nominated to fill a judgeship 
in the Middle District of Tennessee. Each nomination was reported 
unanimously by the Judiciary Committee more than a month ago. They both 
could be confirmed unanimously.
  With cooperation from both sides of the aisle, the Senate could 
consider the additional 13 judicial nominees ready for final Senate 
action. I had hoped that the Senate would have considered a number of 
them before taking its Easter recess 2 weeks ago. Among those nominees 
are another five to fill additional judicial emergency vacancies, three 
of them reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, 
including one which was reported unanimously but remains stalled on the 
calendar awaiting final action.
  We should certainly have proceeded with the judicial nominees for 
whom there is no opposition and no reason for delay. That would have 
allowed us to confirm another seven nominees. They have all been 
thoroughly reviewed by the members of the Judiciary Committee in a 
hearing and have all been recommended to the Senate unanimously. They 
are Arenda L. Wright Allen to fill a vacancy in the Eastern District of 
Virginia; Michael Francis Urbanski, to fill a vacancy in the Western 
District of Virginia; Clair C. Cecchi to fill a vacancy in New Jersey; 
Esther Salas to fill another vacancy in New Jersey; Paul Oetken and 
Paul Engelmayer to fill vacancies in the Southern District of New York; 
and Ramona Manglona to fill a vacancy in the Mariana Islands. The 
Virginia nominees have been waiting for final consideration longer than 
those nominees who are being allowed to be considered today.
  Two of the nominees currently awaiting a Senate vote have twice been 
considered by the Judiciary Committee and have twice been reported with

[[Page S2570]]

strong bipartisan support, first last year and again in February. They 
are Susan Carney of Connecticut to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Michael 
Simon to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the District Court in 
Oregon. Two of the nominations have been reported favorably by the 
Committee three times--that of Goodwin Liu to fill a judicial emergency 
vacancy on the Ninth Circuit and that of Jack McConnell, reported with 
bipartisan support to fill a vacancy for the District of Rhode Island. 
Another currently pending nomination has been reported favorably four 
times, that of Judge Edward Chen to a judicial emergency vacancy on the 
Northern District of California. All of these nominations have long 
been ready for a Senate vote. So is the nomination of Caitlin Halligan 
to fill a judicial vacancy on the DC Circuit.
  All 15 of the pending nominees have a strong commitment to the rule 
of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. All should 
have an up-or-down vote after being considered by the Judiciary 
Committee, and without weeks and months of needless delay.
  If we join together, we can make real progress by considering all of 
the judicial nominations now on the Senate's Executive Calendar. If the 
Senate were to take favorable action on the 15 judicial nominations 
currently pending and awaiting final Senate consideration, we could 
reduce vacancies to below 90. In fact, we would be able to reduce them 
to 80 for the first time since July 2009.
  Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, 
and they have persisted for too long. Whereas the Democratic majority 
in the Senate reduced vacancies from 110 to 60 in President Bush's 
first 2 years, judicial vacancies still number 95 more than 26 months 
into President Obama's term. By now, judicial vacancies should have 
been cut in half, but we have barely kept up with attrition.
  Regrettably, the Senate has not reduced vacancies dramatically as we 
did during the Bush administration. In fact, the Senate has reversed 
course during the Obama administration, with the slow pace of 
confirmations keeping judicial vacancies at crisis levels. Over the 8 
years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced 
judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. That has now been reversed, 
with vacancies staying above 90 since August 2009. The vacancy rate--
which we reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term 
to 6 percent by this date in President Bush's third year, and 
ultimately to less than 4 percent in 2008--has now swelled to nearly 11 
percent.
  The two nominations we consider today demonstrate that there is no 
reason the Senate cannot consider and confirm the President's 
nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner. Both nominees show 
President Obama's commitment to working with home State Senators of 
both parties to identify superbly qualified nominees in districts with 
vacancies. I thank Senators Nelson, Rubio, Alexander and Corker for 
working with President Obama on these nominations and congratulate them 
along with the nominees and their families.
  I have thanked the Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I am glad to see him 
echo my call to turn the page and end the days of tit for tat on 
judicial nominations. That is what I did from the first days of the 
Bush administration in spite of how President Clinton's nominees had 
been treated.
  My friend from Iowa often speaks about the positive action we are 
taking on nominations. In order to make these statements meaningful, 
the Senate needs to consider and confirm the 15 judicial nominations 
that are awaiting final consideration and action by the Senate. That 
the Senate Judiciary Committee is doing its work is good, but to send 
judicial nominations to the Senate is not enough. It means nothing if 
they are not considered by the Senate. More than a dozen continue to 
languish without positive action by the Senate. Some have been stalled 
since last year and one from two years ago. They all are waiting for 
what I would call ``positive action.''
  I ask unanimous consent that a column by Ashley Belleau, the National 
President of the Federal Bar Association be printed in the Record at 
the end of my statement, which, in part, says:

       The business of America is business, and when business 
     can't figure out if their patents are good, their contracts 
     are good, they can't figure out what to do about their tax 
     situation, things bog down. Businesses need a strong rule of 
     law and prompt rulings by judges. Vacancies desperately need 
     to be filled; new judges desperately need to be added. We owe 
     that to our citizens. We owe that to our Constitution. We owe 
     that to the rule of law. And we owe it to the cause of 
     justice.
       Prompt and thoughtful justice, not endless delay, is what 
     the American people expect from their legal system. It is 
     what we deserve. It is what due process requires. And it is 
     the most cost-efficient approach to the resolution of 
     lawsuits in our nation's courts.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. I also ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the 
Arizona Range News entitled ``Lack of Federal Judges a Serious Issue'' 
be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. It mentions a 
resolution by the Phoenix Chapter of the Federal Bar Association urging 
Arizona's congressional representatives to work to fill the vacancies 
plaguing the Arizona courts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senate must do better. We must work together to ensure 
that the Federal judiciary has the judges it needs to provide justice 
to Americans in courts throughout the country. Judicial vacancies 
throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to 
fulfill its constitutional role. They create a backlog of cases that 
prevents people from having their day in court in a timely fashion. 
This is unacceptable. That is why Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney 
General Holder, and the President of the United States have spoken out 
and urged the Senate to act.
  Just before the Senate adjourned for its two-week Easter recess, the 
White House Counsel spoke to the American Bar Association about the 
need for a sense of greater urgency in filling these judicial 
vacancies. I hope that we will follow this advice and make real 
progress to ensure that the Federal courts are able to function for all 
Americans.
  We have a long way to go to do as well as we did during President 
Bush's first term, when we confirmed 205 of his judicial nominations, 
bringing the vacancy rate down from 10 percent to 4 percent. We 
confirmed 100 othose judicial nominations during the 17 months I was 
Chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office. So far, well 
into President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only been 
allowed to consider 79 of President Obama's Federal circuit and 
district court nominees. We remain well short of the benchmarks we set 
during the Bush administration; 79 is well short of 205.

                               Exhibit 1

         [From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Apr. 27, 2011]

     Business, Defendants Harmed in Cost-Cutting at Federal Courts

                         (By Ashley L. Belleau)

       Just as budgets matter, so does justice. The two are 
     connected. Making sure we have enough judges in our federal 
     courts will save dollars, not waste them.
       The insufficient number of judges in our federal courts is 
     costing our country in dollars and protracted litigation. 
     Manpower and money are foolishly wasted. Record caseloads in 
     many federal judicial districts cause trials to be delayed, 
     especially civil cases. This is not good for the state of 
     justice in our nation.
       The fact that we don't have enough judges to decide 
     promptly the federal civil and criminal lawsuits in our 
     country owes itself to the Congress and the president. Both 
     have failed to create enough judgeships in high-caseload 
     areas of the country, like California and the border courts 
     in Texas. Both have failed to keep the process moving by 
     timely providing capable, qualified individuals to fill 
     judgeships as they open up due to retirement, death or 
     resignations.
       As a result our federal court system is bursting at the 
     seams. With 12 percent of judgeships vacant, temporary 
     judgeships expiring, and more courts in emergency mode than 
     ever, there is an unprecedented crisis in our third branch of 
     government. The phrase ``justice delayed is justice denied'' 
     describes the dire situation in many federal courthouses. 
     Judicial vacancies plainly undermine the capacity of our 
     courts to render justice within a reasonable period of time.
       Sadly, few Americans understand the impact these judicial 
     vacancies have on their lives. Those of us who try federal 
     cases know

[[Page S2571]]

     its impact in the continuance of cases for months, even 
     years, without decision. Vacancies and delay add greater 
     costs to already high litigation expenses. For business 
     clients, these costs get passed on to customers. And when the 
     United States is a party to the case, it means that the 
     public is paying that higher tab.
       For criminal defendants awaiting trial, it can mean more 
     detention time, adding even more costs to the taxpayer. Just 
     last year, the federal cost of pretrial detention alone was 
     $1.4 billion, according to the Department of Justice.
       At a recent forum sponsored by the Federal Bar Association 
     and the Brookings Institution, Federal District Judge Royal 
     Furgeson commented on the enormous impact that vacancies on 
     the federal bench have on the pace of litigation and 
     ultimately the American economy: The business of America is 
     business, and when businesses can't figure out if their 
     patents are good, their contracts are good, they can't figure 
     out what to do about their tax situation, things bog down. 
     Businesses need a strong rule of law and prompt rulings by 
     judges. Vacancies desperately need to be filled; new judges 
     desperately need to be added. We owe that to our citizens. We 
     owe that to our Constitution. We owe that to the rule of law. 
     And we owe it to the cause of justice.
       Prompt and thoughtful justice, not endless delay, is what 
     the American people expect from their legal system. It is 
     what we deserve. It is what due process requires. And it is 
     the most cost-efficient approach to the resolution of 
     lawsuits in our nation's courts.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

              [From the Arizona Range News, Apr. 27, 2011]

                 Lack of Federal Judges a Serious Issue

       At the beginning of the year, Judge John Roll, the 
     presiding federal judge in Arizona, was seeking permission to 
     delay bringing felons to trial from the usual 70-day 
     requirement to up to 180 days. That's the same Judge Roll who 
     was gunned down just days later in Tucson by a deranged 
     assassin.
       Roll termed the problem a ``judicial emergency'' prompted 
     by the number of cases flooding the judicial docket in 
     Arizona and the federal court's inability to handle them all 
     in a speedy fashion.
       The problem is and remains a lack of judges and court staff 
     to handle the caseload.
       According to news reports, based on its caseload, the 
     judicial district of Arizona is eligible for five more 
     judgeships. The state is authorized for 13, but has three 
     vacancies, two in the Tucson division.
       As a direct result of illegal immigration prosecutions, two 
     years ago there were 3,023 felony cases filed in federal 
     court in Arizona. That increased to 4,311 the next year and 
     5,219 last year. In just Tucson, felony filings went from 
     1,564 two years ago to 3,289 last year.
       The power to appoint more judges lies with Congress, but 
     our representatives and senators, while reportedly 
     supportive, have not been proactive.
       The problem prompted the Phoenix Chapter of the Federal Bar 
     Association to issue last month a resolution to congressional 
     members to get the vacancies filled and to add to the court 
     staff and its facilities.
       In fact, judicial vacancies are a problem across the 
     nation. According to a CNN report, there are 99 vacancies in 
     the 857 federal district and appeals court judgeships, 
     amounting to about 12 percent of the judicial seats. Just 46 
     names have been put forth by President Obama to fill those 
     openings. The Administrative Office of the U.S. courts 
     predicts at least 15 more vacancies this year.
       We urge you to contact your congressional members to 
     champion a solution to the very real needs of the judge and 
     staff shortages facing the federal courts in Arizona.
       And we would ask you to ask them to act not only for our 
     state's sake, but in memory of Judge Roll who served his 
     state and country well.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination 
of Kevin Sharp to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court 
for the Middle District of Tennessee. The Senate will be voting on the 
President's nomination within a few minutes. Kevin is an outstanding 
individual. I am pleased to be able to support his nomination today.
  As a Governor, I appointed about 50 judges. I tried to determine in 
doing that if he or she had the character and the intelligence and the 
temperament to be a judge, whether that person would treat people 
before the bench with courtesy, and most important whether they were 
determined to be impartial to litigants before the court. I believe 
Kevin Sharp meets these qualifications, and I am pleased that he will 
bring that character and skill to his service on the bench. I 
congratulate the President for nominating him.
  Kevin is a native of Tennessee. He is a founding partner of the 
national law firm of Drescher and Sharp where he has been an expert in 
employee law, employee benefits, and commercial disputes. He is a 
graduate of two Tennessee institutions of higher education. He earned 
his bachelor of science degree from Christian Brothers College, 
graduating summa cum laude. He earned his juris doctorate from 
Vanderbilt, where he was a Weldon B. White Scholar, an Associate 
Problem Editor on the Moot Court Board, a recipient of the Appellate 
Advocacy Award, and a research assistant on issues of constitutional 
law and habeas corpus.
  As a lawyer, Kevin Sharp has repeatedly earned recognition from his 
peers, being named one of the Nashville Business Journal's best of the 
bar in 2003, and each year from 2005 to 2009.
  Prior to becoming a lawyer, Kevin served in the U.S. Navy as a flight 
crew member on the P-3 Orion operating in patrol/reconnaissance, and 
the antisubmarine warfare capacities as part of the U.S. Pacific fleet.
  Kevin has broad support in Tennessee. Both the White House and my 
office and Senator Corker's office have received numerous letters from 
Republicans, Democrats, and those who didn't indicate any sort of 
partisan leaning, which is the way it ought to be.
  Although the President nominated Kevin on November 17 of last year 
for the first time, the seat that he has been nominated to fill is 
designated as a judicial emergency. It has been vacant for 4 years, 
since March 1, 2007. This is the third longest vacancy on the list of 
judicial emergencies, and the people of Tennessee deserve to have this 
vacancy filled.
  I thank the President for the nomination and the Judiciary 
Committee's prompt consideration of that nomination. I am grateful for 
the opportunity to join in support of the nomination of Kevin Sharp, 
and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the nomination 
today.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will confirm two more 
of President Obama's judicial nominees. I continue to work with the 
chairman of the committee to ensure nominees are afforded a fair but 
thorough process and in a timely manner.
  Today's vote marks the 19th nominee to be confirmed in just 42 days 
the Senate has been in session this Congress. The Judiciary Committee 
is holding a nominations hearing on Wednesday. On Thursday we will 
report additional judicial and executive nominees to the floor. Thus 
far we have taken positive action on 43 of 63 nominees submitted this 
Congress, or 68 percent of all nominees.
  Let me repeat that, because I am going to say something that makes it 
very disgusting to me, some things that are coming out of the White 
House. Thus far we have taken positive action on 43 of 63 nominees 
submitted to this Congress, or 68 percent of the nominees. With this 
progress, I was then surprised at the recent remarks of the White House 
Counsel before the American Bar Association members this past April 14.
  This counsel addressed the group and complained about the pace of 
judicial appointments. He encouraged the group to escalate the general 
sense of urgency regarding judicial appointments. Press reports 
indicate that he asked them to play a larger role to ``bring home the 
impact or the effects of gridlock.''
  So, Mr. President, not only do I think these remarks are unjustified, 
given the pace of confirmations this year--and that is the 68 percent I 
have referred to--but they also reflect a failure on the part of the 
White House Counsel to acknowledge where the problem begins. It begins 
with the President of the United States and his staff--the White House 
Counsel particularly.
  This brings me to the point: If we are acting so slowly, why has the 
President failed to send to the Senate a nomination for 55 percent of 
the current judicial vacancies? This statistic certainly does not 
indicate any sense of urgency on the part of the White House, and it 
brings further attention to the intellectual dishonesty of the White 
House in its speech to the ABA members that we are not acting fast 
enough on the Hill.
  Well, having said that, I want to say a few words about the two 
nominees we are going to be voting on today. Roy Dalton, Jr. is 
nominated to be U.S. District Court judge for the Middle District of 
Florida. Mr. Dalton received

[[Page S2572]]

his BA with high honors and his JD from the University of Florida.
  Following law school, he joined the firm of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & 
Lawton as an associate where he later became a principal of the firm.
  In 1982, the nominee founded his first law firm, Roy B. Dalton, Jr., 
P.A. He would later form other practices where he would serve as a 
principal. In 1999 he began working as ``of counsel'' for the firm 
Gray, Harris & Robinson, where his practice area grew to include civil 
litigation, government relations, appellate practice, and business 
practice for individuals. As a former Senate staffer, Mr. Dalton spent 
most of 2005 serving as counsel to his former legal partner and U.S. 
Senator, Mel Martinez. Mr. Dalton has also practiced in appellate 
matters as ``of counsel'' for the Carlyle appellate law firm, a post he 
has held since 2004. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary gave him the rating of: substantial majority ``Well 
Qualified''; minority ``Qualified.'' I am pleased to support Mr. Dalton 
today.
  I also rise in support of Kevin Sharp to be U.S. District Court Judge 
for the Middle District of Tennessee. Mr. Sharp enlisted in the U.S. 
Navy following high school and received an honorable discharge in 1986. 
The nominee received his B.S. from Christian Brothers College and a 
J.D. from Vanderbilt University School of Law. He began his legal 
career as an associate with the firm of Stokes & Bartholomew. After a 
yearlong stint working as an attorney for the U.S. Congressional Office 
of Compliance, Mr. Sharp returned to Stokes, Bartholomew, Evans & 
Petree, eventually making partner. Since 2003, he has been a 
shareholder and partner at Drescher & Sharp, where he has focused his 
legal practice on employment, labor, and disability law. The ABA 
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated him ``Qualified'' 
and I urge my colleagues to support this nominee.
  I note that the vacancy Mr. Sharp will fill was created by the 
retirement of Judge Echols in March of 2007. A few months later, on 
June 13, 2007, President Bush nominated Gus Puryear to fill the 
vacancy. Mr. Puryear waited 8 months before he had a hearing. That was 
the last action the committee took on the nomination. His nomination 
languished in committee for another 10 months before being returned to 
the President in January 2009, at the end of President Bush's term. It 
is both unfortunate and unnecessary that this seat has remained vacant 
for so long.
  I congratulate each of these men for their achievements and commend 
them for the public service they have given and that they will provide 
to the people of this country, and particularly to their respective 
States in the future.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield back all remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Dalton nomination is confirmed.
  The question now occurs on the Sharp nomination.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Kevin Hunter Sharp, of Tennessee, to be United States District Judge 
for the Middle District of Tennessee?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the 
Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Georgia 
(Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Ex.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ensign
     Hatch
     Isakson
     Kirk
     Menendez
     Moran
     Nelson (FL)
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate 
will resume legislative session.

                          ____________________