Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 423.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and there be no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment or recess of the Senate from Friday, April 11 through Monday, April 28, Senators Levin, Rockefeller, Reed, and Gillibrand be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the Senate's recess, committees be authorized to report legislative and executive matters on Friday, April 25, from 10 a.m. until noon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, April 28; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the Friedland nomination as provided under the previous order.

Mr. President, there will be up to four rollcall votes on Monday, April 28. Votes will be in relation to the Friedland, Weil, and O'Regan nominations.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the provisions of S. Con. Res. 35.

I move to proceed to Calendar No. 354, the minimum wage legislation.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the time until 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled.

At 10:30 a.m. there will be a vote on the Ninth Circuit judge, whose name is Michelle Friedland. Until cloture is invoked there will be up to 30 hours of debate prior to vote on the confirmation of the nomination. So we have two votes we need to have before we leave here this week. We can have a vote at 4:00 tomorrow afternoon and the second vote would be around 7:00 or thereabouts tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening. We have to finish these two matters before we leave this week.

The schedule is up to--not Republicans but a few Republicans--so I would suggest the Republicans deal with their own, and we can finish this morning if we need to. We certainly could.

Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to my friend, the dignified and really superb Senator from Georgia.

Tomorrow marks the 46th anniversary of the signing into law the Civil Rights Act of 1968, better known as the Fair Housing Act. This landmark legislation took a stand against

housing discrimination and gave American families a fair shot at finding housing that was suitable to their needs. It is fitting we recognize this anniversary now, especially in light of the equality legislation we have been trying to pass here in the Senate recently.

The Economic Ladder

One of the first well-known billionaires we heard a lot of talk about on the planet was the outspoken oil tycoon J. Paul Getty. He once quipped: ``Money is like manure. You have to spread it around or it smells.''

Well, Charles and David Koch have certainly spread the money around, but it still stinks. It stinks because of what they do with their money. The Kochs are singlehandedly funding an attack on this Nation's middle class, instead of concerning themselves with narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor.

Remember, in America today the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is getting squeezed. The Koch brothers have a lot to do with that. They are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into rightwing organizations. And I didn't make a mistake when I said hundreds of millions of dollars.

Instead of giving Americans a fighting chance to prosperity, the two richest brothers in the world are focused on getting Republicans elected. These Koch-funded organizations and politicians advocate only for what makes the Koch brothers richer. The two richest brothers in the world want to be richer, and it comes at the expense of the average American.

The Kochs are the classic example of two men at the top of the ladder who would pull that ladder up to make sure no one else can join them. That is exactly what the Koch brothers are trying to do to middle-class families. The only difference, of course, is that Charles and David never even scaled the ladder in the first place. They were born at the top rung. But somehow the Kochs have fooled themselves into thinking they rose to the top by their own merits. They didn't.

More importantly, the Koch brothers have decided that they want their inherited wealth, this company now they have at the top--they want to make sure this ladder that should be reachable for everyone is unreachable. They are determined to make that ladder totally unreachable for others. These billionaires do this by rigging the system even more in their favor, making sure the Kochs' interests are being represented at all costs.

As has been reported--and not by me--the Koch brothers have what some journalists are calling secret banks. Organizations serve as middlemen to fund ultraconservative scare campaigns. Through these secret banks, such as Freedom Partners and others, the multibillionaire Koch brothers pump money into radical institutions and all these rightwing organizations ultimately come to the same conclusion: America's best bet for economic prosperity is to help the Koch brothers get richer.

So what do these groups do with the funds they receive from their billionaire benefactors? Groups such as Americans for Prosperity--try that one on for size, the Americans for Prosperity--lie to the American people about ObamaCare, hoping families will not sign up for affordable health care.

Extreme organizations such as Independent Women's Forum tell women equal pay for equal work is not necessary because they say wage disparity is a myth.

The Koch-backed Manhattan Institute is another one of their shell organizations that tries to convince the country that out-of-work American families don't need unemployment benefits. Why? Because they are out of work because they are lazy.

And, of course, the Heritage Foundation uses Koch dollars to say raising the minimum wage is bad for business and will kill the economy.

It is clear that the Kochs are using these puppet organizations in their proxy war on the middle class. But Charles and David aren't just using radical rightwing groups to keep average Americans from scaling the rungs. They are using Republicans. They are spreading their money around helping Republicans get elected.

Unfortunately, the Republican Congress has shown itself to be in lockstep with the Koch brothers' radical agenda. The Republicans continue to push repeal of the Affordable Care Act. I watched the speech on the House floor yesterday, where one House Member indicated that he tried almost 60 times to repeal the bill--almost 60 times.

What did Albert Einstein say? The definition of insanity is when someone tries to do something over and over again and they get the same result. They are insane. That is Albert Einstein, not me.

They are doing this regardless of the fact that even the Koch brothers; that is, their business, Koch Industries, benefited from ObamaCare.

Remember that ladder. The Kochs already got what they needed from health care reform. They don't want other people to do the same. They have benefited from ObamaCare. I laid that out a few days ago on the Senate floor.

Senate Republicans have blocked the equal pay amendment three times-- three separate Congresses. They won't even let us discuss it. All but half of Republican Senators voted against the extension of benefits for the long-term unemployed, and turned their back on their own constituents.

As for the minimum wage, my Republican colleagues have given no indication to help struggling families with the minimum wage.

The Kochs' wealth is being used to squeeze the middle class very much. As long as Charles and David Koch are at the top looking down, who cares about the little people at the bottom, in their estimation.

It is shameful that Koch money has made its way into our Nation's Capitol, our news, and our homes. It is frustrating that as Senate Democrats look across the aisle, we don't see many willing partners in defending middle-class families in Nevada and across the Nation. But we are not going to be intimidated by these Koch surrogates in the media or here in this very Chamber. We will continue to fight even harder to protect Americans from the greedy grasp of these billionaire oil barons and the wrath of their radical minions. Senate Democrats will continue to pull that ladder out from the Koch brothers' fingers so every American has a fair shot at climbing to the top.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Madam President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

We are here this afternoon because Republicans are holding the confirmation of two important nominations. Earlier today the Senate voted to invoke cloture on Michelle Friedland to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. So the only question is, when will she be made a Federal judge in the Ninth Circuit.

There are some who say that 30 hours should run. They can speak for themselves why they insist on doing so. There is no question it is not to debate the nomination. It is just to do nothing, to stand around here and do nothing.

Few, if any, Senators have come to the floor to express any reason to oppose this good woman. She was nominated 9 months ago by President Obama. So it is time to confirm this well-qualified nominee. Enough stalling has taken place.

She graduated second in her class at Stanford University Law School. She clerked for Sandra Day O'Connor in the Supreme Court. She has been a partner in a prominent law firm.

The Ninth Circuit is the busiest circuit in the entire country. The Senate confirmed 18 of President Bush's circuit court nominees within a week of being reported out of committee. This woman, as I already indicated, was 13 months ago. We have 30 other judicial nominees pending on the calendar. We have 85 vacancies on the Federal courts. There is no reason to delay this nomination.

There is no reason to delay the nomination of David Weil to lead the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. He is a Boston University professor, a Harvard University researcher.

I am sure it is a little difficult for people watching this to understand why Republicans are demanding that we waste time, because that is all it is. But I guess the American people have become accustomed to wasting time. That is what they have tried to do for 5 years. We have wasted time because of issues such as this. The staff has to be here. We have wasted so much time that we could be working on important issues.

The Republicans have come to the floor saying: We want amendments. The reason we don't deal with that kind of stuff is because we spend so much time on this. We have wasted thousands of hours during the 5 years, and that is very unfortunate. The Republicans are stalling so much.

Unanimous Consent Request

I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:00 today be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that at 4:00 p.m. all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote, with no intervening action or debate, on Calendar No. 574; further, following disposition of the nomination, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture for Executive Calendar No. 623; if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time will be yielded back and the Senate will proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

I reserve my right to object.

Madam President, obviously this is not a dissertation on logic, because if it were, why in the world would we want to waste 30 hours doing nothing? And that is what we are doing, 30 hours.

I know my friend from Iowa has been on the Judiciary Committee a long time. I appreciate all he has done, but it is apparent the only reason the Senator from Iowa expresses delay is for delay itself, no other reason.

Now, I may have missed it. There could have been someone talking about what a bad person she is or why she is not qualified, but I must have missed that. I heard little, if any, opposition. In fact, I have heard none for this nominee. I have heard only obstruction for obstruction's sake, delay for delay's sake.

This has been going on for 5 years. It appears that the Senator wishes his caucus to be the caucus that ``just says no,'' and that is what they did here.

So, Madam President, I object to the modification.

As I indicated, this is something without logic. We have had a lot of judges approved after wasting hundreds of hours of time doing nothing. We have judges reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously, led by our good friend, the senior Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Committee, who does such an admirable job. They were reported out unanimously, and they stall--the Republicans stall, delay, obstruct, and then we have a vote here and it passes very easily. Their only purpose for the delaying is for delay's sake. They are obstructing this as they have obstructed everything over the last 5 years.

I know people complain about the rule change that was made. Where would we be in this country without having changed that rule?

I got a letter today from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, outlining nine important people in the Department of Defense who need to be confirmed. Most of the positions have been without anybody there for more than a

year. We have numerous ambassadors to important countries around the world, and they are not being confirmed because they are being stalled. Why? Why could we not have these people go do their work? They have been nominated. Countries all over the world are without ambassadors from the United States. Where would we be if we had not changed that rule?

Now we are slogging through these nominations. It is kind of slow because of the inordinate amount of time that we are caused to eat up. But the longer my friend from Iowa talks, the more reason there is that maybe we should have changed the rules more than we did.

So, unless something changes, we will have a vote tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. We will have three votes here tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. on Friday.

I am a patient man. At least I try to be. For my friend to come here and have the audacity to talk about my breaking my word--the trouble with that statement is that the whole Senate is here to see what happened.

He said something and I said something. What he said was that we are not going to have all of these filibusters on motions to proceed.

For the viewing audience, we wasted so much time just trying to get on a bill. It is not that easy. You have to file something in the Senate, and then you have to wait a day to get on the bill. If they object--and they object hundreds of times--it takes 2 days to get on the bill. Then we vote, wait 30 hours, and then we are only on the bill. To get off the bill, we have to go through that process all over again, and we have done that hundreds of times.

There have been more filibusters on President Obama's judicial nominations than in the entire history of the country for other Presidents. We have been a country for a long time--roughly 240 years. There have been more filibusters for President Obama in the course of 5 years than for the previous 235 years.

I went to New York and had the good fortune to watch a wonderful play--``All the Way''--about LBJ. That good man--during the time he was majority leader for 6 years--had to overcome one filibuster.

As the majority leader in the Senate--because of the performance we have had over here--I had to overcome over 500 filibusters. This is for the country. It is not for me. We have been stymied on everything we have tried to do--everything.

We know--it is public record now--that 3 days after Obama was elected the first time, a meeting was held here in Washington, and it has been written up all over the place. Karl Rove called the meeting with others. They made the decision that their goal was to make sure this man never got reelected. To the credit of the Republican leader, he said: Our goal is to make sure he is never reelected.

Well, Obama surprised everybody--except us--and was overwhelmingly elected by the American people.

They also said in that same meeting: The way we are going to stop him from being reelected is to object to everything, and that is what they have done. It is unprecedented in the history of our great Republic.

I have been here a while. I know how people used to work together, but you can't work together if one side says no to everything. Once in a while we have had the good fortune to be able to piece together some work with the Republicans. It is getting harder and harder to do, but we have been able to get it done a few times.

They have wasted the time of the American people. If there is an objection to this woman, then come to the floor and talk about what is wrong with her. She attended one of the finest law schools in America. A battle goes on every year, whether it is Harvard, Yale or Stanford, and they flip back and forth. It doesn't matter. She is a very fine academic. She clerked for one of the finest Supreme Court justices we have had in the history of the country--by the way, a Republican.

What is wrong with her? What do we gain by holding this up? The country gains nothing. As I have indicated, we have about 140 nominations that are being held up over here. My friend, the Republican leader, said: Hey, listen, we would have approved them all in December anyway. Please. Who in the world thinks that there is a bit of creditability to that?

I say to everybody that I am sorry. In 25 hours, I guess, we can come here to vote on these people. All we need is a majority, and that is the way it is. I am so sorry for the inconvenience to everyone, but the Republicans know that for them it is pretty easy. They can just walk out of here. They don't have to be here, but we do because it is our burden to run the country. They can walk away and take their little trips and go home. We are not going to be able to do that. We have to vote and approve these two people.

We have a very good judge we need to approve. We have somebody for the Wage and Hour Division at the Department of Labor. That job has been vacant for a long, long time.

Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience to Members, but we have an obligation. We have been elected to be Senators.

I have the floor. The Senator yielded the floor.

I apologize.

Madam President, I have heard my friend the Republican leader come to the floor often and say: Why don't we work on Fridays? Most people work on Fridays. I want to make sure I am right, but I have not seen or heard a single Republican come to the floor and say a single word about the nominee of the Ninth Circuit--positive or negative. They have not said a single word.

A lot of words are being thrown about here--posturing. I wonder if somebody who is a long-term unemployed worker, someone who has been out of work a long time--I will give a profile of someone. Not everybody fits this description. Let's take the example of somebody who is 55 years old and was laid off because of the recession and can't find a job because he or she is overqualified, overeducated--lots of different issues as to why they can't find work.

We decided that it was important that they get an unemployment benefit extension. About 2 million people agree with that for sure because they are the ones who lost those benefits. I don't think that is posturing. We voted on that, and it passed here. I think we had to have five cloture votes to get there. But because of some very strong- willed Republicans, we were able to do that, and I admire those five who joined with us. They didn't want to do it by name. They said something we did yesterday. That something that we did yesterday said that if a woman works the same job that a man works, that woman should be paid the same as a man.

Is that posturing? I don't think so. My daughter doesn't think so and my granddaughters don't think so. They think it is pretty fair. More than half of the people who are going to college now are women. Over half of the people in medical school and law school are women. Shouldn't they be paid the same as men? Is that posturing? I don't think so.

Again, there is diversion and distraction from the issue at hand. They wanted to offer amendments, and one was a 350-page amendment that covered everything. In fact, I said it even included the kitchen sink. They are not serious about this. They only want to move from what we are trying to do.

Do we have anything urgent to do when we get back? If we didn't have to go through all of this nonsense--and that is what it is--we would be voting today on minimum wage. That vote would help 1 million people get out of poverty and 26 million people would get a raise.

Why did we pick the number of $10.10 an hour? Because that gets people out of poverty. It is really important that we understand that this is part of the mantra of the program that Karl Rove and others decided they would do 5 years or more ago, and that is to oppose everything that President Obama has done.

You cannot talk about what went on before because never in the history of our great Republic have we had a party--a minority party-- determined to do nothing in the hope that it will get them the majority in November. We will find out if their noble experiment works; that is, oppose everything and people will like us a lot. I don't think that is going to work. We are here to do the work of the American people. Is it right that we have more than 100 people who are being held up for no reason other than they want to make sure that if we have somebody who is going to be a circuit court judge, we have to file cloture--that is 2 days--and then we have 30 hours, and then we have--simply moving to a piece of legislation, we waste a week getting to it because of their obstruction and delay. So it is unfortunate.

My friends talk about all the great things they have done. I will tell my colleagues the great things they have done. I can give lots of examples. We tried to do a highway bill--a highway bill--which is important for this country. We have a deficit in infrastructure of $3 trillion. It wasn't much better a couple of years ago. So we brought that bill to the floor, and we had this great amendment process. They wanted to debate amendments. What did they do? They wanted to stop women from getting contraceptives. That held up things for a month--a month--before they finally got some sense and withdrew that.

The Republicans made a decision a little more than 5 years ago to oppose

everything President Obama wanted or tried to do, and they have stuck with that. It has not been good for the country, and we have situations just like we have here.

(Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair.)

Sure.

Mr. President, the committee, of which I am almost certain my friend is a member--the Judiciary Committee; is that right?

He is also a former supreme court justice of Texas.

They have reported the bill out of the Judiciary Committee, and my friend was part of that reporting situation. Part of what they reported out has the Debbie Smith language in it, but it has more stuff in it than just that. So I would be happy to take a look at that. We can talk to the chair of the committee and the ranking member, who is on the floor here today, and if they would be willing to separate this stuff here and have it rather than what was reported out of the committee-- they can take a look at this. Senator Leahy was on the floor. He is not here now, but I would be happy to take a look at that.

I am sorry, I didn't hear that.

Yes. But before doing that, I have just been informed that this bill that was reported out of the committee on which the senior Senator from Texas serves--we have cleared it on our side. If they want to clear it today, we will get this out today. All they have to do is clear it on their side. We have cleared it.

The bill that 55 Senators have cleared over here is a bill to protect crime victims' rights, to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA samples collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders, to improve and expand the DNA testing capacity of Federal, State, and local crime laboratories, to increase research and development of new DNA testing technologies, to develop new training programs regarding the collection and use of DNA evidence, to provide postconviction testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent, to improve the performance of counsel in State capital cases, and for other purposes. We will pass that right now. We are happy to do it.

This is what we deal with here. We have a piece of legislation that has been reported out of the committee. It has been cleared by the Democrats here in the Senate, and the Republicans are now saying: Well, we like that, but we don't want to do it that way; let's do it some other way.

The point is the committee met and reviewed the House legislation and decided they wanted to do more than what the House did. I think we should go forward with what the committee says.

I hear my friend the Republican leader and other Republican Senators say: Let's have the committees do their work.

They have done their work. We approved their work. We are ready to pass this right now, which includes the Debbie Smith language but does a lot more.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, more diversion and delay. The Judiciary Committee took what the House did, reviewed it, and said: We can do better.

It is here on the floor right now. Now they are saying: Even though the Judiciary Committee did it--and we are being told all the time to let the committees do their work--we don't like what they did. Let them do something else.

The Debbie Smith Act is important, but the Justice for All Act is a lot better than that. Why don't we approve that?

Yes, I object.

This has been cleared on this side for more than 2 weeks-- more than 2 weeks. This is what is going on in the Senate. The Republicans basically oppose everything. That is what they decided they were going to do, and they do it. And they come back and say: We reported this out of the committee.

I read what is in it. It is a very good piece of legislation. But they said: We don't like that. Let's forget about the committee process and do something with what the House did.

We have a committee structure here that I have tried to follow. I admire the work done by Senator Leahy. He led this piece of legislation out of his committee. I accept it and I approve it, as do all other 54 Democratic Senators.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the more than 30 years of hard work and leadership Mr. Peter Munk has demonstrated as the founder and chairman of the board of Barrick Gold Corporation.

Since Barrick Gold was established in 1983, Mr. Munk has worked to make Barrick one of the world's largest gold mining companies, with projects reaching four continents. In 1986, Mr. Munk bet on Nevada, bringing Barrick to the Silver State with the acquisition of the Goldstrike mine located on the Carlin Trend in Eureka County. Nevada has since become the largest source of gold in the United States, producing more than 75 percent of the gold mined throughout the country. Even today, the Goldstrike mine is one of Barrick's most productive properties. Two of Barrick's 5 core gold mines are located in Nevada, and the company continues to operate 7 mines throughout the State, employing more than 4,200 people.

Mr. Munk has shared his many successes and accomplishments with the communities in which he works and lives, and through his philanthropy, he has demonstrated his dedication to education and health. He created the Peter Munk Charitable Foundation in 1992 and has made significant donations to his alma mater, the University of Toronto, which is home to the Munk School of Global Affairs. Additionally, the premier Peter Munk Cardiac Centre was constructed at the University Health Network in Toronto as a product of his generous contributions.

Under Mr. Munk's strong leadership, Barrick Gold has given back to the many communities surrounding Barrick mining operations, and the company has helped provide added support for local economic, health, and social development. In Nevada, much needed school supplies, college scholarships, and large community projects have been funded with the support of Barrick Gold. The company has also implemented strict controls to help reduce the impacts of mining on the environment and contributed to wildlife restoration and improvement projects to enhance Nevada's native plants and species habitats. For instance, in 2012, Barrick partnered with Federal and State land managers to restore vital greater sage-grouse habitat that had been scarred and damaged by a devastating wildfire.

Mr. Munk has made a significant impact on the State of Nevada and has established a lasting legacy on the international mining industry. His influence has been recognized by the Canadian Business Hall of Fame and the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame, and he was honored with one of Canada's highest honors for a private citizen when he was made a Companion of the Order of Canada. Additionally, Mr. Munk was the first Canadian to be awarded the Woodrow Wilson Award for Corporate Citizenship in 2002 and received the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012.

As Mr. Munk steps down from his role as chairman of the board of Barrick Gold Corporation, I congratulate him on his many years of success and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. tomorrow, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 574; further, that following disposition of that nomination, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on Executive Calendar No. 613, and that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 760, 761, 762, 763, and 764, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 422.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns a subpoena to a Senate employee in a civil action pending in the Court of Federal Claims. The plaintiff in this case is an organization serving as trustee for a trust set up by Congress, through legislation sponsored by Senator Max Baucus, to promote conservation and recreational use of land in Montana. The suit arises out of a dispute between plaintiff and the Department of the Interior over the Department's amendment of the trust agreement with plaintiff. As part of discovery in the case, plaintiff has issued a subpoena to Holly Luck, a former employee of then-Senator Baucus, seeking information and documents involving this matter.

This resolution would authorize Ms. Luck to provide written testimony and to produce documents from Senator Baucus's office, except where a privilege should be asserted, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.