[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3701-3704]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF MAX OLIVER COGBURN, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
            JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Max Oliver Cogburn, Jr., 
of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Western 
District of North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about Max Oliver Cogburn, 
Jr., judicial nominee for the U.S. district court in the Western 
District of North Carolina.
  Judge Cogburn was nominated for the second time by President Obama on 
January 25, 2011, and was favorably reported out of the Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote on February 3, 2011.
  It is extremely important to me that North Carolina has highly 
capable representation on our Federal courts. Judge Cogburn is exactly 
the type of legal mind we need as a judge on North Carolina's Western 
District Court.
  Since coming to the Senate, I have worked to increase the number of 
North Carolinians on the Federal judiciary. Unfortunately, it has 
turned out to be a rather slow and arduous process. After months of 
making the case that North Carolina deserves more representation on the 
Fourth Circuit last year, Judges Jim Wynn and Al Diaz were confirmed 
unanimously by the Senate.
  North Carolina is better off because Judges Jim Wynn and Al Diaz--
highly qualified, experienced, and fairminded judges--are now serving 
on the Fourth Circuit. It is my hope that very soon North Carolina will 
have another Federal judge with the confirmation of Judge Cogburn. All 
of these judges have received bipartisan support, and I am pleased that 
Senator Burr has joined with me in recommending these judges.
  I recommended Judge Cogburn because of his distinguished record as a 
jurist and attorney in both the public and private sectors. After 
earning degrees from Samford University Cumberland School of Law and 
UNC Chapel Hill, he entered private practice.
  Judge Cogburn has worked in private practice off and on since 1976, 
handling criminal felonies and misdemeanors, civil torts, domestic 
cases, and corporate work. Judge Cogburn also served as an assistant 
U.S. attorney from 1980 to 1992 where he prosecuted murder cases, drug 
trafficking, voter fraud, and a wide variety of Federal crimes.
  During his time with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Judge Cogburn served 
as the lead attorney of the Organized Crime and Drug Task Force, as 
well as the chief assistant U.S. attorney.
  From 1995 to 2004, Judge Cogburn served as a magistrate judge on the 
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. As a 
magistrate judge, he ruled on cases involving sexual harassment, racial 
discrimination in employment, fraud, age discrimination, products 
liability, and medical malpractice.
  Judge Cogburn has received the American Bar Association's highest 
rating of ``well-qualified.'' He has the skills and legal experience 
this position requires.
  I am pleased to speak about Judge Cogburn's outstanding 
qualifications to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western 
District of North Carolina. I am confident that Judge Cogburn will 
serve on the bench with clarity and distinction. I have worked steadily 
to see that he is confirmed quickly. I look forward to casting that 
vote shortly. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me and Senator Burr in 
support of Judge Cogburn's nomination and vote in favor of his 
confirmation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I also wish to talk about this historic day. 
It is historic because we are actually going to confirm Max Cogburn 
faster than it took for the nomination to come through. Today, in this 
austere body, that is an accomplishment. But in large measure it says a 
lot about the President's nominee.
  Max Cogburn has been nominated to the Federal bench in North 
Carolina's Western District. He is an excellent choice and I believe 
will be a needed but great addition to the court.
  The Cogburn family roots are in western North Carolina's mountains, 
and they run deep. It is an impressive family history, but Max has made 
a name for himself in his legal career and his public service: 
Assistant U.S. attorney, chief assistant U.S. attorney, magistrate 
judge, and in private practice.
  In addition to his legal career, which certainly qualifies him for 
the bench in his own right, the Cogburn's other business cannot help 
but be a benefit. You see, he and his family run a dude ranch outside 
of Asheville, NC.
  I thank the Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as I said, for 
acting so quickly on this nomination.

[[Page 3702]]

Nominees to the Federal bench are bestowed with a high honor but also a 
high amount of uncertainty and stress as they and their families go 
through a sometimes never-ending process. I am grateful this process 
has been relatively short and sweet for Max.
  He was nominated in May of 2010, had his hearing during the lameduck 
session, and was reported out in December, still during the lameduck 
session. I am sorry this body missed the opportunity at that time to 
finalize his confirmation. He did not get a vote in the last Congress, 
but that, of course, is not unusual for a nominee of either party who 
is reported by the committee late in the process.
  He was reported out again in February and is actually getting a vote 
in less time, as I said, than it took the White House to nominate him, 
especially following the departure and retirement of Judge Thornburg.
  I appreciate the Judiciary Committee's commitment to move quickly. I 
join my colleague, Senator Hagan, in encouraging all of our colleagues 
to unanimously support this appointment to the Federal bench.
  I might say, in conclusion, the underlying reason Max Cogburn should 
get the overwhelming support of all the Members of the Senate and 
should be the newest member of our court in the Western District is 
because Max Cogburn is a good man. He comes from good stock, but on his 
own he is a good man and a great American. Today he deserves this House 
to unanimously support this nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Hagan on the 
Senate's consideration of the nomination of Max O. Cogburn.
  Max O. Cogburn is nominated to sit on the U.S. District Court for the 
Western District of North Carolina, the very district where he has 
served for 9 years as a magistrate judge and for 12 years as an 
assistant U.S. attorney. Mr. Cogburn is currently a partner in the 
Asheville, NC, law firm of Cogburn and Brazil, and also serves as an 
appointed member of the North Carolina Education Lottery Commission.
  This nomination could--and in my view should--have been considered 
and confirmed last year. Instead, it was unnecessarily returned to the 
President without final Senate action, despite the nominee's 
qualifications and the needs of the American people to have judges 
available to hear cases in the Federal courts. The President has had to 
renominate him, the Senate Judiciary Committee has had to reconsider 
him and now, finally, the Senate is being allowed to consider him.
  I suspect the Senate will now confirm him unanimously or nearly so. 
He has the support of both his home state Senators, one a Democrat and 
the other a Republican. The nomination of Max Cogburn to fill a vacancy 
in the Western District of North Carolina is one that was reported 
without opposition by the Judiciary Committee both last year and, 
again, earlier this year.
  Besides this nomination, there are two nominees ready to fill 
vacancies in the District of Columbia. Recently, Seth Stern reported in 
Congressional Quarterly criticism from Chief Judge Lamberth of the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia, who warned that the 
breakdown in the judicial confirmation process is ``injuring the 
country.'' The two judicial nominees to fill longstanding vacancies for 
his court are still waiting for final consideration by the Senate. 
They, too, were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last 
year and again this year. They, too, are being needlessly delayed. The 
Senate should consider and confirm them without further delay. I will 
ask that a copy of the article be printed in the Record.
  Also reported from the Judiciary Committee and before the Senate are 
nominees to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in New York, a judicial 
emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit and a judicial vacancy in 
Oregon. They should be debated and confirmed without delay, as well. 
Earlier today, the Judiciary Committee moved forward to vote on two 
additional Federal circuit nominees and four additional district court 
nominees. They are now available to the Senate for its consideration, 
as well.
  After the confirmation of Mr. Cogburn, there will be 11 judicial 
nominees left waiting for Senate consideration having been reviewed by 
the Judiciary Committee. We are holding hearings every two weeks and 
hope finally to begin to bend the curve and start to lower judicial 
vacancies across the country. We can do that if the Senate continues to 
consider judicial nominations in regular order as they are reported by 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many 
and they have persisted for too long. That is why Chief Justice 
Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and 
many others--including the President of the United States--have spoken 
out and urged the Senate to act.
  Nearly one out of every eight Federal judgeships remains vacant. This 
puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to have a fair 
hearing in court. The real price being paid for these unnecessary 
delays is that the judges that remain are overburdened and the American 
people who depend on them are being denied hearings and justice in a 
timely fashion.
  Regrettably, the progress we made during the first 2 years of the 
Bush administration has not been duplicated, and the progress we made 
over the 8 years from 2001 to 2009 to reduce judicial vacancies from 
110 to a low of 34 was reversed. The vacancy rate we reduced from 10 
percent at the end of President Clinton's term to less than 4 percent 
in 2008 has now risen back to over 10 percent. In contrast to the sharp 
reduction in vacancies we made during President Bush's first 2 years 
when the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial 
nominations, only 60 of President Obama's judicial nominations were 
allowed to be considered and confirmed during his first 2 years. We 
have not kept up with the rate of attrition, let alone brought the 
vacancies down. By now they should have been cut in half. Instead, they 
continue to hover around 100.
  The Senate must do better. The Nation cannot afford further delays by 
the Senate in taking action on the nominations pending before it. 
Judicial vacancies on courts 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. 
This is unacceptable.
  We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the 
Federal bench in a timely manner. President Obama has worked with 
Democratic and Republican home state Senators to identify superbly 
qualified, consensus nominations. None of the nominations on the 
Executive Calendar are controversial. They all have the support of 
their home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats. All have a strong 
commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the 
Constitution.
  During President Bush's first term, his first 4 tumultuous years in 
office, we proceeded to confirm 205 of his judicial nominations. We 
confirmed 100 of those during the 17 months I was Chairman during 
President Bush's first 2 years in office. So far in President Obama's 
third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 71 
of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well 
short of the benchmark we set during the Bush administration. When we 
approach it we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels 
at which they have remained throughout these first three years of the 
Obama administration to the historically low level we reached toward 
the end of the Bush administration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the article to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       [From CQ Today Online News--Legal Affairs, Feb. 28, 2011]

   Judges: `Totally Broken' Confirmation Process Causing `Dire' Case 
                                Backlogs

                            (By Seth Stern)

       Two federal judges criticized the slow pace of judicial 
     confirmations Monday, saying

[[Page 3703]]

     cases are backlogged and judges overwhelmed at the trial 
     court level.
       Speaking at a Brookings Institution event on judicial 
     nominations, Royce Lamberth, the chief judge of the U.S. 
     District Court for the District of Columbia, said the 
     confirmation process is ``totally broken'' and that the 
     pattern of ``paybacks and the bickering have been thoroughly 
     bipartisan.''
       Lamberth, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 
     1987, raised similar concerns in a speech in March 2009, just 
     after the start of the Obama administration. But he said he 
     was increasingly concerned by the delays in the confirmation 
     of federal trial judges, which has only worsened in the two 
     years since.
       ``I say to both Democrats and Republicans, you are injuring 
     the country,'' Lamberth said.
       Lamberth was joined on the panel by William Furgeson Jr., a 
     Texas district court judge who said judges' growing caseloads 
     resulting from the vacancies in his district in western Texas 
     are a ``desperate problem'' that results in ``assembly-line 
     justice.''
       Furgeson called the situation on the border ``dire,'' 
     adding it was a ``giant mystery'' why senators now fight over 
     trial court judges.
       Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had also emphasized the 
     ``persistent problem'' of vacancies on the federal bench in 
     his annual report on the state of the judiciary released in 
     December.
       ``Each political party has found it easy to turn on a dime 
     from decrying to defending the blocking of judicial 
     nominations, depending on their changing political 
     fortunes,'' Roberts wrote in the report.
       Only 67 percent of Obama's district court nominees were 
     confirmed during his first two years in office, compared to 
     92 percent for George W. Bush and 87 percent for Bill 
     Clinton, according to statistics compiled by Russell Wheeler, 
     a visiting fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings 
     Institution, and 83 of 677 district court seats were vacant 
     as of Feb. 25.
       The Senate has confirmed six district court judges so far 
     this year, including two more Monday: Amy Totenberg and Steve 
     C. Jones to the Northern District of Georgia.
       On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a 
     second confirmation hearing for President Obama's most 
     controversial judicial nominee: Goodwin Liu, who was first 
     nominated for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th 
     Circuit in 2009.
       The University of California law professor has faced 
     intense criticism from Republicans for his liberal views and 
     for repeatedly amending the materials he has provided to the 
     Judiciary Committee.

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business, with the understanding that I will yield the floor if 
anyone comes to the floor to speak on the Cogburn nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Belarus Resolution

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a 
bipartisan resolution that has been submitted by our colleague, Senator 
Durbin, and of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, which concerns the 
situation in the country of Belarus.
  As the winds of democratic change have been sweeping now across North 
Africa and the Middle East ousting autocratic rulers who have been long 
entrenched there, it is important for us to remember there is still one 
remaining dictatorship in Europe, and that is in the country of 
Belarus.
  In the 20 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, Belarus's 
neighbors to the north and west have become successful, prosperous 
democracies. But, tragically, while Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia have 
broken the chains of tyranny and joined the flagship institutions of 
the Euro-Atlantic world, NATO, and the European Union, Belarus and its 
people have been left behind--held back by its despot ruler Alexander 
Lukashenko, who has ruled his country through repression and rigged 
elections for nearly two decades.
  Some in the United States and Europe had hoped in recent years that 
Lukashenko might be prepared to open up Belarus and change his ways. 
These hopes, however, came to an abrupt end on December 19 of last year 
when Belarus held Presidential elections. As it quickly became clear 
that the votes in those elections were neither free nor fair, thousands 
of Belarusian people took to the streets of Minsk in protest, and the 
Lukashenko regime responded with violence and brutality.
  This resolution would put the Senate on record in response to the 
crackdown launched in Belarus on December 19--a crackdown, I add, that 
continues in significant ways to this day.
  More than 600 people were swept up by Belarusian security forces on 
election day and its immediate aftermath--among them journalists, civil 
society representatives, political activists, and several opposition 
Presidential candidates. It is hard to believe this kind of behavior 
still exists in this world today. The detained continue to be denied 
access to family, lawyers, medical treatment, and open legal 
proceedings, while their relatives and attorneys endure harassment by 
Lukashenko's security forces.
  This resolution will do several significant things. First, it will 
send a strong and clear message to Lukashenko that his actions are 
unacceptable and will carry significant costs. It tells him we do not 
consider the December 19 election to be legitimate and that he is, 
therefore, not the legitimately elected leader of Belarus, and that 
there should be new elections that are free, fair, and meet 
international standards. I would add that the European Parliament 
passed a resolution not long ago that says precisely the same thing 
that I have just said here in the Senate.
  Perhaps even more important, this resolution will send a message to 
the people of Belarus who were struggling to secure their fundamental 
freedoms. It tells the dissidents there that we have not and will not 
forget them or their cause; that we remember their names, in fact, and 
we will stand in solidarity with them until they achieve their goal, 
which is a free and democratic Belarus.
  Last month, Senator McCain and I and others traveled to Vilnius, 
Lithuania, where we met with Belarusian students and opposition 
military leaders. This was an extremely powerful experience for all of 
us. We heard directly from them about the repression taking place in 
their home country. The substance of the resolution Senator Durbin has 
written and submitted, with cosponsorship by several of us, reflects 
what the Belarusians we met with in Vilnius told us, as well as what we 
heard here in Washington from other dissidents from that country.
  The resolution specifically calls for the immediate and unconditional 
release of all political prisoners in Belarus. It also urges a 
tightening of the sanctions against Lukashenko, and we are urging the 
Obama administration to offer the strongest possible material and 
technical support for Belarusian civil society, and that includes, of 
course, the political opposition.
  This resolution is broadly bipartisan in its sponsorship and reflects 
what I think is a wide consensus in the Senate about the situation in 
Belarus today. I know there are some who may look at the resolution and 
say it is merely symbolic, who say there is nothing we can do to help 
the people who are living such repressed and unfree lives in Belarus, 
and that we should simply accept the reality of Lukashenko's 
dictatorship after all these years. But if the historic events in 
Tunisia and Egypt have taught us anything about our foreign policies, 
it is that the United States does best when we stand with our values 
and with the people who share them--and that what appear to be even the 
most impregnable regimes can fall with remarkable speed.
  Obviously, I cannot say exactly when Belarus will be free, but I have 
no doubt that someday it will be free. I am confident the future of 
Belarus belongs not to Lukashenko and his cronies but to the people of 
that great country--to the dissidents who are in jail, to the students 
we met in Vilnius last month, to the civil society activists who are 
being harassed by the KGB as we speak. It belongs to the people in 
Belarus who want a future of democracy and economic opportunity, not 
Soviet-style repression.
  This resolution--put together, again I say with thanks, by Senator 
Durbin--puts the Senate on the side of the people of Belarus and 
against the Lukashenko regime that is oppressing them. I hope we can 
come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan measure.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor to the Senator from Iowa.

[[Page 3704]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, soon we will be voting on another 
nominee for district court. We continue our rapid pace in which the 
Senate has been confirming President Obama's judicial nominees. This 
vote will mark the 11th judicial nominee to be confirmed this Congress. 
That is more than double the number confirmed in the 108th Congress, 
which only saw five confirmations at this point. Obviously, actions 
speak louder than words. So far, our actions have had concrete results.
  The Judiciary Committee met this morning and reported six more 
judicial nominees. That puts the total at 22 nominees reported 
favorably so far. We continue to hold hearings every 2 weeks and have 
heard from 31 nominees currently pending before the Senate. As I have 
said in the past, we will continue to move consensus nominees through 
the confirmation process. However, we will continue to do our due 
diligence in evaluating the nominees. What we will not do is put 
quantity confirmed over quality confirmed. These lifetime appointments 
are too important to the Federal Judiciary and the American people to 
allow rubberstamping.
  Just this past Monday, the Senate confirmed three district court 
judges. In his statement for the record, the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Leahy, stated:

       Nearly one out of every eight Federal judgeships is vacant. 
     This puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to 
     have a fair hearing in court.

  However, what the chairman neglected to mention is the fact that 
President Obama has not put forth a nominee for every vacancy the court 
currently faces. In fact, of the 95 judicial vacancies, the Senate only 
has 45 nominees. That is 53 percent of vacancies without a nominee from 
the White House.
  Today, we vote on a nominee to sit on the Western District of North 
Carolina court. While this is an important vacancy, and a vacancy we 
need to fill, it is not a judicial emergency. However, there is a 
judicial emergency in the Eastern District of North Carolina. That 
seat, which has been vacant since 2005, does not have a nominee 
currently pending. President Bush nominated Thomas Alvin Farr to that 
seat twice, but he was never afforded a hearing, let alone an up-or-
down vote. I am happy this side of the aisle is not repeating the same 
regrettable treatment Mr. Farr received.
  With regard to Mr. Cogburn, the nominee we will be voting on, the 
American Bar Association has rated him ``majority well qualified, 
minority qualified.'' He received his B.A. from the University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill and his juris doctorate from Cumberland School 
of Law. Mr. Cogburn has practiced law in many capacities. Through his 
work in private practice, he has worked on a wide range of issues, 
including criminal litigation, personal injury, civil litigation, and a 
significant amount of mediation.
  As an assistant U.S. attorney for over a decade, Mr. Cogburn gained 
substantial appellate experience. While there, he also served as drug 
task force attorney and chief assistant U.S. attorney. Mr. Cogburn also 
holds judicial experience. He was appointed to serve an 8-year term as 
a U.S. magistrate judge by the U.S. District Court for the Western 
District of North Carolina.
  After careful evaluation, the Judiciary Committee reported this fine 
nominee by voice vote on February 3, 2011. I congratulate Mr. Cogburn 
and his family on this important lifetime appointment and his 
willingness to continue in public service.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded back in order to start the voting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Max Oliver Cogburn, Jr., of North Carolina, to be United States 
District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 38 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boxer
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Udall (NM)
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
shall be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________