Floor Statements

Madam President, it is Thursday, and it is usually the day I get to come down to the Senate floor. Usually, the Senate is kind of wrapping up things; we are still pretty busy right now. But it is the day I love to come down to the Senate floor and talk about somebody in my State, the great State of Alaska, who is making a difference either for their community, for their State, for the country; you name it. We call this person the Alaskan of the Week.

We have done it a lot. I usually like to give a little bit of an update. The pages typically really like this time of the week because we get to tell stories about Alaska, about the adventure of Alaska, but also about--typically, a little update about what is happening in the State.

Right now, we are in a bit of a cold snap pretty much throughout the State. We are getting a lot of snow throughout the State. We have seen some record low temperatures all across Alaska, from Homer, King Salmon, Bethel.

Monday in Fairbanks--so this is not even into December yet--it was 26 below zero. They are tough in Fairbanks, very tough. You get down to 50, 60 below in Fairbanks.

My wife is from Fairbanks. She is a wonderful volunteer for this organization called Covenant House. They did their annual ``Sleep Out.'' It is a homeless shelter for teenage youth. This was in Anchorage just a couple of weeks ago. It was 15 below for the ``Sleep Out.'' You get a cardboard box and say: Good luck. So, boy, she is tough.

Alaskans across the State are rugged, tough, individualistic, and we bond all the more for it. We are in it together when it is that cold. And it frequently is. And like one big community, one of the many things that brings us together--actually, one of the many things that brings Americans together--is bonding over sports: local sports, State sports, national sports, and your local newspaper as it relates to sports reporting. It is actually a universal instinct.

One of our most famous Supreme Court Justices, Earl Warren, said it best:

I always turn to the sports section first [in the morning].

The sports page records people's accomplishments. The front

page [usually] has nothing but [people's] failures.

I am not sure that is always true, but it is a good anecdote in terms of what binds us with regard to sports.

You know, over the holidays, in particular, everybody in America watches great football, other sports activities. I had a good chat over lunch today with Coach Tuberville about the really incredible Alabama Auburn game that just happened last week.

But sports is also the place in our local papers where we see the names of our children, our loved ones, our neighbors, our friends. In fact, it might just be the only time their names appear in the paper at all, when you think about it.

So our Alaskan of the Week this week is somebody who knows sports and sportswriting in Alaska better than anybody. We are talking about Beth Bragg, who recently retired after 35 years as a sportswriter for the Anchorage Daily News. She understood all of these attributes about sportswriting better than anybody.

During her 35 years at the paper, Beth always told cub reporters there was one rule they must always follow, no matter what. She said: Even if the person's name is something like Cindy Jones, ask that person for the spelling. It might be the only time their name appears in the paper, and it is very important that name is spelled correctly.

Now, let me talk about Beth, about her reporting and about her work and how it has added to our communities across the great State of Alaska.

Beth grew up in Billings, MT. Her father worked for the Billings Gazette. And she, too, while still in high school, joined the paper as a sports clerk so this is in her blood.

Now, it wasn't so much that she was crazy about sports back then, but it was a job, a good job. And then she said she began, bit by bit, to fall in love with newspapers and sports reporting. She liked the irreverence, the strict deadlines, the energy.

Importantly--and it is almost counterintuitive--covering sports allows more fun in the writing, the opportunity as a writer to take a little bit more in terms of chances and to be more creative than maybe on other beats. And throughout the years, Beth has brought so much of this kind of creativity, so much heart to her stories.

Without looking at a byline in Alaska, you always knew when you were reading a Beth Bragg story. So, in 1986, when she was 27 years old, she came to Alaska to write for the Anchorage Daily News. That is our State's biggest paper. She thought she would stay for a few years, then move on. Her dream was to cover professional sports, maybe even Major League Baseball in a city that has got a Major League Baseball team, but as the years progressed, she stayed in Alaska. She fell in love with Alaska, and her ambitions as a sportswriter changed. But, in some ways, they got even bigger.

She discovered that, in her words, ``the real reward, and the real challenge, is to find stories that resonate with everyone. And you don't have to be at the Super Bowl to do that.''

In fact, Beth said she found more interesting, more unique stories to cover in Alaska than probably anywhere else.

Now, we don't have big-time professional sports teams in the great State of Alaska, but we do have sports, loads of sports. And just like so much about Alaska, we have expanded the meaning of what it means to partake in sports.

Let's take one very famous sport in Alaska, the Iditarod--the famous 800-

mile sled dog race--as one big example. There is also heli-skiing, ice climbing, curling, and snowboarding. It didn't get its start in Alaska, but it reached its apex in Valdez, for those who participated in that incredible sport.

Beth is likely one of the few, if only, reporters in the country who reported on this incredible sport in Alaska at 3 a.m., seal-skinning. Yes, that is a sport. It goes along with the ear pull and other sports in terms of competition at the World Eskimo Indian Olympics, which are incredible to go to and watch in Alaska--great athletes, by the way.

She covered seal skinning, the competition. At 3 a.m. she was tired, but the excitement and the smell of the seals--first frozen, then thawed for the competition--kept her wide awake.

We may not have professional sports teams, but we certainly have athletic stars galore in Alaska. For 35 years, Beth has written about these stars and some of the toughest athletes anywhere in the world. Let me give you a couple examples.

She wrote about athletes running Mount Marathon. Now, I gave an ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech several months ago about Mount Marathon. It is what Outside magazine calls ``the toughest 5K on the planet''-- straight up a mountain and straight back down. We always do it on July 4 in Seward.

She wrote about the Alaska Wilderness Classic, the 150-or-so-mile ``secret race'' up mountains and across rivers in the Alaskan wilderness. Here are the rules of the Alaska Wilderness Classic: No outside support, nothing human-powered, leave no trace, and rescue is up to the racer. Pretty tough. Pretty tough.

She wrote about the Arctic Man, another incredible Alaska event that has been described as one of the world's toughest downhill ski races and an exciting snow machine race, all combined together. You want to see something amazing? Go to the Arctic Man.

She has written about swimming heats and cross-country track and field matches; skiing, lots of stories about skiing in Alaska; ice hockey; high school football; basketball games; and, as I mentioned, the World Eskimo-Indian Olympics, with the ear pull and the blanket toss.

She wrote a great story about a mother and son literally tied by rope together for 2 weeks climbing Denali, North America's tallest peak, in Alaska.

There was a story about a sled dog that was cut loose and ran away from her Iditarod sled dog pack. Miraculously, this dog found her way home to her kennel through mountain ranges and hundreds of miles of tundra in the dead of an Alaskan winter. Pretty amazing.

She wrote a great story about an event I attended this past June, an inspiring USA Patriots-Amputee Softball Team event where almost every player on that team were some of our greatest American heroes. Almost all of them had lost a limb--all of them had lost a limb, mostly in combat.

Always at the center of Beth's stories are the people, even when those people are sled dogs. She has written about their victories; their struggles; their heart for the game, for their teams, for their communities, for their State, for their country, and for life itself.

Thinking back on her long career, a few events stay with her. She talked a lot about what it was like to watch Alaskans compete in the Olympics, four of which she attended--Olympic Games.

Now, we are a huge State. I talk about that a lot. We have a pretty small population relative to other States--730,000 people. But Alaska is really good in terms of Olympic athletes. We punch way above our weight, sending some of the top American athletes to especially the Winter Olympics but also the Summer Olympics.

Beth remembers, for example, the electricity in the Olympic stadium in Norway in 1994 when a little-known Alaskan named Tommy Moe shocked the world by winning the gold in the downhill and then, 4 days later, a silver, becoming the first American skier ever to win two medals at the same Olympics.

She remembers writing stories about the legendary and beloved cross- country skier from Alaska Kikkan Randall when Kikkan was just 13 years old. Then, like so many Alaskans, Beth swelled with pride and cried when Kikkan Randall won the gold in 2018.

Beth said she also cried just this summer when 17-year-old Lydia Jacoby from Seward, AK, shocked the world by winning the gold medal in Tokyo this summer in the 100-meter breaststroke. Remember that? Seward, AK, doesn't even have an Olympic-size swimming pool. And I will say, Lydia Jacoby is the only person in U.S. history to be Alaskan of the Week in the U.S. Senate twice. That is unbelievable.

Of course, there are heartbreaks, too--the losses, the illnesses, the injuries, and sometimes the deaths--all of which Beth has handled with the utmost sensitivity. Because she was at it for so long and has so much history with Alaskan athletes, she understood something about them that a new reporter might not. It takes a certain kind of grit to be an athlete in Alaska, to wake up at 6 a.m. and head off into the dark, subzero weather to train. It takes a certain kind of grit to travel outside of Alaska for competitions, often thousands of miles away from your home, to get noticed. As Beth said, ``You have to work hard to make it big'' in Alaska. As a result, she thinks Alaska athletes have a sense of home in a way a lot of other athletes don't.

As I said, Beth recently retired. She is going to clean her home; maybe travel some; of course, watch some sports, as a fan now, not as a reporter. She leaves behind a great legacy, thousands of stories charting some of our State's greatest moments in athletics, times when we all cheered and cried and came together to support the best of our people and competition and grit and determination--the reason Americans across the country love sports so much.

So, Beth, thank you for your great job. Congrats on an incredibly stellar career, and, of course--I am sure one of your biggest honors ever--congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week.

John Kerry

Madam President, we are working on the NDAA. Is anyone watching what is happening on the Senate floor right now? It has been stalled in terms of amendments, and it has been stalled, reportedly, because of an amendment--a simple amendment that I think the vast majority of Americans would agree on--that Senator Rubio is trying to get a vote on.

But, as there are with so many stories in the last 6 months, there is something about the climate envoy John Kerry, who keeps coming into different stories, and he is in this story as well. He seems to show up everywhere, always when somebody in this administration is doing something to undermine American interests. There is something about John Kerry.

Let me give you the latest. Senator Rubio is trying to move forward with regard to an amendment on his bill, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. It is essentially a pretty simple bill. Human rights communities agree with it. I think everybody in the Senate agrees with it. It, in essence, just says that we shouldn't be importing solar panels and other products made in China that are produced with forced labor or slave labor. What American wouldn't agree with that? What American wouldn't agree with that? I think every Senator agrees with that. But evidently there is one American who disagrees with that.

Here is an article today from the Free Beacon that talks about senior Biden officials are worried that this bill stopping slave labor products from China coming into America will undermine ``the White House's climate agenda'' and, unfortunately, ``limit solar panel imports from China.''

Presidential climate envoy John Kerry, among others, has

been lobbying House members against the bill.

Wow. Wow. That is remarkable. Why would he do that? Why would he do that? Someone needs to ask John Kerry that. That is just one example. Something about John Kerry--always in the mix undermining American interests.

This is an article from the Washington Post just about a month ago: ``In advance of climate summit, tension among Biden aides on China policy.'' In essence, it said John Kerry was in Beijing--a very dangerous proposition, by the way; you want to talk about selling out American interests--

and he was begging the Chinese to cooperate on climate change, but they said they are not going to commence--I am reading from the Washington Post--cooperation until the United States tones it down on human rights, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and trade.

So the Chinese are saying: Hey, we are not going to do anything on climate, John Kerry, unless you go tell the President to tone it down on Hong Kong, Taiwan, human rights--slave labor, probably. Dutifully, John Kerry came back to DC and delivered the message. It is all in the Washington Post right here, October 25.

To their credit, Jake Sullivan and others were pretty furious, according to this article, about John Kerry undermining U.S. interests. But, hey, there he goes again. Remarkable. I mean, whose side is this guy on?

Let me give you another example. One of the great things that have happened in America over the last two decades is this incredible revolution in terms of American energy. For decades, it has been the bipartisan policy of every administration--pretty much every Senator-- for America to become energy independent. Until the Biden administration came into office, we have achieved that. Again, every administration since World War II, Democratic or Republican: Being energy-independent would be good for us.

One of the ways we have done this is this incredible revolution in the production of American natural gas. It has made us the leader in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions in the world, by far. Since 2005 to present, the United States has reduced emissions by almost 15 percent--more than any other major economy in the world. China's emissions have gone like this.

So you would think the export of American LNG all around the world, which is happening, would be great for our workers--it is; great for our national security--it is; and really good for the environment--it is. In fact, we are even exporting to India and China. That will help them reduce emissions. This is a win, win, win, win, win.

So imagine my surprise when I met with foreign officials--I won't name them--who have said to me: John Kerry is telling us in our country, in Asia and in Europe, don't buy American natural gas.

What?

Don't buy American natural gas.

Why?

I don't know.

But there he goes again, undermining U.S. interests, undermining American workers, and, by the way, undermining the global environment on that one. If you don't buy American natural gas, you are going to be producing coal in China.

This is what I have heard.

And then let me give you one more. I came on the floor several months ago, only about 5 months ago, and called for the resignation of John Kerry after the interview of his friend the Foreign Minister of Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, Foreign Minister Zarif, who was recorded in an interview that was leaked that said John Kerry told him a couple years ago, when Zarif was the Iranian Foreign Minister, about covert Israeli actions against Israeli interests in Syria.

Now, think about that. According to news reports, Zarif is heard saying--and we all heard the video--``It was former US. . . . Secretary John Kerry who told me Israel had launched more than 200 attacks on Iranian forces in Syria,'' selling out and betraying our biggest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

There is something about John Kerry, and every time that guy goes on a mission, you can be assured that American national security interests are being undermined. So here is a Christmas present I think the whole country would benefit from. For the good of this country, this former Secretary of State, former U.S. Senator, needs to ride off into the sunset in his private jet and retire, or resign, or maybe the President can just fire him. We don't need him to undermine American interests anymore.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to commend my colleague from Oregon and his comments. As a matter of fact, I don't disagree with pretty much anything he said.

I had my first good meeting with Mr. Sams this morning, and I would agree, I think he is qualified. I am particularly impressed with his background as a Native American, as a veteran.

One thing I like to talk a lot about is how our Alaskan Native American populations serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country--special patriotism. Mr. Sams certainly carries that tradition on quite well.

And I have already talked to Senator Wyden. I intend to work with him and Mr. Sams just on a few more issues, a few more discussions. Again, we had a very good conversation this morning.

This is nothing about his qualifications, but I wanted to make sure the administration is aware of some issues, at very high levels, as it relates to this position, this job. And, again, I agree with my colleague from Oregon; this is an extraordinarily important Federal Agency. As a matter of fact, it is so important for my State that I want to explain a little bit to my colleagues, many of whom don't really know what the National Park Service does. But to my State, it is enormously important; it is powerful; and it can touch on people's lives in huge ways.

Let me just give you a little bit of the numbers. The Federal Government manages roughly 66 percent of the lands in Alaska. Of that, the Park Service controls 55 million acres. Two-thirds of all National Park Service land--two-thirds of the land that Mr. Sams will be in charge of is in my State. A lot of people don't recognize that. A lot of people don't understand that. Alaskans understand that--two-thirds.

So he is one of the big, important landlords of the great State of Alaska. And, as you can imagine, this Agency has outsized influence in Alaska beyond what these numbers represent--for hunting, for fishing, for transportation, for culture, and for people's livelihoods.

And this has been an Agency, to be quite frank, that has been abusing its power in Alaska for decades--Democrat administrations and Republican administrations.

In 1980, this body passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act--what we call in Alaska ANILCA. The Congress took 100 million acres of Alaska lands. We weren't supportive, by the way, Alaska--100 million acres. That is bigger than almost any State represented in the U.S. Senate, bigger than two Minnesotas.

And a huge part of ANILCA laid out how the National Park Service would interact with Alaskans. For decades, Alaskans were saying that the way in which the National Park Service was treating Alaskans--by the way, Alaska Natives in particular--was not according to the law, was not according to ANILCA.

And it wasn't just Alaskans saying this. In the last 4 years, there have been two U.S. Supreme Court decisions--they are referred to as the ``Sturgeon'' decisions--where an Alaskan who wanted to go hunting sued the National Park Service, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. And the U.S. Supreme Court twice in the last 4 years, 9 to 0--9 to 0--agreed with Alaskans that the National Park Service was not following the law as it related to ANILCA.

As Justice Kagan, who wrote one of the opinions, said, ``Alaska is often the exception, not the rule'' to issues relating to Federal lands and access.

Now, as you can imagine, the National Park Service did not like getting slammed by the U.S. Supreme Court twice 9-zip, but we liked it. It was a vindication of what Alaskans, for decades, have been saying about the abuse of power of the National Park Service.

So I want to work with Senator Wyden and Mr. Sams on further conversations, soon--we are not trying to block this; I know the National Park Service needs leadership, and I think he would be a good leader--but to look at making sure the implementation of these two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, 9 to 0, are followed through by the entire bureaucracy. It is not much to ask.

These are topics I raised with Mr. Sams today. He seemed to be in agreement with me. But these issues are enormously important to the people I represent.

And I am going to mention one final thing, and it is not really in Mr. Sams' area of expertise, but I mentioned this to him as well.

All Americans have been experiencing economic, pandemic-related pain over the last 20 months. My State, I think, has been hit as hard as any other State, particularly on the economic side. And I want to just raise this topic right now because I am going to come down on the Senate floor and talk about it a lot more here. But it relates to some of these issues.

This administration, the Biden administration, in the last 10 months, has issued 19 Executive orders or Executive actions solely focused on my State--19. There is no other State in the country--not Maryland, not Oregon, no other State in the country--that is getting this kind of attention from the new administration, and it is attention that we don't want because almost every one of these Executive orders and Executive actions is hurting working families, is hurting our economy, is hurting access to our lands at a time when we are already hurting.

I just want to ask my colleagues, respectfully, especially on the other side of the aisle, could you imagine a Republican administration coming in and saying, ``We are going to issue 19 Executive orders and actions targeting Maryland or Delaware or Oregon or Massachusetts''? Senators would be on the floor, rightfully, sticking up for their State and their fellow citizens.

This is a challenging time right now. Working families are hurting with inflation, high energy costs, and we have an administration in the White House that thinks it is fine to target the great State of Alaska. Well, it is not fine. It is not fine. It is a war on working families in my State, and I would hope all of my colleagues would recognize that this isn't appropriate. This isn't appropriate.

And it is not just these actions. The White House has made it known that it has gone to financial institutions throughout the country-- banks, insurance companies--saying: Don't invest in American energy projects in the Arctic--also known as Alaska.

So I am not going to hold this against Mr. Sams. My colleague from Oregon I have a lot of respect for. But, literally, every major project that is resource development, employs people, helps working families-- by the way, there are some that aren't economic. There is a law that we passed in the U.S. Senate 3 years ago to help Alaska Native Vietnam veterans. It was my bill. I care deeply about these great warriors who were really screwed by their country when they came home from Vietnam.

The administration has delayed the implementation of that bill for 2 years. There will be Vietnam veterans--Alaska Native Vietnam vets--in my State who will die before they get the benefit because they just thought they could do another hit on Alaska.

So I ask my colleagues to just put yourself in my State's position. None of you would accept that. And I am going to start talking about it, and I am going to start raising these issues. And I hope I can get some of my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to maybe reach out to the White House, going: Hey, this really isn't appropriate. Alaska has had a rough time. Everybody has had a rough time in America, but really? Nineteen Executive orders and actions?

These are just the Alaska-specific ones. There are broader Federal ones that impact us too. But I want to work with Senator Wyden. I want to work with Mr. Sams, particularly on that issue I raised earlier. I think he is

going to be very well qualified. I admire his desire to serve, his background, and especially his Navy background.

And I intend to lift my hold very soon, but right now I am objecting. But my goal would be to have this nominee, who is qualified, after further discussions with me and Senator Wyden, moved to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. But, for now, I object.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Oregon, and I will commit to working with him to try and get this done before we head out to recess.

We know the treasures of Alaska. As I mentioned, two-thirds of all the Park Service in the country is in my State, which is why I want to make sure I am having followup conversations--I had a good one already with Mr. Sams--to get commitments on a few additional issues that matter deeply not just to the Park Service and for America but, really, to my State. But you have my commitment to work with you and Mr. Sams on a few more of these issues.

And, if I may, for all my colleagues, right--and I am glad to hear Senator Wyden mention this--this shouldn't be happening with one State. There is a Biden White House war on the State of Alaska. No one is getting treatment like this, and it shouldn't be this way. If a Republican President were in attacking Maryland or Oregon like that, I would call the White House going: Hey, lay off, guys. Lay off.

So I sure hope some of my colleagues--Republican and Democrats--can send the message to Joe Biden, the President, that you know, the war on working families in Alaska is not really a good idea. They are Americans, too, and they have got a lot of resources to produce for our great Nation, which we need right now.

So with that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, in reserving the right to object, I am requesting a vote on my amendment No. 4329.

I am very disappointed that my Democratic colleagues will refuse to vote on this very simple, very important, very constitutionally correct amendment that also dramatically could impact military readiness, which is why it is so important to discuss it here as we are debating the

Madam President, I object.

Madam President.

Madam President, I just want to thank Senator Wyden for his cooperation working on this nominee. Mr. Sams, I do agree, is qualified.

We had a long discussion this afternoon about some of the big issues that are impacting my State as it relates to the National Park Service.

You know, a lot of people love the National Park Service. Two-thirds of all National Park Service land in America is in Alaska--tens of millions of acres. It is bigger than almost every other State represented here on the Senate floor. That is just the National Park Service.

For decades, that Federal authority--the National Park Service authority in Alaska--has been abused. How do we know that it has been abused? Well, we recently had two--two--U.S. Supreme Court decisions that were 9-to-0 decisions, by the way, that essentially said the Park Service was not following the law in Alaska--two.

So my discussions with Mr. Sams and the commitments he made to me, I think, are going to help Alaska. I think they are going to help the National Park Service, and it is related to the National Park Service authorities.

After these two decisions--they were called the Sturgeon decisions-- two in a row, at the U.S. Supreme Court, 9 to 0, by the way, and the U.S. Supreme Court telling the National Park Service: You are not following the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. We call it ANILCA in Alaska. You are not following the Federal Government. You need to follow it.

So the commitment I got from Mr. Sams was there was a recent regulation from the Federal Government in November of 2020 providing specifics of how the National Park Service was going to implement these two U.S. Supreme Court cases--the Sturgeon case. And he committed to me to be true to these regulations and to faithfully execute these regulations in the National Park Service on implementing Sturgeon. That is a very big deal in Alaska.

He also committed to have all of his senior Alaska staff and senior staff here in Washington, DC, take ANILCA training. This is a giant statute. The Federal Government often screws it up, and it has a negative impact on my State. So he committed to me that he will have his top leadership at the National Park Service take training to understand this complicated law. That will also help my constituents and the country very much.

So I want to, again, thank Senator Wyden for working with me on these issues. These are important commitments that Mr. Sams has made, and I have no further objection to this nominee's confirmation.

Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking about the President's nominee to be Comptroller of the Currency and her recent comments on those of us who were asking questions about her background, because they are pretty outrageous, and I think it is time. In some ways, we need to put an end to this notion that you can't criticize someone for their ideas without being charged with things like, maybe, racism, which kind of gets me a little bit riled up, since I think I was one of the targets of her remarks.

I have been down on the floor talking about some of the nominees that this administration has put forward. Some are so radical, far left.

The ATF nominee was actually against the Second Amendment. He got withdrawn.

The BLM Director was an ecoterrorist. She got voted in. Now she is in charge of 60 percent of my State--remarkable. I think a lot of Senators are going to regret that vote.

And now we have a nominee to be the Comptroller of the Currency: Saule Omarova. She is charged with chartering, regulating, and supervising all national banks--a really important position, for a capitalist economy, in particular.

There is a problem, though, Mr. President. It doesn't seem like she much likes banks or, for that matter, the free market or, for that matter, capitalism or the financial system in America. So Senators have been coming down to the floor and in committee, asking questions, doing our due diligence on this nominee. I want to commend Senator Toomey, in particular, who has been doing that, and I have been joining him.

So I am going to talk a little bit more about her background and her ideas, which, by the way, have nothing to do with her race or her sex-- nothing. I just want to know what her ideas are. So I am going to talk a little bit about that.

A 1989 graduate of Moscow State University, where she received the Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship--that is the Vladimir Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship. And from what we know about her writings, yes, she was raised in a communist country. That is nothing against her. But sometimes you get notions of capitalism, socialism, communism, Marxism. And her writings are something that are of interest to the committee--certainly to me, certainly to Senator Toomey--about what she believes in terms of the financial system, socialism, communism.

Here is what she tweeted in 2019, just 2 years ago: Until I came to the U.S., I couldn't imagine things like the gender pay gap still existed in today's world. Say what you want about the old USSR, but there was no pay gap there. Markets don't always work best.

That is a tweet 2 years ago. Say what you want about the old USSR, about Stalin and Lenin and the roughly 100 million people killed during their reign. Say what you want about the old USSR, the famine, the human degradation, the ill-fated, violent attempts to snuff out freedom and liberty, there and all across the world.

She clarified: I never claimed men and women were treated absolutely equal in every facet of the old Soviet Union. But people's salaries were set by the state in a gender-blind manner. Those things are still a pipe dream in American society.

I mean, listen to her. This is just 2 years ago, still talking about the golden days of the USSR.

There was gender equity, all right. Both sexes starved equally, and if you complained, you were sent to Siberia, regardless of if you were a man or a woman.

But her nostalgia for socialist, communist policies doesn't end with pay disparities. She has advocated for expanding the Federal Reserve's mandate to include the Federal Reserve people's ledger she has written about--a people's ledger.

By separating the lending function from the monetary function, the proposed reform that she has talked about will effectively ``end banking as we know it.'' This was written in 2014, as a professor. These are radical, radical ideas. These are ideas, and this person is supposed to be charged with being in charge of the financial system of America--capitalism.

Some of us still believe in capitalism here. Some don't.

But it is OK to question these ideas. She has put them out there.

The ranking member of the banking committee has asked for a copy of her thesis. Now, every member going through confirmation in the Senate is supposed to give up any writings that she had. This used to be on her CV until a couple of years ago. Then she deleted it. It is called ``Karl Marx's Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution in The Capital.''

So Senator Toomey has asked for that. She is required to give it. And, as of now--this is a letter I would like to have printed in the Record. This is October 5. Senator Toomey asked for this. She still hasn't responded and provided it. She is required to.

But again, Mr. President, these are ideas. These are her ideas. It is very fair for U.S. Senators to ask for these things, to evaluate these things.

Do we want someone who doesn't believe in the financial system and capitalism in charge of American banks? I don't.

So I would like to learn more. And so we have been pressing. That is our job. That is our job. So she hasn't responded to Senator Toomey.

As I mentioned, in a reference to a 2014 book entitled ``The End of Banking,'' she wrote: ``By separating their lending function from their monetary function, the proposed reform''--for the Fed--``will effectively `end banking' as we know it.''

That is a really interesting, radical idea. That is 2014. These are her ideas. These are her ideas.

And if there is any doubt about her continued interest in Marxist ideology, it was recently reported that she joined a Facebook group called ``Marxist Analysis and Policy,'' which, according to the group, ``stand[s] for the self-emancipation of the working class and Socialism.''

Recent--this is recent. This wasn't when she was at old Moscow State University--recent. She has not said that story was wrong about her Facebook group. So we can only assume it is true.

Did she join that group to espouse democracy and the free market? Here are the group's rules: ``Support for the Tory party is not acceptable. A culture of diverse Marxist, Socialist and radical views is the framework for the group.''

Again, these are ideas--radical ideas, socialist ideas--that are coming from the woman who has been nominated by the President of the United States to be in charge of all the banks, the Comptroller of the Currency, a really important job.

So we have been asking about this. We have been asking about this. We want to see her writings. This is completely legitimate that the American people want the Senate to be doing this--advice and consent. What do you really think? Do you believe in capitalism? Do you believe in banks? You want to end banking as we know it? Well, how is that going to work if you are Comptroller of the Currency?

So we are asking for these things, asking for her thesis.

Then, Mr. President, sadly, because I think Americans are finally getting tired of this, she was asked about this Republican criticism. It is legitimate criticism. And the quote was, well, ``I am an easy target''--this is quoting from her now--``an immigrant, a woman, a minority.''

And asked if she thought if some of the criticism of her that I am just describing--I am one of the critics--was criticism based on her critics being ``racist,'' she said, ``I think that is true.''

So here is my point, Mr. President. I think the American people are getting a little tired of this. I think the American people are getting a little tired of this. I and other Senators have been asking very legitimate questions about this woman's beliefs, about what is in her head, about how would she be the Comptroller of the Currency.

And the response is, from her: My critics are ``racist.''

Let me be a little more blunt. This is patently absurd. The U.S. Senators are allowed to ask questions--sometimes pointed questions--of nominees. The Presiding Officer certainly has done that in his career, and I respect that.

But every time someone asks a pointed question, if you come back and say, ``Well, they are doing it for these nefarious reasons, like racism,'' it really doesn't advance the discussion now, does it, especially here on the floor of the U.S. Senate?

I really hope my colleagues here, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, can maybe tell the nominee: Hey, don't do that again.

Right?

Don't do that again.

These Senators are asking--I think I am asking--very legitimate questions; like, No. 1: Do you believe in capitalism? Do you believe in the financial system of America? You are going to be put in charge of it.

I think it is quite legit to ask her that.

Her writing indicates she doesn't. This nominee has some very troubling views. We are allowed--in fact, we are required--to fully vet nominees. And calling Senators racist or sexist for doing so--this vetting--is actually a disgraceful tactic that they might have used in the Soviet Union, that they might have used at Moscow State University, in other eras, to silence voices, but it is not going to work here on the Senate floor.

So the nominee needs to drop that tactic. You are not going silence me. You are not going to silence Senator Toomey. And I would just say this more generally--and we all know it, and we all feel it: Americans--men, women, Black, White, Brown, Native, non-Native--people are starting to get tired of this tactic that, when you criticize someone on their beliefs, they try to silence you or cancel you or end the discussion by bringing out ``you are the racist'' criticism. Let's not do that here.

This nominee needs to come forward, needs to answer questions, needs to provide us with her thesis, which is about her beliefs on socialism and capitalism, and we are going to continue to do our business in the vetting.

But I can tell you, I am one Senator who is not going to be silenced by a woman who is being criticized--the nominee; it doesn't matter if it is a woman or man--who is being criticized for very legitimate reasons and then turns around and tries to slander her critics. It is not going to work. As a matter of fact, I think it is going to make it much harder for this nominee to be confirmed.

I hope my colleagues look hard at her record, and I hope those who are advising her tell her to tone it down. Those tactics might work in the Soviet Union, which she seems to have a lot of affection for still, but they are not going to work in the United States of America, and they are really not going to work in the Halls of the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is Thursday afternoon, and it is one of my favorite times in the Senate because it is the time I have the opportunity to come down on the Senate floor to talk about an Alaskan who is making a difference in their community or the State or maybe the country, you know, sometimes maybe the world. And I think we have one today. This is an individual we call our Alaskan of the Week.

I really enjoy doing this. It is just really a good opportunity to recognize people who often don't get a lot of recognition.

You know, Alaska is known throughout the world for many things: our physical beauty, the size of our State, giant mountains, great fishing, great place to take a vacation. By the way, if you are watching at home, come on up to Alaska. We would love to have you--summer, winter, it doesn't matter.

All of these things, of course, about the State are true, but there are so many other great things about our State. The No. 1 thing is our people: strong, resilient, kind, tough American citizens--great people.

Nowhere is this spirit of the people of Alaska and their patriotism more apparent than in our veterans across the State.

In Alaska, we have the highest number of veterans per capita of any State in America, veterans and their families everywhere. Everyday heroes, I like to call them.

It is amazing. In every city, village, community--it doesn't matter how big, how small--you will find proud American veterans, many of them working tirelessly together to make sure they help other veterans get the support that they have earned, the care that they have earned, and to support their families.

Today, as our Veterans Day approaches, I want to highlight one of these heroes, one of these Alaska veterans whose service is so inspiring that for those who are watching, I think you are going to have a hard time actually believing it is true. This person, our Alaskan of the Week, is 94-year-old Jim Schmidt--husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, combat veteran, Alaskan, American hero.

Let me tell you about this incredible, remarkable story, for which somebody should buy the movie rights right now.

While you are watching, you better go buy the movie rights of Mr. Schmidt.

Jim was 14 years old in 1942. Of course, the United States had already entered and was fighting in World War II. It wasn't going well in 1942, by the way. He was living with his parents in the San Francisco Bay area. Jim slipped out one day to see a movie. It was called the ``Parachute Battalion.'' That was the name of the movie, starring the beautiful Nancy Kelly. It was then, watching this movie, right then and there, he said: I am going to enlist. I am going to enlist in the Airborne.

Now, he was a big guy, a big young man--actually, he was a young kid--200 pounds, 6 feet tall. A big kid, as I mentioned, but just think, he was 14 years old. He went to the recruiter and said he was 18. He looked it.

The Army didn't ask for IDs back then, so off he went, assigned to the 504th Infantry Regiment of the world-famous 82nd Airborne at the tender age of 14.

His father was also in the Army, stationed at Fort Campbell, KY. And when there was a little confusion about where Jim was, when he didn't come home for days and weeks, his mother assumed he had gone to stay with his dad. His dad assumed he was still with his mother. Wires got crossed, and later his mom got a letter from Corporal Schmidt, CPL Jim Schmidt, who was now 15. He wrote:

From somewhere in North Africa.

Actually, it was near Tunis, which had just fallen to the British and General Patton, the American general, in

the battle against the Germans in North Africa.

He wrote his mom:

How are you [mom] and the girls?

He was referring to his sisters. He talked about the hot weather. He sent her $30.

Fast forward a few months later. It is now July 9, 1943. Jim is jumping out of an airplane onto the island of Sicily, a combat jump. In Sicily, it was the largest airborne offensive in U.S. history--a military airborne operation providing support for what was called Operation Husky, more than 170,000 Allied troops that would descend onto the island, drive the Axis powers--mostly the Germans--from the island and open up the Mediterranean front of the European theater. Combat operations, airborne operations, and Jim is 15.

Now, mistakes were made in this very big operation. Communications were sporadic. Friendly fire happened, no doubt killing American servicemembers--ferocious combat.

Some of these brave paratroopers--many were killed, many missed the landing spot--were scattered all over the island.

When Corporal Schmidt, 15 years old, landed, he came under attack by the Germans. He lost one of his best friends and mentors, fighting together in a foxhole, hand-to-hand fighting. He engaged in combat, killing the enemy. He remembers one young German, a messenger about his age. He actually found the boy's wallet because he wanted to get in touch with his family after the war to tell them how brave the young German soldier was--tough stuff.

During the battle, he was wounded, but he continued to fight. But because he was wounded, a telegraph was sent home by the Army to his mom. And at that point, he and his battalion, which was part of the 504th Infantry Regiment, Airborne Regiment in Salerno, Italy, were fighting to hold off a major German counterattack.

You can imagine Jim's mother was beside herself. Her 15-year-old son was wounded in combat in Italy. So guess what she did. You can tell what kind of stock Jim comes from. His mom wrote the President of the United States directly, President Roosevelt.

She said to the President she was glad to have her husband serve in the Army, but it was a bit much that her 15-year-old son was fighting in Europe and ``lying wounded and unattended in a Sicily field.''

That is Jim's mom to President Roosevelt.

Remarkably, she received a response. The letter has since been lost, but those who saw it said that President Roosevelt himself wrote Jim's mom and said: I am sorry the military didn't know that Jim was only 15--14 when he joined--and that he would make sure he was located as soon as possible and sent back to the United States. Sounds a little bit like ``Saving Private Ryan,'' the movie.

So that happened. Shortly before he turned 16, Corporal Schmidt was put on a ship, pretty much at the direction of the President of the United States, and sent back to the United States.

Jim later recalled that when his mom saw him, of course, she was happy, but she ``chewed me out. What would any other mother say to their son'' for enlisting at the age of 14 and not telling the mom?

A local newspaper heard about Jim and wrote a story. Here is what it said:

Fifteen year old [then] Pfc James O. Schmidt . . . left his

desk in the Eighth Grade at Ross Grammar School . . . to

enter the Army, [he] has retired from active duty [at the age

of 15] after seeing action with the [Airborne unit and]

Paratroopers in [North] Africa and being wounded in the

Battle of Sicily.

He was 15.

The newspaper wrote about how Jim had received an invitation to his own grammar school graduation when he was in Sicily.

He wrote back to his grammar school and said:

It will be impossible [for me to attend eighth grade

graduation] as I am rather busy with the job of hunting

Germans and Italians.

This alone makes a great story. Grade school graduation was missed because he was fighting in Europe and North Africa and Italy. But there is more to this story.

Shortly after being home, you guessed it, Jim walked into a Navy recruiting office. Again, nobody in the Navy asked how old he was.

The recruiter said:

Congratulations. You're now in the U.S. Navy.

So off to boot camp he went at the age of 16, already a veteran, a serious combat veteran--16 years old, unstoppable, American patriot, wanting to fight for his country in World War II.

Six months later, Jim is on a Navy destroyer deployed. But his age finally caught up with him. The Navy found out, figured out he was 16, and sent him back home. Here is an Airborne combat veteran of World War II, he is 16, and he has already been kicked out of the Army and the Navy because he is too young.

Obviously, this young man was hell-bent on serving his country so he found another organization where age didn't matter. He joined the Merchant Marines, where he remained for the remainder of World War II, serving on an ammo resupply ship in the Atlantic, participating in the war until the war was won and wound down.

So the war is over. He is a little older. What do you think he does? Eight months after he turned 18, he reenlisted in the U.S. Army.

Now, the Army was gracious and recognized: Hey, we got a combat vet. Yeah, he was only 14. So they brought him in as a sergeant, a D5. And guess what. By luck, he was assigned to occupation duty in Germany with the 508th Infantry Airborne Regiment that he had fought with in North Africa and Sicily.

So he did that duty; then he went to Japan for occupation duty. And then what happened in 1950? The Korean war breaks out. So he is sent to Korea.

As if his service in World War II wasn't enough, this remarkable story of James Schmidt continues.

He went alongside the U.S. Marines to fight in one of the most brutal, ferocious battles of the 20th century--the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir. It was 30 below zero, 120 communists, People's Liberation Chinese soldiers, surrounding 20,000 marines and the Army, soldiers and marines.

It was incredible, horrible odds. And yet the Marines and the Army persevered, despite brutal combat situations, relentless Chinese communist troops attacking, attacking, attacking.

He was wounded, broke his shoulder again, led his men in many counterattacks, and got the rest of his men out of the Chosin Reservoir.

So, Mr. President, you are seeing that this is remarkable, but we are not done.

He survived Chosin Reservoir. He survived the rest of the Korean war. He survived World War II.

Fast-forward another decade, another American conflict in Southeast Asia, and now Jim Schmidt is a master sergeant, Special Forces, in Laos, charged with raising local forces to fight the communist Lao guerillas.

Now he has been in combat in three wars, presented his third award, a Combat Infantry Badge, for his actions in Laos. And, then, it was on to Vietnam, where Jim was the sergeant major in charge of the 7th Special Forces A-Teams and then the 5th Special Forces Group, one of the most famous units of all of the Vietnam war--5th Special Forces, an airborne unit--until he returned to Fort Bragg in 1965.

So here is what he has done so far for his country: two Silver Stars for heroism, three Bronze Stars for heroism, two Purple Hearts.

He wanted back in the action, but the Army said: Nope. You are going to go into recruiting.

According to one of his daughters, he was never much of a handshaker and did not like the idea of riding a desk. So, despite the heroism, despite the service, he opted to retire from the military, and then he joined Air America, which was doing covert operations in Vietnam, until 1967, when he finally decided to settle down with his wife Peggy and focus on another critically important task for our country: raising three strong, wonderful, beautiful daughters.

Mr. President, that is something I can certainly relate to.

Now, I want to say that this is an amazing story. Unfortunately, Jim was not always treated like the hero he was. During his Vietnam service, his father died--the World War II veteran I mentioned earlier--and so he rushed home through the San Francisco airport to attend his father's funeral. And, unfortunately, he was in uniform

and, unfortunately, was jeered and booed by many in the airport.

Can you imagine that, America? Think about that. What a shameful period for our Nation that so many failed to honor obvious American heroes like Jim. But, fortunately, that didn't last long for our country. But we should never forget that.

But I am digressing because he wasn't just an American hero in uniform but, according to his daughters, a great father. He was engaged in their activities--his three daughters--taught them to be determined, independent, hard-working young women where the sky was the limit. He didn't let them sleep in. That was the military dad, I am sure.

He and his wife Peggy, a registered nurse, came to Alaska in 1993 to be close to one of their daughters, who is now a renowned chef-- actually, one of the best chefs in all of Alaska, and a lodge owner in Alaska, Kirsten Dixon. His other daughter Katherine is now a successful real estate broker, and his other daughter Jami lives in the DC area, who is also working in the intelligence field, kind of like her old man did. What a great legacy for Jim and Peggy and the whole family.

So Jim loves Alaska, the freedom in Alaska, the frontier spirit, the fact that he is in a State with more veterans per capita than any State. And he is certainly one of the great ones that we have in our State.

At 94 years old, he is surrounded by his children, his grandchildren, his great-grandchildren. According to his family, like most heroes in our country, he doesn't talk much about the war--still really doesn't-- and his full story was only fully revealed when one of his grandchildren, Henry, began to get interested and did a podcast about his grandfather and shared it on social media--his amazing grandfather. Since then, the letters have flooded in, people wanting to know about this incredible American hero who missed his grade school graduation because he was doing airborne operations in Sicily.

Just the other night he was on a Zoom with a 15-year-old because he always has time for veterans, and he gives advice to young people who are interested in serving in the military and hearing his story and getting advice. Jim says that he doesn't believe the military is for everybody, but if you have the calling, then you should follow the calling, even if you are young--but, I would caution, not 14. But Jim should know.

Mr. President, this is a remarkable American story, one for the history books, and it is one of the reasons, many reasons, that so many people in my State have served and sacrificed for their country-- everyday heroes we call them--in Alaska. There are heroes all around us, and certainly Jim is one of the most important, one of the most prominent, one of the most humble. We are proud to have him in our State.

We thank him and his wife Peggy and his wonderful three daughters and their whole family for sharing Jim with us, and we want to thank Jim for his incredible tenacity, patriotism, remarkable service, and example.

And, Jim, we want to thank you once again for being our Alaskan of the Week. Happy Veterans Day to you and all the veterans back home in Alaska.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, a number of us are down on the Senate floor here talking about the disastrous Biden administration policies that from day one--day one--have sought to increase energy prices and put American workers out of work.

How have they been doing that?

Well, they are shutting down the production of American energy. All over the country, they are going after infrastructure, particularly pipelines, not allowing those to be built.

They have energy or climate czars not confirmed by the Senate--John Kerry, Gina McCarthy--who are going to financial intuitions in America saying: Don't invest in American energy.

And then we are hearing reports that John Kerry is going to countries in Asia, saying: Don't buy American LNG.

You can't make this stuff up.

Two days ago in the Washington Post, another story. John Kerry was saying to President Biden: Hey, we have to be softer on China so we can get them to maybe commit a promise that they will never keep in Scotland.

You can't make this up. Let's be soft. The Chinese are mad about us raising issues about Hong Kong and Taiwan. John Kerry is saying maybe we should tone that down to get the Communist Party of China to agree to some empty promises on climate. You can't make this up.

So what we are seeing is spiking energy prices at the pump for working families. Here is the question everybody should be asking--I hope our friends in the media ask it, certainly--of the Biden administration: Is this intentional? Are you really trying to drive up energy prices that is hurting working families?

My view is, I think the answer is yes.

The President had a townhall last week. He seemed to not have a clue about a bunch of issues, but particularly on energy prices.

And just yesterday, there was an article about how Gina McCarthy was quoted as saying there will be opportunities with these high energy prices:

Soaring commodity prices stemming from a surge in energy

demand and limited supply, should accelerate the move to

renewables around the world.

This is a senior Biden administration official saying: Hey, we are actually trying to drive these prices up. Sorry, working families in America. Winter is coming. You are really going to be hurting. Maybe the world will move to renewables.

You can't make this up.

To me, this is one of the biggest betrayals of working families and working men and women in U.S. history: an administration coming in on purpose to drive up energy prices--Gina McCarthy says so--knowing it is going to hurt working families.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if President Biden will be calling on our citizens to wear a Jimmy Carter-style cardigan soon.

What they are doing is building back better to the seventies: high inflation; gas lines; high energy prices; empty shelves; lack of workers; energy-producing adversaries, like Russia, empowered; begging OPEC to produce more oil. That is literally what is going on.

Madam President, we have a much better plan. In the next few weeks, some of my colleagues--Senator Cramer, Senator Lummis, and a number of others--we are going to be putting forward a plan on what is working. We need to build on what is working in America.

Let me give you a couple of statistics that matter. Since 2005, the United States has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by almost 15 percent, more than any other major economy in the world. That is a fact. You don't hear it from President Biden. Heck, the Secretary of Energy thinks we are the sinner. They don't recognize China as producing almost three times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions than we are. Estimates are that 100 percent of the increase in global greenhouse gas emissions are going to come from nonindustrialized countries--China, India, others--yet they are putting all the pain on Americans.

If we export and continue to export clean-burning American natural gas as we currently do to India, to China, to Korea, to Japan, that could have a huge impact on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

So what we are going to be doing is we are going to be working with others--we certainly want some of our Democratic colleagues to join this commonsense approach.

The American Energy, Jobs, and Climate Plan is focused on all-of-the- above energy using technology--yes, building out the renewable sector in conjunction with our other energy that we currently have; empowering American workers; not giving him and her pink slips, which is the Biden way; enacting reform; knowing that we need other resources, like critical minerals that we have in abundance in Alaska and America, for the renewable sector; permanent reform so we can bring all energy projects online--oil, gas, renewable, nuclear, all of the above. That is the power; and, of course, using our resources to leverage our foreign policy advantage over our allies.

As we start rolling out our plan, we need to compare it with the Biden Green New Deal. We need to compare it with the Biden Green New Deal. Just look at the comparison, what we are going to be doing over here in the blue with our plan and what the President and his team--no offense to some of my colleagues, led by a number of them--on the Green New Deal.

We will create millions of jobs. They are putting people out of work as we speak.

We have the ability to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. They are

going to China to get empty promises from dictators--not going to work, no matter how much John Kerry kowtows to the Communists.

We are going to restore energy dominance. They want to crush it.

We want to invest in manufacturing and other elements that will produce millions of jobs for working-class Americans. Right now, they want to rely on China to source everything we have in America.

And, of course, we want reasonable energy prices. And, as I already mentioned, Gina McCarthy and others are trying to drive up American energy costs on Americans' backs so they can go to Europe, drink a glass of wine, and tell them how well they are doing in terms of crushing our energy sector. The American people don't want that.

Our plan is what is supported by the American people, not these crazy Green New Deal policies that are hurting men and women, particularly working families and energy sector workers, more than any other policy of any administration in the history of the country.

I am glad a number of my colleagues are down here to continue this discussion. I look forward to participating with them.

Mr. President, I want to address a topic this afternoon here in the U.S. Senate that I believe not enough people are talking about. It is something that I certainly heard a lot about when I was back home in Alaska, and I think it is something that millions of Americans are talking about.

But nobody here on the Senate floor is talking about, but we should be because this goes to constitutional authority, and it goes to what I believe means to be an American--freedom, liberty, and it is this: the Executive order that the President--President Biden issued mandating vaccinations for both Federal contractors and private employers.

In essence, what he has said in this Executive order--we are still waiting on the rule--is that employers need to have people who are vaccinated--all their employees by a certain date or they are going to be fired.

That is the President of the United States saying he has that power to force employers to make their employees decide between a vaccination or putting food on the table for their families. Vaccination or you are fired.

We are not talking about that, and this is unprecedented-- unprecedented. Never before has a President claimed the authority to actually do this. The military is a different exception. Private employers who have some connection to the Federal Government or otherwise, tell your employees: Get vaccinated or you are fired.

And the President of the United States is claiming the constitutional authority to do that.

I don't even think it is a close call. I don't even think it is a close call. Never been done before, and I don't even think it is a close call whether the President has the constitutional authority to do this.

Think about, if he did, what this could mean for power in other realms that the executive branch or President would have.

Now, I will stipulate right here, I am vaccinated. I have encouraged others to get a vaccine in consultation with their doctors. We all want to put this pandemic behind us, no doubt about it. The vaccinations help with that. But that doesn't mean there should be an excuse to look the other way when the President is acting in an unconstitutional manner.

And there are many reasons, certainly with regard to my constituents, that people might be hesitating with regard to a vaccine. Some of them have health conditions that preclude them from taking a vaccine. Some of them may have serious religious objections to the vaccine. Some of them have histories of abuse and don't trust the Federal Government or the medical establishment. Some of them have dug in their heels and believe the government simply doesn't have the right to tell them what substance to put in their bodies.

The President of the United States is taking this unprecedented--and it is unprecedented--action: Get a vaccine or the Federal Government will mandate you get fired.

It is not just in my view unconstitutional, but it shows contempt for hard-working Americans; contempt that I see percolating again and again among some in the far left.

Think about it. You don't say what you think we should say, you are fired. You work for an industry that used to power America but now is out of favor with some on the left--oil, gas, coal, especially in Alaska, as the Presiding Officer knows--we will shut down your business and we will make sure your employees are fired. You speak your mind about an issue, you are fired. You don't take a vaccine, you are fired.

Oh, by the way, I think the Federal deadline on the vaccination put out by the President is December 8. So you are going to be fired right before the holidays.

Now, as you know, this is a 180-degree turn--180 about-face--with regard to what this body did last year.

What do I mean?

So we worked in a bipartisan way during 2020, when the pandemic hit, particularly the CARES Act. I think every U.S. Senator voted for that. But the other relief that we worked hard on, Democrats and Republicans--when the historians look back at 2020, there are going to be a lot of things, but I think one good thing is they are going to say the Congress of the United States came together, no playbook--we certainly had never seen this before--came together to help the American people; Democrats, Republicans, the President--that was President Trump--on relief.

And here is the thing. This is why I mean it is a 180-degree turn. One of the core principles of all the relief packages that we passed last year--the aviation relief packages that helped our airlines, the PPP--throughout all the relief bills that passed this body in a bipartisan way, one critical component was we need to make sure employers and employees stay connected.

Almost all the relief said: All right. Airline industry, we can't let you go under. You have got to stay safe in terms of the ability to fly for the American people. You are going to get billions and billions and billions in relief, but you can't fire your employees. You have to keep them connected.

The PPP, the estimates are tens of millions of Americans kept their jobs because of that program. You got relief, small business in America, but you can't fire your employees. That was the agreement. That is what we worked on. That was the core principle that helped us get through the pandemic economically.

Joe Biden is taking a sledge hammer to that connection. It is actually the exact opposite. We are still challenged by the pandemic. Our economy is still challenged.

But what is he doing?

If you don't listen to Joe Biden, private employers in America, you have to fire your employees.

That is exactly the opposite of how this body worked across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, and the previous President. The approach was this: We are going to help you, but you have to keep your employees. That is the right approach. That is the right approach, and yet no one is talking about this new approach from the new President: Do what I say, even though I don't have the constitutional authority. You have to get a mandate, even though I don't have the constitutional authority. And if you don't, I am going to make sure private employers fire their employees--oh, right before Christmas.

Doesn't anyone have a problem with this?

Well, I have a problem with this. And, again, I think people should get vaccinated. I just don't think the President of the United States has the constitutional authority to tell Americans: Do it or you are going to get fired.

So here is what I hope. I have been reaching out to some of our business leaders to make a respectful request, and it is this: You don't want to fire your employees. Heck, this country doesn't have enough people who are working right now.

You have the Biden economy, which is long lines, superhigh energy prices, people who aren't working, and empty shelves. We need more workers. We certainly don't need the President of the United States telling employers: Fire your people prior to Christmas, but that is what he is doing.

So here is what I think, respectfully, our business leaders should be doing. They should be looking and remembering what we did last year. For example, if you are an airline executive, we all worked really hard to make sure we continued to have air service for America and it was safe and that you kept your employees.

So what our business leaders should be doing is saying respectfully: Mr. President, it is highly unlikely you have this authority, and I don't want to fire my employees.

The best business leaders I know are very loyal to their employees.

So hold off. Don't fire them because Joe Biden says you have to. In the litigation that is going to play out in this country, he almost certainly is going to lose--almost certainly. I don't think there is a court in America that says that the President of the United States, without Congress's permission or passing a law--that the President of the United States on his own--has the

power to go to private sector employees and say: Your employees have to get vaccinated or you, Mr. Employer, have to fire them.

I think the President is going to lose that case in every court in America. So if you are a business leader, here is my respectful request: Hold off. Wait for the litigation to play out, and don't fire your employees because the President has told you to because they haven't gotten vaccinated before Christmas.

You know, we are already starting to see this. Some business leaders are taking a different approach, not this ``Do what I said or you are fired.'' They are offering financial incentives, hiring medical advisers to talk to their employees. They are allowing medical and religious exemptions. They are offering testing as an alternative to forcing the vaccine on their workers. And I read about one today. I have had discussions with others who are saying: Look, it is not our intention to fire employees right before Christmas.

These are the leaders who are saying they value and trust their employees, like what we did last year. Here is significant relief, businesses in America, but don't fire your employees. As a matter of fact, you can't if you accept this aid--which they didn't.

So these are the leaders who value their employees. And, at the end of the day, this is the approach that is going to work. It is going to work better for all of us--for these businesses, their workers, their communities, and our country.

I wish the President would take note of this, but right now he seems hell-bent on doing a 180 from what we did last year, and that was encouraging businesses to work through the pandemic while keeping their employees, not ordering in an unconstitutional manner the firing of employees because Joe Biden said so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to use a prop on the Senate floor, a tree spike.

Mr. President, you see some of my colleagues are down here. We are a little bit fired up. Right? And this is not some kind of partisan game. We are fired up for a reason--that the U.S. Senate is getting ready to confirm a nominee who has no business being even considered on the Senate floor. No business being considered on the Senate floor.

And with all due respect to my colleague from Montana, this isn't-- what did he say--attacks against somebody. These are facts that we are going to talk about. These are facts--someone who is still continuing to not even tell the truth about her past as a violent ecoterrorist.

Now, look, we know this administration has put forth far-left individuals. I am going to talk about a few. But to put forward a far- left, violent nominee--I think we all should recognize--is kind of a bridge too far for the U.S. Senate.

But that is happening right now, and I am really hopeful that at least some of my Democratic colleagues, at the last minute, will go: Maybe we shouldn't do this. Maybe we shouldn't set this standard.

So I have been on the floor a number of times talking about Tracy Stone-Manning's nomination. It is actually the first time in my Senate career that I asked the President to withdraw a nominee, and for good reasons--because of all the things you have heard from my colleagues from Wyoming, Idaho; colleagues from mostly Western States.

And I am going to ask my Democratic colleagues from Western States: Do you really want to set this precedent? How are you going to go home and tell people who harvest timber legally for a living that you were good to go with this; good to go with someone who put hundreds of these kinds of tree spikes in trees for people--our fellow Americans--to get hurt?

But that is what we are seeing right here.

You know, I think that maybe the Biden administration, after I and many others requested that they withdraw this nominee, that maybe they thought: Well, look. With all the noise going on around here--a reckless $3\1/2\ trillion tax-and-spend extravaganza, the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, the crisis on the southern border, inflation going through the roof, the price at the pump hurting working families in my State and those across America,

the shutdown of the energy sector unilaterally and then going begging Russia and Iran for more oil that they can import to the United States--I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

But I think the Biden administration thought, with all this chaos that they are creating, maybe nobody will notice Tracy Stone-Manning's confirmation process and vote.

Well, they are wrong. As you see here, there are some really strong feelings about this nominee--a past ecoterrorist; a member of Earth First!, an extreme group that performed violent acts as part of their platform for getting attention in America.

In fact, she is so extreme that the Director of BLM from the Obama- Biden administration, Bob Abbey, made a statement saying that if her violent ecoterrorist past activities were true--and they were. They were. I am going to talk about them. Senator Risch has already talked about them; Senator Barrasso has; Senator Lummis has--if these were true, then President Obama's BLM Director said she does not deserve the job.

So this isn't just Republicans. This is the former Democrat Director of the Agency that we are going to vote on that she wants to lead.

So before I talk a little bit more about her--and I know we have had a number of Senators do it--I want to make another point.

The reason I have been down here so much, focused on this nominee, is that BLM to some states--heck, if you live in Connecticut, probably nobody knows what that is. But the Bureau of Land Management in my State is one of the most powerful Federal Agencies there is in the great State of Alaska.

The Alaska BLM manages more surface and subsurface acres in my State than in any other State in the country, by far.

The BLM Director in Alaska is our landlord, and I don't want an ecoterrorist as my State's landlord, and neither do my constituents.

Let me give you some numbers. The BLM manager in Alaska manages over 70 million surface acres of land and 220 million subsurface acres of land in Alaska.

A little context: That is the equivalent land of about one-fifth of the entire lower 48. Do you see why this is really important to me and my constituents? Most States can't even comprehend land that size. One- fifth of the lower 48 of the United States of America is about the amount of land BLM manages just in my State. This is a huge amount of land, and, of course, by definition, a huge amount of power that this Federal Agency has over the people I am privileged to represent--their work, their jobs, their hunting activities, their subsistence activities. And that is why I have been down here talking about this nominee.

I know to some in East Coast States--forget it. We don't know who she is. No power. She doesn't have any power over New Jersey or some of these other small States on the East Coast.

But in my State, massive power, and it is imperative that the Director of this Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, with so much power and so much control over the future of Alaska and its economic opportunity for working families, that the manager of BLM be trustworthy, be honest, be fairminded, beyond reproach, and certainly not someone who was involved in ecoterrorism earlier in their career.

Is that too much to ask, my colleagues in the Senate?

What we know about Tracy Stone-Manning is, she is none of these things. She hasn't been trustworthy with the Senate, fairminded.

Well, let's go back to a little bit of her background because people need to know this. People need to know this. My colleagues have already done a good job, but I hope the American people are watching this. She was not only a member of Earth First!, a radical far-left group that has engaged repeatedly in what is defined as ecoterrorism, she, herself, was complicit in putting metal spikes--see this--big, thick, metal spikes, by the hundreds, in trees that were meant either to hurt or gravely injure American citizens who were legally harvesting trees.

We are OK with that, Senate Democrats? We are OK with that? Americans who were cutting down trees legally as part of their job to help their economy, to help their family, who were putting trees in saw mills legally. All the while, she and her buddies--comrades, I call them-- were acting illegally, putting these spikes, by the hundreds, in trees.

This was a common technique--tree spiking is what it is called-- developed by ecoterrorists in the 1980s and early nineties. Now, Ms. Manning's group, Earth First!, began in the 1980s by disaffected environmentalists who thought their movement wasn't radical enough: ``So how can we get more attention? Let's perpetrate violence against fellow Americans.'' That is how they could get more attention. Their slogan was ``No compromise in the defense of Mother Earth.'' In their view, ``no compromise'' meant destroying property, putting steel spikes in trees that could kill someone who harvested a tree. And they celebrated and even encouraged such actions. The group even put out a manual detailing tree spiking and instructions on how to do other sabotage activities: cutting down power lines, flattening tires, burning machinery--all directed at those who were trying to legally harvest trees.

David Foreman, the founder of Earth First!, described all these activities as ``fun.'' ``This is where [you] can have fun.''

Let me talk a little bit about ``fun.'' I have an article from the Washington Post during that time. They were talking about a tree- spiking incident, and I am going to quote from it:

George Alexander, a third-generation mill worker, was just

starting his shift at the Louisiana-Pacific lumber mill in

Cloverdale, Calif., when the log that would alter his life

rolled down his conveyor belt toward a high-speed saw.

Now, we have some of these saws in these mills in Alaska--not nearly as many as we used to have. They are huge. They are giant. They are the size of people. They spin at incredibly fast speeds with huge teeth. They are dangerous to work with normally. But when you put a steel spike in a tree that is going through a fastly spinning saw, you can imagine the explosion and the violence.

I will continue the article:

It was May 1987, and Alexander was 23 [years old]. His job

was to split logs. He was nearly three feet away when the log

[he was working on] hit his saw and the [giant] saw exploded.

One half of the blade [struck] . . . the log.

It exploded when it hit one of these.

The other half hit Alexander in the [forehead, with the

giant saw] tearing through his safety helmet . . . [tearing

through his]face shield. His face was slashed from eye to

chin. His teeth were smashed and his jaw was cut in half.

Good job, Earth First!--a fellow American, trying to kill a fellow American. These were the kind of activities that Tracy Stone-Manning once conspired in.

I wonder if that disturbs anybody?

I was up at our fish camp on the Yukon River this summer over the Fourth of July clearing some brush, trees, working a chain saw--a smaller chain saw--and I literally was thinking, ``Boy, I wonder what would happen if my chain saw hit one of these?''

It wouldn't have been good. So I think if you are not disturbed by this, you really should be.

So I know that some of my colleagues have already read the letter on the floor that she wrote, a profane, anonymous letter from this member of Earth First!, about the 500 pounds of tree spikes--500 pounds-- hammered into trees in Idaho.

She rewrote the letter on a rented typewriter because, she later told a reporter, her fingerprints were all over it. So she didn't want to be caught. So, obviously, she knew she was engaging in criminal activity. She didn't just handwrite it; she typed it and then sent it to the FBI. Now, I know some of my colleagues have already read it. I am just going to notice a couple of highlights:

This letter is being sent to notify you that the Post

Office Sale in [the great State of] Idaho has been spiked

heavily. . . .

The project required that eleven of us spend nine days in

God awful weather conditions spiking trees. We unloaded a

total of 500 pounds of spikes measuring 8 to 10 inches in

length. . . .

Five hundred pounds of these. That is a lot of spikes.

The majority of trees were spiked within the first ten

feet, but many, many others were spiked as high as a hundred

and fifty feet.

Again, why would they go that high? That is not where you are going to cut

it down. So when it goes to the mill, you injure and kill the mill workers.

She goes on further.

Mr. President, I don't know if I am allowed to swear, but you can call me out if I am not supposed to:

P.S. You bastards go in there anyway and a lot of people

could get hurt.

That is real nice.

Now, she kept quiet for many years on what she did. She later received immunity for her part in this tree spiking when prosecutors went after other members of Earth First!, and she testified about it. But in her narrative, she has always tried to portray herself as a victim.

She wasn't a victim.

The investigator of this disputes that characterization dramatically. The U.S. Forest Service Special Agent Michael Merkley described her as vulgar, antagonistic, and extremely anti-government. She was uncooperative.

It was also clear that only after she knew she was going to get in trouble that she began to cooperate. ``Let me be clear,'' Special Agent Merkley said recently, ``Ms. Stone-Manning only came forward after her attorney struck the immunity deal, and not before she was caught.''

In testimony to the Senate, she claimed that tree spiking was alleged.

It wasn't alleged.

And that it was never investigated.

That is not true. We know that is not true.

So that was recent.

So it is not just the tree spiking. She hasn't been honest, but she is still clearly a radical.

Let me give you another example. Her husband wrote an article for Harper's Magazine--Senator Risch already talked about this--in 2018, claiming wildfires were a political issue and that such an issue should be solved by letting houses in forests burn.

Think about that.

Perhaps the solution to houses in the interface is to let

them burn.

Those are his exact words. Now, look, that is her husband. We can't blame her for her husband's radical views.

But here is what she did. She weighed in herself in 2020--last year-- retweeting the article and basically endorsing his views. Here is what she said:

Not a bad time to revisit this piece from my husband,

Richard Manning, from two years ago. Clarion call . . . [on

climate action].

So think about that.

So I was in charge of our lands in Alaska. We worked--including fighting wildfires--we worked really closely with the Federal Government, the State of Alaska, Federal officials, on fighting our wildfires. We have big wildfires in Alaska, always have had them, always will have them. Never ever, ever, in any time I was involved in issues relating to fighting wildfires, have I heard a State official or Federal official say, ``Hey, if there is a fire near a bunch of homes, let them burn.''

But do you see the problem? She is going to be in charge of that in Alaska.

``Let them burn.''

You know what our Federal firefighters do? They save structures. They save houses. They are very heroic.

``Let them burn,'' she said last year.

In a nutshell, this is potentially, if we don't stop this vote tonight, the new head of the BLM. She was a member of an ecoterrorist group who had a goal to actually threaten to hurt or actually hurt American citizens, hard-working Americans doing something legal. She has clearly been dishonest recently.

With all due respect to my colleague from Montana, these are not some kind of ad hominem attacks. These are facts.

Last year, she said: Hey, I agree with my husband's article. Let it burn. Let the homes burn in these wildfires.

That is not going to work in my State. She is going to head up an Agency with enormous power over my State and its future.

So, look, we have differences on issues of resource development, energy for America, certainly on issues of jobs. In my State, unfortunately, the Biden administration seems to, weekly, want to shut down resources just in Alaska. I think we are up to almost 20 Executive orders or related actions from this administration focused just on my State--to shut down jobs.

I gave a speech here a while ago asking, not the President of the Senate, the President of the United States: Can you imagine if a Republican administration came in and issued almost, who knows, 10, 15--it is hard to count--Executive orders shutting down Delaware's economy? What would you do, Mr. President, if you were a Senator? You would be furious.

Well, I am furious, and I am furious because we have got another radical who is going to be in charge of my State's future.

``Let it burn.'' Tree spikes.

But here we are, unfortunately, about to confirm this individual as the Director of BLM. But here's the thing I want to know. If you are a western Senator--say, Arizona, Nevada, California--good luck going home and explaining this to your constituents. Good luck with that.

I am going to just mention another nominee to speak about briefly. If Tracy Stone-Manning weren't radical enough, I would like to mention another Biden nominee from the far-left socialist fringe. This is Saule Omarova, who was nominated by the President to be Comptroller of the Currency.

So what does the Comptroller of Currency do?

It charters and regulates and supervises all national banks--another very serious position. Not a lot of Americans, you know, highlight this or think about it a lot. It is like BLM, but it is important and powerful. And you would think you would have somebody in that position who would understand or value and respect free markets in our financial system, particularly our banks.

Ms. Omarova doesn't value our system and doesn't seem to much like banks. She has other ideas. According to the Wall Street Journal today, they said that it might even make our colleague Senator Sanders blush.

So who is Ms. Omarova?

First, she is a 1989 graduate in Moscow State University, where she received the Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship. Yeah, you heard me right. I am not talking Moscow, ID. I am talking the real Moscow in the Soviet Union. Let me say that again. A graduate of Moscow State University, where she received the Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship. You can't make this stuff up.

From her writings, it appears that she still significantly believes in what she learned at old Moscow U, particularly about our free market system and communism and socialism.

Here is what she tweeted in 2019--2019, 3 years ago--2 years ago: Until I came to the U.S., I couldn't imagine things like gender pay gap still existed in today's world. Say what you want about the old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Markets don't always know best.

That is a tweet 2 years ago: Say what you want about the old USSR, about Stalin and Lenin and the roughly 100 million people killed during their reigns. Say what you want about the old USSR, the famine, human degradation, about the ill-fated violent attempts to snuff out the flame of freedom and liberty all across the world. Say what you want about the old USSR, the gulags, pogroms. At least there is no gender gap. There is no food either, by the way; and there is no freedom.

So she is like: Hum, maybe I should clarify this.

So here is her clarification: I never claimed men and women were treated absolutely equal in every facet of the old Soviet Union, but people's salaries were set by the State in a gender-blind manner, and all women got very generous benefits, but those things are still a pipe dream in our American society.

Wow. That was her clarification. Oh, the golden days of the USSR, a mere pipe dream now. Her nostalgia for socialist communist regimes and policies doesn't end with pay disparities. She has advocated for expanding the Federal Reserve's mandate to include draconian controls over financial institutions, wages, and consumer bank deposits.

How would she do this?

Through ``a people's ledger, a national investment authority, a public interest council.''

Sounds like a modern-day version of the system set up by the Bolsheviks that I am sure she learned about at Moscow U. Plainly put, she is another radical who will have sweeping powers

over the institutions of our United States Government.

So I am going to conclude with this: If you are watching America, I hope you are seeing a theme here. The Biden administration, unfortunately with the help of some of my Senate Democratic colleagues, is trying to make us comfortable with far-left fringe radical appointments who will take over very significant posts in our government and will push us towards the path of socialism. They are pushing a radical left lurch for our country that the vast majority of Americans don't want.

Just look at what my colleagues are coming up with, with their $3\1/ 2\ trillion tax-and-spend bill written by the chairman of the Budget Committee, an avowed socialist. It is not an insult. That is a fact.

All this is being done with no hearings, no markups; the biggest social spending bill in decades with zero transparency. Even the House had a markup. But the Senate, once known as the most deliberative body in the world, is not having one hearing or one markup on a $3\1/2\ trillion reckless tax-and-spend bill.

But mainstream middle-class America does not want socialism, and they don't want far-left radicals to run our Federal Government. My Democratic colleagues keep thinking they can ram through this far-left agenda without anyone noticing, but the American people are noticing. The American people are wise, and they are already starting to feel the pain of the Biden administration's far-left, anti-energy, anti- capitalism agenda, especially at the pump.

They will remember which Senators are enabling this, and they will remember the Senators who have no problem voting for nominees who have a record of being part of organizations that sought to perpetrate violence against their fellow Americans.

I hope my Democratic colleagues have a change of heart and vote against Tracy Stone-[Spike]-Manning because our country and my State really don't need her in charge.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is a lot going in the Senate, as we have been debating and voting on a number of things--important matters, no doubt--for the country. But that doesn't mean that we are going to forget other important matters that we regularly take up here in the Senate. And what I am talking about, of course, is the Alaskan of the Week.

Now, our pages are back, which is such great news. But you need to know this is one of the most exciting times in the Senate. Usually every Thursday I get an opportunity to come down here on the Senate floor and talk about somebody in Alaska who is making a difference.

In fact, we talked about a Gold Medal Olympic athlete just a couple of weeks ago, making a huge difference for Alaska, her community, the world, America. So we really enjoy this. We kind of have a cult following. But the pages really enjoy it because it is stories and adventure, all for the people who are doing wonderful things in my State.

This week, on the actual day of her retirement from a long and rewarding career with the Alaska State Troopers, our Alaskan of the Week is Anne Sears.

So before I talk about Anne and her extraordinary service to Alaska, about her being the first and only Alaskan Native female trooper, let me tell you a little bit about what is going on back home.

In Wasilla, AK, where Anne recently moved--she was actually born in Nome; we will talk about that--the temperature has been in the midforties, twenties at night. The sun rose today at 8 a.m., sets at 7:30 p.m. You know, it moves fast in Alaska. We have already had several pretty good size snowstorms. So winter is coming. Winter is coming--definitely coming to Alaska right now.

But let's get back to Anne. After decades of hard work as an Alaska State Trooper, it is time for Anne to settle into a new home, to rest, get some sleep, and think about her next steps--all of which she is planning on doing starting tomorrow because, today, she is retiring.

So Anne Sears--well, let's start with her mother Gladyce, who is from Nome. Gladyce actually left Nome for a little bit of time, moved to the lower 48. And among other things, Gladyce, Anne's mom, worked here in DC. She worked for Alaska Congressman Ralph Rivers.

Most people don't think we ever had any other Congressman but Don Young because he has been there forever, but this was Congressman Ralph Rivers. And Gladyce, Anne's mom, met her husband Cary, Anne's father, who was an electrician in the Navy. But Cary and Gladyce decided to move back to Nome because they wanted to make sure Anne was going to be born in Nome, which she was.

So Gladyce, obviously, is a woman of ambition, and so was her daughter Anne. She passed that down to Anne. So after Anne was born and Cary, her father, left the Navy, he got a job as an electrician with the Federal Aviation Administration in Alaska, which took him and his family all around the State: Bethel, Kotzebue, Unalakleet--so many great villages in our rural part of Alaska.

Now, eventually, they settled in Juneau. And after high school, Anne got a job as a clerk for the Juneau Police Department. All through her younger years, she knew she wanted to do something to help people. But it wasn't until the tender age of 31 that her calling came.

As the clerk at the Juneau Police Department, she decided: Hey, I can do this.

So she took the test required to become a police officer. Of course, a woman of this intelligence passed with flying colors, and she was offered the job. On the first day of on-the-job-training, Anne was in a police car, speeding to a site where a woman was hurt. She got there. She helped that woman. And her desire, motivation, to be a police officer was cemented. She was hooked.

She met her future husband Jay at the police academy, and eventually, they became Alaska State Troopers as a couple--both of them working in rural Alaska together, where they had worked for over 15 years.

It didn't take Anne long to realize she was actually really good at her job. That is not being arrogant. She just knew.

``I could talk to people,'' she said. ``Not being big and being a woman, you've got to use your words [in this job].''

Anyone who has watched the reality show ``Alaska State Troopers''-- now, there are a lot of Alaska reality shows, but anyone at home watching right now, if you have seen ``Alaska State Troopers,'' you will have seen Anne featured prominently in that series, and you will understand what she means when she talks about using her words. She is articulate. She is tough. She is firm. She is very clear, but she is also calming, which is what you need from a good officer. She is able to bring calm and ease to the most volatile situations and situations that can be extraordinarily challenging for our law enforcement officers.

Now, as some might have heard me talk about here on the floor, the hundreds of small, rural villages in the hub communities of rural Alaska are literally the spiritual and cultural soul of my State.

Like many areas across America, both urban and rural, rural Alaska also has many challenges. And one of them is that there is not enough public safety officers present in rural Alaska. We have dozens of communities with nothing--no sheriff, no police officer, no trooper, no VPSO--nothing.

It is a big issue. It is something I am certainly passionate about that we are all working on, more law enforcement presence in our rural communities. So being a law enforcement officer in rural Alaska, particularly in the hundreds of villages that don't have roads to get in and out of, can pose unique challenges. Anne has seen those challenges throughout her career.

What are some of those?

Well, first, you have to get to the village, especially if it doesn't even have an officer in the village when this is a crime or a challenge. That often requires flying in a single-engine plane to a remote place in a giant State, in tough weather. Then when you get there, you have to figure out where you need to go. Sometimes, there is no facilities, no jail, no holding cell, no place to take people--maybe one city office, at the most. And then you have to figure out how to get into those offices, which can be particularly challenging, particularly in the winter. When it is cold and dark, it might be 50 below zero with the wind howling.

So these are many, many of the challenges that Anne has dealt with. As she says: This is not ``NCIS'' or ``Law and Order.'' In rural Alaska, we have to do it all.

Indeed, as a trooper, she has played many roles: a protector, an enforcer, a trooper, a friend, a confidant, a social worker. And she loved it all, and she was really good at it. Here is what she said:

It was the best job I could have ever had and the hardest

job I could have ever had. But I couldn't have done it

without my husband, Jay, my sons, Hunter and Zachery, and my

brother, Perry.

Anne also credits the health aides and public safety officers, VPSOs, VPOs in these villages who have really, really important roles.

One of the most difficult aspects of her job was handling cases of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Now, I love my State. We are a great State. I come down on the floor once a week and brag about it with our Alaskan of the Week. But this is something we don't like to brag about in Alaska: the horrific problems we have with domestic violence, sexual assault, and the challenges that brings particularly with young people, too many people.

But she has been very focused on these issues. Anne teamed up with local health providers to go into high schools, to give presentations about these horrible crimes, and talk about why it is wrong--this kind of abuse--and to try to change the culture of our State, which we need to keep focused on.

She had groups and gatherings for parents too. She said mostly mothers would come and, heartbreakingly, almost inevitably tell stories of some of the victims and survivors of abuse that we have in our State. But she was undeterred.

She said: If I could just touch one child on these kinds of crimes, to help them, I know I made a difference.

Anne has made a difference--I would say a huge difference--for Alaska.

Here is what fellow Trooper Bryan Barlow said about Anne's service: ``Her legacy as a caring, compassionate, and dedicated trooper and investigator has without a doubt made our State''--the great State of Alaska--``a much safer place.''

James Cockrell, the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety, said that Anne's dedication to rural Alaska was an extraordinary asset to the department's mission to keep Alaskans safe.

As I have said, Anne was the first female Alaskan Native trooper, but I guarantee you, she will not be the last. She has proved a role model for so many, a true trailblazer, an example that we need in Alaska and so many people look up to.

Now, she hasn't decided what the future holds, but she is still young and still has the urge to help out. I have no doubt she is going to make a big impact in other places, helping Alaskans. For now, though-- you can tell this is a tough job--I think she needs a little rest and some sleep.

So, thank you, Anne, for all you have done. Congratulations on your retirement today. From the Alaska State Troopers: Thank you for being an inspiration, an example to so many in our great State. And, of course, congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to talk about transparency, and I want to talk about the need for transparency here in the U.S. Senate more than ever.

The House and the Senate are moving with breakneck speed to pass one of the biggest, most reckless spending social bills in U.S. history, over $3\1/2\ trillion--a spending spree that will be the largest in a generation--which will include the largest tax hike that we have seen in peacetime and something that the majority leader himself has called the largest transformation in a generation.

Make no mistake. This is trying to transform America--cradle to grave socialism. Don't take my word for it. Here is the way the New York Times described this $3\1/2\ trillion reckless spending bill from the House coming to the Senate. It is legislation that would touch virtually every American's life from conception to age and infirmity, from cradle to grave. That is the New York Times. In other words, the Federal Government will be involved in all facets of every single American life, from birth to death--one of the biggest

tax-and-spend programs certainly since President Johnson's Great Society or President Roosevelt's New Deal.

With that involvement of our government will come higher taxes, taxes on smaller businesses, taxes on the middle class, and, yes, we believe our Senate colleagues are planning a tax cut for those who live in the big cities, known as the ``Blue State Bailout.'' The chairman of the Budget Committee, who is crafting this bill, Senator Sanders, who has called himself ``a proud socialist,'' is going to have tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires in this legislation.

So one would think that a bill of this magnitude, this size, this transformational an impact on every single American, would be a bill that the U.S. Senate, the so-called most deliberative body in the world, would actually hold one hearing on--just one--and would actually hold a markup or two in the different committees. Right now, our Democratic colleagues, with no explanation, are not planning on one hearing or one markup in any committee--none. As, I think, anybody who knows anything about this body knows, that is unprecedented.

The House rushed, no doubt. They have already marked up this legislation, way too fast, but, at least, they allowed for amendments. At least, they debated it.

When Republicans controlled the Congress in 2017, with regard to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which went through reconciliation, we held numerous hearings in Senate committees. We had markups. We debated amendments. But for this bill--3\1/2\ trillion--right now, our colleagues are not going to do any of that.

Of course, the media has given them a free pass. Nothing. The most deliberative body in the world, the transformational bill of a generation, the Green New Deal and all the other socialist ideas, and we are not going to have one hearing, not going to have one markup in one committee.

What is going on? Well, I would love it if the majority leader or any other Senate Democrat would come down to the Senate floor and explain to the American people why. Why aren't we doing that? No transparency?

So I have a theory, because we are not going to hear from the majority leader or any of my other colleagues. I would love to hear them.

Come on down. Explain why we are not having one hearing on the biggest bill in a generation--3\1/2\ trillion.

Here is my theory. There are several reasons why they don't want the public to see a hearing or a markup relating to this bill.

First and foremost, they don't want to have to defend what is in it. They don't want the public, who is seeing skyrocketing prices at the pump, at the grocery store, seeing all the increases in prices across our country, to see the specifics of a bill that are clearly going to supercharge more inflation. They don't want to have to defend a bill that will have the largest tax increase in American history. They don't want to have to defend a bill or show the American people tax rates on small businesses that will be bigger than anything in the European Union or in communist China, or hundreds of billions to bail out health insurers or $200 million for the Speaker's pet project in the Presidio Park in San Francisco or $5 billion for an environmental justice tax credit for universities, whatever the heck that is. Or how about $100 billion for amnesty for 10 million illegal immigrants, making them eligible for Federal benefits? They don't want to have to defend that. They don't want to have to debate that. These are just a few core elements of the bill as we know it. As I mentioned, there are also the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires in big cities.

And they don't want to have to talk about the debt ceiling that my colleagues are trying to raise so they can continue their trillion dollars of reckless spending. The majority leader just mentioned that. He doesn't mention what is in the bill, won't have hearings about what is in the bill, won't have markups for the American people to see.

And on the debt ceiling, you know, just last month, 45 of my Senate Republican colleagues and I signed a letter, putting our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on notice that we will not vote to increase the debt limit if they continued down this reckless path. And the reason is simple: My Democratic colleagues are content to go it alone and pass their irresponsible $3\1/2\ trillion socialist spending spree with no hearings, no markup, no nothing, with just Democratic input, which is all we have.

Again, when we were going through our budget reconciliation process, we took amendments, we debated them, and we voted on them. They are not doing that.

If they are doing this solely by themselves, with no transparency, then our Democratic friends should be solely responsible for raising the debt ceiling to accommodate it. They control all branches of the government. The majority leader clearly knows they could fix that right now. They are creating their own crisis, and they can solve it.

So, once again, this $3\1/2\ trillion bill is being rushed. What is another reason? I think they are getting a little nervous that if you had a markup, say, in the Budget Committee, you would see that the author of the bill, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is promoting a socialist agenda that he is proud of because he is actually an avowed socialist.

Now, I am not trying to insult anyone. This is what he calls himself.

So I think my Democratic colleagues get a little nervous that a bill authored by a socialist in the Senate would have to be defended. But, again, no hearings, no markup, and I know a lot of my Democratic colleagues are uncomfortable with this. They are uncomfortable with the bill. They are uncomfortable with the lack of transparency, but they are not calling for transparency. They are saying: Let's just move this as quickly as possible so nobody in America can see it.

So far, they are being successful, but I think we need to put this into context. Here is a piece from the Wall Street Journal from last week, where it talked about putting this rush job on the reckless spending bill from the majority leader and the Speaker of the House in historic context. It said:

FDR's New Deal programs were passed incrementally over two

Presidential terms with overwhelming Democratic majorities.

Democrats created the Great Society over two years, with

supermajorities under President Johnson. ObamaCare was hashed

out over nine months before Democrats enacted it into law

with 56 votes in the Senate. The 2017 GOP tax reform bill--

as I just mentioned--

was debated for months, and its principles for years before

Congress voted and marked it up.

Now with merely 50 Democrats in the Senate--

fifty-fifty here--

and a five-Member House majority, Democrats are planning to

rush through the biggest tax and spending increase in half a

century--

With not one hearing in the U.S. Senate, without one markup in any committee.

There is no mandate for this, but for most of my colleagues, the quicker the better to move on. Don't look, America. Don't look that the author of this bill is actually a socialist, because it is socialism.

Now, this rush job is not good for the American people. So here is a better idea, and it comes from a Senate Democrat, my colleague Senator Manchin. A couple of weeks ago, he very wisely called for a ``strategic pause.''

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal he said that there is another reason for a strategic pause.

Now I am quoting Senator Manchin:

We must allow for a complete reporting and analysis of the

implications a multitrillion-dollar bill will have for this

generation and the next. Such a strategic pause will allow

every member of Congress to use the transparent committee

process to debate: What should we fund, and what can we

simply not afford?

That is Senator Manchin. His op-ed also said that amid the inflation that we are seeing, debt and the inevitability of future crises, Congress needs to take a strategic pause on this $3\1/2\ trillion reckless spending spree.

So one of my Democratic colleagues is wisely calling for what we all know we need here, which is the precedent of this body, the most deliberative body in the world--a pause, hearings, markups so the American people can see what is actually in this.

It sounds like that is not going to happen, and I would love it if any of my Democratic colleagues would come

to the floor and tell the American people why.

We can and should have debates about our respective visions for our great country.

No one should be afraid of looking closely at this $3\1/2\ trillion monstrosity. Let's have a debate about it. Let's debate the massive increases in taxes, the vast expansion of entitlements, the cradle-to- grave socialism that certain Democrats are proposing for every individual American's life.

The American people deserve this. My constituents back home in Alaska certainly would welcome such a debate, but the American people deserve this.

Why are my colleagues afraid to debate and have hearings and a markup on this massive legislation? It is the American people's money, after all, that will pay for this transformational, socialist bill, and it is their lives that will be impacted and upended if this reckless, rushed bill becomes law.

So let's do this. Let's hit a strategic pause, as Senator Manchin asked for.

Let's pry this bill open, hold hearings, and lay out our visions for our country. Let's have a debate: More taxes or freedom? Socialism versus market capitalism. Do we want a fundamental transformation, as the majority leader and the budget chairman have asked for, or do we want commonsense legislation that helps working men and women in our country achieve their dreams?

I am hopeful that the majority leader will agree with Senator Manchin and do what is right for the American people: Hit a pause, hold hearings, and hold markups before he makes a mockery of the phrase ``the world's most deliberative body,'' which he is now trying to do with this rushed and reckless spending bill.

Madam President, the tragic story of 22-year-old Gabby Petito, whose body was recently found at the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming, has captured the attention of our Nation. It is an awful story that is still playing out. We pray for her parents and her loved ones, and we hope that they soon will receive justice.

As we watch the story unfold, we empathize with her family and her friends, and we mourn with them, and we think about how this horrible crime hurts all of them, their neighbors, our fellow citizens, the result of such a brutal murder. We think of our daughters and think of the daughters of others, all of our Nation's daughters. And all of this reminds some of us of another terrible tragedy in America, and it is this: Native and indigenous women in America are murdered and sexually assaulted at rates as high as 10 times the national average. Think about that. Horrendous.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that murder is the third leading cause of death among American Indian and Alaska Native women. However, this issue rarely, if ever, receives much coverage or awareness. But awareness often results in additional resources--something that has unfortunately been lacking in our criminal justice system on this issue, the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women.

According to the FBI's National Crime Information Center, there are roughly 1,500 unsolved cases of missing and murdered indigenous women in America--1,500. Alaska has about 300 of these unsolved cases. Experts think there are many more such cases that don't make it into the Federal database.

There has been some progress. Under the previous administration, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, Tara Sweeney, who did such a great job, began an initiative throughout the Federal Government called Operation Lady Justice, the whole point of which was to bring light to this horrible issue of missing and murdered indigenous women, to bring justice and hope and closure to their families. Operation Lady Justice, the task force, has opened up numerous offices across America, including one in Alaska. Last year, we in a bipartisan way here in the Senate passed Savanna's Act and the Not Invisible Act to address the crisis of missing, murdered, and trafficked indigenous women in our country. Progress is being made, but we need to continue to keep this issue front and center.

As we pray for the family of Gabby Petito, we also offer our thoughts and prayers to the families of these missing and murdered indigenous Americans and commit to continue to focus on all of these issues to make our country a better place.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there have been a lot of discussions on the floor today--and I fully support them--about an important, important role of the U.S. Senate that we need to take on with regard to our oversight responsibility of what the entire country has recently observed as a fiasco, debacle, with regard to foreign policy in Afghanistan that is going to have consequences for years.

Like all of us, I was home over August when all of these images on TV were unfolding. And I will tell you, I don't think I have ever seen my constituents madder about a single issue than this. It wasn't just Republicans. It was across-the-board Alaskans.

Why?

Because they saw our great country humiliated. They witnessed time and time again the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, telling them blatant falsehoods that they knew were falsehoods, and there is yet to be any accountability on this.

Now, the hearings have begun. We have had two hearings on the Armed Services Committee, but they continue to insist on keeping them classified. No reason to do that. We need to have these hearings out in the open. The American people want to see them.

We had hearings on the Foreign Relations Committee this past week, and we started to see the beginnings of the Biden administration's strategy as it relates to explaining this fiasco, this debacle.

What is it?

Remarkably, it is to blame Donald Trump--if you watch the Secretary of State testify in front of the Foreign Relations Committee--and then blame the Generals, and then continue to quote the President of the United States that this withdrawal in Afghanistan was ``an extraordinary success.'' Let me repeat that: An ``extraordinary success.''

That is what the President of the United States has called this. And, unfortunately, his Secretary of State, his Under Secretary of Defense-- who testified in front of the Armed Services Committee just a couple of days ago in a hearing that was the height of deniability on any responsibility--all of them continue to cling to this blatant falsehood that every American knows is not the case.

This wasn't an extraordinary success, what we witnessed in Afghanistan. The whole country knows that. In fact, the whole world knows that.

This is the cover from a few weeks ago of The Economist magazine-- pretty honest, well-respected magazine. Much of the world reads it.

And that is what The Economist called it: ``Biden's debacle.'' If you look in the magazine, it goes into several articles about the implications of Biden's debacle. Here are some of the names, titles of the articles in this magazine: ``The fiasco in Afghanistan is a huge and unnecessary blow to America's standing'' in the world. That is not an extraordinary success. How about this one from another article in The Economist: ``Joe Biden blames everyone else.'' That is not accountability. And then perhaps most importantly: ``The big win for China in Afghanistan is seeing America humbled.''

These are articles in an international magazine--a well-respected international magazine--that the whole world is reading, and this is what happened in Afghanistan. It wasn't an extraordinary success; to the contrary, it was a debacle. It was a debacle.

Now, some things are becoming increasingly clear. The administration tries to defend this, tries to explain it. As The Economist magazine mentions, this is President Biden's fiasco. Despite attempts by the civilian leadership in the Biden administration to explain this away with regard to blame on Donald Trump or the generals, this was 100 percent President Biden's decision and debacle.

It is becoming increasingly clear even in the classified hearings that we have had on the Armed Services Committee that the President's senior military advisers said to the President: Do not do this, sir. Do not go to zero with our troops. Instead, you should keep a small force there.

Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly clear that the President's military advisers then said to the President: If you do go to zero, if you do get rid of all our troops--especially if they are pulled out before others leave--you are going to see many bad things happen tactically, operationally, strategically for our country.

In essence, what Americans witnessed and saw on TV in August--this was predicted. The President was told this. He ignored this advice, so he owns this debacle. What he needs to do now is tell the truth about it. He and his administration need to tell the truth about it.

There are many things that are disturbing about what has happened over the last several weeks in Afghanistan, but what has been so disturbing is not only how the President has been blaming everyone but himself; it is that when he talks to the American people about this issue, he has clearly not been telling the truth, and the American people know it.

Let's start with the issue I just mentioned: the advice that the President received from his military advisers.

President Biden was on a media interview show on August 18 as this whole fiasco was unfolding. He was asked:

Your top military advisors warned against withdrawing on

this timeline. They wanted you to keep about 2,500 troops.

That was the question from George Stephanopoulos.

The President of the United States said:

No, they didn't.

Later, Stephanopoulos pressed: Your military advisers told you not to do

this, that ``we should keep 2,500 troops'' in Afghanistan.

The President of the United States:

No. No one said that to me that I can recall.

That is not true. That is not true.

During that same interview, George Stephanopoulos said:

We've got, like, 10,000 to 15,000 Americans in the country.

. . . Are you committed to making sure that [American] troops

stay until every American who wants to [leave gets] out?

That was the question.

The President said:

Yes.

I am quoting him:

If there's American citizens left, we're gonna stay--

The military is going to stay--

[until we] get them all out.

That is a quote from the President of the United States. That wasn't true.

In a later interview, the President mentioned that al-Qaida is all gone from Afghanistan. That isn't true. We know that.

The President also said that our NATO allies:

Every one of them knew and agreed with the decision I made

to end, jointly end, our involvement in Afghanistan.

That is not true. That is not true.

Then the President and his advisers--the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy most recently--have been highlighting this incredible, over- the-horizon capability to go after terrorists whom we still have in Afghanistan. That, we know, has been greatly diminished. We have heard that from the military leaders who know these issues. So even on that issue, they are not leveling with the American people.

These are not small, marginal misstatements I am talking about; these are dramatic, obvious falsehoods that go to the very heart of the foreign policy fiasco we have all witnessed. These are life-and-death deceptions that the President of the United States told the American people and he told the world.

Here is the thing: The American people, the people in Britain, the people in our NATO ally countries, the leaders in countries that are adversaries--everybody knows that these statements were false.

One of the many things that are so harmful to come out of this, because of these kinds of statements--when they come from the Commander in Chief, this undermines the credibility and honor of the United States of America in front of the rest of the world. That is one of the major reasons why so many of my fellow Alaskans and our fellow Americans are so upset by this Biden debacle.

There are going to be more hearings next week in the Armed Services Committee. We are finally going to have open hearings. What we will need are straight, truthful answers from the witnesses, particularly those in uniform, who are not obligated to cover for the Commander in Chief's unwise decisions or blatant falsehoods. To the contrary, these witnesses will need to tell the truth--will need to tell the truth.

Speaking of the truth, Mr. President, here is one truth that, to me, has been clear for months, and I have been talking about it for months, and it is even more relevant and urgent today in light of this foreign policy fiasco in Afghanistan. The Biden administration's budget is dangerous to America.

Take a look at it, America. This is a $6 trillion budget--$6 trillion budget--where almost every Federal Agency in the U.S. Government gets a big increase in its budget; some 40 percent, 20 percent; all this green; double digits for most. Two Agencies--two Agencies--in this Biden budget blowout actually get cuts. Adjusted for inflation, they are cuts. Which are they? The Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

If you are looking at the border right now, you know that Homeland Security doesn't need a budget cut, and we certainly, in this time of increasing danger globally, don't need the Department of Defense cut, but that is what this administration is doing right now.

Like the President's actions and statements on Afghanistan, this budget is divorced from reality because here is the reality: We have a growing threat from international terrorism once again as Afghanistan once again has become a safe haven for some of the most dangerous, violent, extremist organizations on the planet. We know it. We see it. The Taliban, the Haqqani network, ISIS-K, al-Qaida--they are all celebrating, and they are all coming back to Afghanistan, and guess what they are doing. They are plotting against this great country. It didn't have to be this way, but that is the reality.

Here is another reality: After watching this administration's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, our adversaries are going to test Joe Biden's will in other areas of the world. It is going to happen--Russia with regard to Ukraine or the Baltics or Poland; Iran with regard to Israel, which the terrorist leaders in that country continue to say they want to wipe off the face of the Earth; and, of course, communist China, with Taiwan. As some of you may have seen, during the Biden Afghanistan debacle, China started rattling its saber as it relates to Taiwan for this very reason.

Let me underscore this again. The weakness and lack of resolve demonstrated by the Biden administration in Afghanistan and this very weak military budget is likely, I think--very likely, unfortunately--to invite aggression by our adversaries in other parts of the world.

Here is my message to the President and his team: You better be ready for this. You better be strong. And being strong starts with supporting a Department of Defense budget that is not cutting our readiness, as this one clearly does, and actually matches the realities of the more dangerous world we now find ourselves in because of this President's foreign policy incompetence.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor Marcus Earl Gamble, a member of my Senate staff who has departed to explore exciting opportunities in the great State of Wisconsin.

Marcus, who is from Eagle River, AK, has been an invaluable member of my Senate staff since May of 2018. Marcus is the son of Tonya and Brad Gamble, who recently left Alaska for sunny Arizona. After attending Chugiak High School, Marcus graduated from the University of Montana in 2018 with bachelor of arts degree in political science.

I first met Marcus in the summer of 2016, when he served as an intern in my Washington, DC office. He immediately distinguished himself with his incredible positive attitude and his ever-present smile. He lit up every room he entered and he soon became a staple of the front office and was lauded by many Alaskan visitors for his friendly, informative banter during tours of the U.S. Capitol.

Following his graduation from the University of Montana, Marcus joined my Senate staff as a staff assistant. He quickly became a staff favorite, seeming to never have a bad day as he took calls and greeted visitors to the office. Marcus quickly earned additional responsibility, eventually becoming the internship coordinator and systems administrator.

The COVID-19 pandemic showed us all how vital Marcus is to my office. In a matter of hours, he had every staff member outfitted with equipment and made sure everyone was connected and ready to work. Thanks to Marcus, my office didn't miss a beat and was able to continue to serve Alaska.

In addition to being an effective member of my staff, Marcus is a trusted colleague. His high regard for his fellow Alaskans is evident in the excellent service he has provided to my staff and the public. His can-do, positive attitude and his know-how for all things big and small is greatly missed.

My staff and I will miss Marcus greatly, but are sure he will continue to be a brilliant example of Alaska's indomitable spirit. Thank you, Marcus, for your outstanding service and best of luck as you start this new chapter in life.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3627 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, my amendment would ensure that Federal funds used toward the technology and materials we need to advance our renewable energy sector is made and mined in the United States and by our allies, not by the Chinese Communists.

We are currently dangerously reliant on China for roughly 80 percent of materials and minerals vital to the U.S. renewable energy sector and to our national security.

It is not only dangerous to our national security to be so reliant on China, but it is also inhumane. China is using Uyghur forced labor to source many of America's alternative energy imports.

We have these resources right here in the United States, and by developing our national supply chains, we can create thousands of good- paying jobs, protect our national interests, and deny support to the Chinese Communist Party.

However, far too often, extreme environmental groups seek to block domestic critical mineral production right here at home.

We need to produce these materials here, not in China, and I ask my colleagues to vote yes for this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I also urge adoption of the Wyden amendment, when he is talking about forced labor. But I want to point out one important issue.

The amendment that we just voted on, my amendment, which bans the use of Federal funds on renewable projects, critical minerals from all of China, was opposed by the vast majority of the far-left environmental groups in America.

They want to be able to import these products from China, even though we have them and we have the minerals. So there is a difference between the Wyden amendment and the Sullivan amendment. I urge its adoption, but let's not be fooled here. The far-left, green agenda is to import products from China and not allow mining and critical mineral production in America. That is wrong.

I am glad my amendment just passed, but I urge adoption of the Wyden amendment as well.

Vote on Amendment No. 3805

Madam President, I call up my amendment 3626 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, my amendment would withhold American taxpayers' support to the United Nations Human Rights Council until the Department of State certifies that no members of the organization are state sponsors of terrorism and the Treasury Department reports on the prevalence of American sanctioned countries within the organization.

Right now, Cuba, which is designated by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, serves on the U.N. Human Rights Council alongside authoritarian regimes and human rights abusers, Russia, and Communist China.

Recently, the Biden administration asked this very flawed international organization to investigate our own country's record on human rights. This is an outrage, and the Congress should respond by defunding the Human Rights Council until all of its member countries actually respect human rights.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. President, do I have any time to respond?

I ask for the yeas and nays.