Floor Statements

Madam President, I want to thank Senator Portman for his outstanding work, all the great work that he is doing on this bill with Senator Sinema and others, and I am hopeful that we can get some of these amendments--bipartisan amendments--on the infrastructure bill onto the floor.

I know my colleague Senator Hagerty is going to work on that here in a minute. I support what he is trying to do.

I have an amendment, for example, that is very bipartisan and would help all the Tribes in America--Alaska Native Tribes, lower 48 Tribes-- to simply get the authority to extend the spending of their original CARES Act money that they got in March of 2020.

They just got authority to actually start spending it. All we want to do is extend the deadline. No additional money for anybody. I think every Senator here supports it.

These are some of the bipartisan amendments that we are debating, and, hopefully, we are going to get votes on these because whether you are going to be for the bill or against the bill, I think most of us would agree they are going to improve the bill. My amendment would. But I know a bunch of amendments--Senator Cornyn has one that I am supportive of and cosponsoring. So there are a number of amendments that we hope we can get and debate here on the floor.

But, as you know, the Senate has a lot of other work besides just this, and I just want to talk a little bit about that work that is going on. Right now, we are going to turn to the Senate majority leader, Senator Schumer. After this debate, he is going to want to turn to a completely different bill, and that is the $3.5-trillion partisan tax-and-spend spree that is just completely inappropriate right now for our country, especially after the Democrats finished up a partisan bill in February of $2 trillion.

This is a reckless amount of spending that they are looking at doing, and I am pretty sure some of my colleagues know that. But part of what is going on here is a hijacking of the Democratic Party by the far left. You have seen that in a whole host of areas.

Nominations

Let me give one other area that is really important, from the Senate's perspective, where that is starting to happen, and that is on nominees. I have been coming down to the floor to talk about nominees, where we have an advice and consent role as U.S. Senators. One in particular is being put up for a position for the Bureau of Land Management, which has enormous power over my State and my constituents--enormous. And yet, somehow, the President of the United States has decided to put forward someone who is not just an extremist but a violent extremist, a former ecoterrorist, named Tracy Stone- Manning, to be the head of the Bureau of Land Management.

I have been coming down to the floor and speaking out against this. This nominee clearly undertook activities as part of a group called Earth First!--tree spiking, they call it, that is actually meant to harm Americans who are legally harvesting logs and timber. This is unbelievable that we are actually even debating this nominee.

Now, some of my colleagues said: Well, that was a while ago; she is sorry about that.

But then she came before the Senate and didn't tell the truth to Senators. That should be No. 2--strike two, you are out.

But here is strike three, and this just happened. Her husband, in a Harper's Magazine--I guess he is some sort of far-left radical, too-- said that firefighters who are trying to put out fires in national forests should just let the

homes built there burn to the ground--burn to the ground. Ten months ago, she applauded her husband's views on that. The person who looks like they are going to be BLM manager is saying that if there is a fire in, say, a national forest in Alaska and you have a cabin there: ``Let the fire burn the cabin down.'' I mean, this is outrageous. It was just 10 months ago. It is disturbing. And, again, I ask that the President pull that nominee.

I would also request that another nominee--here we go again--who has been put forward by the Biden administration should also be withdrawn. And I think some of even my Democratic colleagues have concerns about Mr. David Chipman to head up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF. He is another extreme activist, this time against the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights. He will be in charge of an Agency, if confirmed, that is actually in charge of law enforcement with regard to firearms.

As the senior Senator from Iowa so aptly put it, many see putting a committed gun control proponent like David Chipman in charge of the ATF like putting a tobacco executive in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services, or Antifa in charge of the Portland police department.

Well said, Senator Grassley. I agree 100 percent with you. Count me in and the vast majority of my constituents in Alaska for feeling the same way.

I want to talk briefly about why I feel so strongly about this nominee and am coming down to speak out against this nominee as well.

The Second Amendment is not some lower class constitutional right. It is the Second Amendment to the Constitution. In my office, I actually have the Bill of Rights emblazoned on the wall of my office--every word of it--to remind me, and others who come there, just how important this is for our country. If my colleagues believed that the Second Amendment was as important as other amendments--freedom of speech, the right to a jury trial, protections against search and seizures--they wouldn't be supporting Mr. Chipman as head of ATF, the law enforcement Agency tasked with enforcing our Nation's firearm laws. They just wouldn't.

Let me talk a little bit about his background. I respect Mr. Chipman's 25 years as an ATF agent, but when he left government, he has spent his time working as a gun control advocate and is well-known for his views--extreme views--on restricting the Second Amendment.

For instance, on an online site in 2019, he said the following, which is remarkable:

While at ATF I conducted studies involving people who

failed background checks to determine how many later

committed crimes with a gun--many did.

I am still quoting him.

This is a perfect opportunity to arrest people before

committing crimes rather than responding after the fact.

Let that one sink in.

Has anyone here seen the movie ``Minority Report,'' with Tom Cruise? That is actually what that movie was about: Let's arrest people before they commit a crime.

He has actually advocated arresting people who failed background checks. This is extreme, to say the least.

And it is, apparently, not only the Second Amendment that he wants to do away with. In his recent confirmation hearing, he appeared to want to ban all rifles larger than a .22-caliber rifle. He couldn't define what constitutes a so-called assault rifle. But good luck protecting yourself in the Alaska wilderness with a .22.

He also called for more burdensome regulations on popular sporting rifles under the National Firearms Control Act. And in his work restricting the Second Amendment, he has lobbied Congress for universal background checks and instituting age-based gun bans, which would definitely not work in my State, and wanting to establish a national firearms transfer delay period.

Not only is he hostile to Second Amendment rights, but, remarkably, the person they want to put in charge of firearms is condescending to the people in America who actually own them, as so many on the far left are, especially first-time gun owners.

In an interview in April 2020, during the height of the pandemic, when it started, he mocked first-time gun owners who were purchasing firearms. Remember, this was a rather uncertain troubling time during the country. And he talked about these people putting themselves and their families in danger because they are going to go buy a firearm.

He said: First-time gun owners should put their guns away in their cabinets behind their ``beef jerky and cans of tuna'' that they had presumably been saving for the apocalypse and only take out the weapons when ``the zombies start to appear.''

This is the guy the President has put forward to be in charge of firearm laws. I guess he thought he was being clever in the same way that former President Obama thought he was being wise when he spoke on high about people in rural States clinging to their guns and their religion. But most of us don't find this funny, especially my constituents.

In Alaska, we take our gun rights very seriously. We need firearms to put food on the table, to defend ourselves in the wild--rural, urban, Native, non-Native, all races, all income levels. Responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of my State; so is valuing our constitutional right, especially our Second Amendment.

We understand these rights form the foundation of our democracy, and when these rights begin to erode, when people in power pick and choose at will which rights of our Bill of Rights they want to protect and enforce, our democracy erodes with it.

My constituents in Alaska do not think Mr. Chipman is remotely qualified. And, by the way, I am starting to hear that it is not just Republicans who have this view, but some of my Democratic colleagues have this view. And I hope that is true.

Further, several former ATF career officers with whom Mr. Chipman served, sent a letter recently to the Senate saying: His strong personal belief on firearm issues will create serious long-lasting problems for the Bureau in the effective execution of its law enforcement mission.

The Biden administration should withdraw his nomination, just like it should withdraw Tracy Stone-Manning's. Our country doesn't need radical officials in charge of very important Agencies, particularly important for my State, who do not view the law and the Constitution in the way they should. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle work to defeat these nominees if and when they come for a vote in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, it is Thursday. It is my favorite time of the week. I get to come down on the Senate floor and talk about someone who has made an impact on their community, maybe the State, maybe the country, and, occasionally--occasionally--the world. That is what I call our Alaskan of the Week.

Now, this is going to be a little bit of a historic ``Alaskan of the Week.'' I have been doing this, gosh, going on 6 years almost, and while this is a historic moment, because we have never made someone an Alaskan of the Week twice--it has never happened. We are making Senate history right now. But you might know that we had a historic week in the Olympics because our Alaskan of the Week a month ago, whom we talked about here on the Senate floor, Lydia Jacoby, when she made the Olympic team, she won Gold. And for anyone who saw that race, that 100- meter breaststroke race a couple of nights ago, you will probably never forget it. We certainly are not going to forget it.

And I guarantee you, Lydia's hometown of Seward, AK--a beautiful, incredible town of 3,000 people, wonderful people--they are not going to forget it.

So history is right here on the Senate floor. Lydia Jacoby, gold medalist--as the Washington Post called it in a headline, ``an Alaskan Stunner''--is our Alaskan of the Week for the second time.

You know, I always talk a little bit about Alaska before I do my ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech. A lot of people, particularly at this point in the summer, when they are visiting, are curious about the light: if the Sun ever sets in the summer, when it rises. So what I always try to do is tell people: Come on up and see for yourself. We would love to have you. We are having a beautiful summer.

I will give you a hint. Right now in Seward, AK--that is the home of our Gold medal Olympian athlete, Lydia--the Sun will rise today at 5:32 a.m. and set around 10:35. We lost about 5 minutes from yesterday. But if you are still thinking about coming up to Alaska for a summer trip, come on and do it. There is still lots of Sun.

There is tons of excitement across my State, and there is tons of excitement across Alaska, in Seward and everywhere else, because of this incredible young 17-year-old. And if you saw it on TV, Seward, AK, Monday night was probably the site of the best Olympic watch party ever--I hope people saw that--ever.

So I talked about Lydia about a month ago when she cinched her spot on the team, and she did that by actually swimming the second fastest time in the world in the women's 100-meter breaststroke finals in the Olympic trials for the United States. So we, in Alaska, knew she was something.

I will mention this again: Alaskans, we punch above our weight in the Winter Olympics. We do really well in the Winter Olympics, for reasons that most people probably understand, and we have done pretty well in the Summer Olympics, particularly in trapshooting, riflery. We have an Olympic veteran

rugby player right now. Alev Kelter from Eagle River is also competing. Her team made the Olympic quarterfinals. She might be on the field later tonight, so good luck to her. We are going to be rooting for her as well.

But Alaska has never sent a swimmer to the Olympics, ever, let alone won a gold. As the NBC announcer said after the race, Alaska ``is not exactly your hotbed of swimming in America.''

Someone else pointed out that Alaska is dead last in the United States in terms of swimming pools per mile by far. We don't have a lot of swimming pools. And, as a matter of fact, Lydia's story is even more impressive because there is only one Olympic-sized pool in the whole State of Alaska, and that is in Anchorage, a 2\1/2\-hour drive from Seward, her hometown.

So I will just reiterate a little bit more about this remarkable young woman and her dedicated mom and dad who raised her. Her parents, Leslie and Richard, are both boat captains. Leslie is the educational coordinator for the Marine Science Explorer Program at Kenai Fjords Tours, and Rich is a maritime instructor at the Alaska Vocational Technical Center--AVTEC, as we call it--and he also is a guide for Arctic and Antarctic trips.

They raised their daughter Lydia in Seward, signed her up for swim classes when she was a toddler. Good job, Mom and Dad. She joined the swim club when she was just 6 years old. When she was 10, she was selected for the Alaska Swimming Zone Team. State qualifying meets allowed her to go on trips.

In between all of this, she was and continues to be a musician, learning to play the guitar and upright bass. She sings. She plays at folk festivals. Her band is the Snow River String Band. She was also in theater and in track. She likes to write, take pictures, and explore tidal basins. This is just a good, all-American teenager in Alaska.

And, of course, she excelled in swimming. Her parents continued to be, in their words, surprised and amazed and, of course, so proud.

One of her coaches, Solomon D'Amico, described her as ``kind, quiet, and yet confident'' and said that Lydia had an ``intense fire,'' one that you might not see immediately in her. But neither her parents nor her coach pushed her too hard. They wanted the drive to come from her, and it certainly did.

On Monday night, when this historic race started, the NBC announcers were focused mostly on the reigning Olympic champion and world record holder, American Lilly King, as well as the newly minted Olympic record holder, Tatjana Schoenmaker of South Africa. In the announcers' minds, that is where the competition was.

But we knew better, especially in Seward, AK, where about 400 people gathered for the race. All eyes were on Lydia. They knew all along she could do it.

In Tokyo, the NBC announcers started to notice the underdog. And if you haven't watched the race, go to YouTube. It is so exciting. And they saw her starting to pull ahead in the final seconds. You could hear the announcers getting excited. They said:

Then you've got Jacoby, lane 3, challenging Schoenmaker.

Watch Jacoby. Lydia Jacoby, the 17-year-old from Alaska, is

putting on the surge of her career.

Watch it. It is so exciting. And, of course, she did. Now, there is a video of everybody watching in Seward, which quickly went viral, of Lydia's friends and classmates and neighbors jumping up and down, stomping the floor, when the announcer yelled, ``Alaska has an Olympic Gold Medalist. Oh, my gosh.''

The place went nuts.

Anyone watching, if you want to get Olympic joy, go on the website and look at the Twitter video that the Olympics put up. It is a split- screen shot of the race at the top and the great fans in Seward, AK, cheering. And when she wins, watch what happens. It is priceless. It is Olympic joy at its best.

Lydia's parents, Rich and Leslie, were in Florida, where NBC and the Olympic Committee had set up a watch party for families of the athletes. They, too, knew that she had it in her to win the gold. Her dad said: ``When she hit the wall at the turn, we knew she was right in there. She likes to run [people down]'' in her races.

On television, the joy and the pride of her parents was also priceless. They are still filled with excitement and pride and, let's face it, a little bit of shellshock. And they are so grateful for the outpouring of support from Alaskans and, let's face it, Americans across the country.

``It's true,'' Rich said, ``about Alaska being the biggest small town in the world.'' Rich said that Lydia is doing great; she is happy, tired, a bit overwhelmed. We don't know yet. She might be competing in an upcoming relay race, which she is super excited about. We will see if that happens.

As for what is next, her dad said Lydia is going to continue her life of being a normal teenager; participate in high school sports, no doubt, continue to play music; and she is still planning on attending the University of Texas in the fall, a normal teenager but who has touched so many lives across Alaska, particularly Seward, but across the country--really, across the globe.

As one Washington Post columnist put it on Lydia's win, ``There are moments at [the] Olympics that redefine a town. And there are moments at [the] Olympics that make you say: `That's why I watch [the Olympics]. That's why I came. That's what [the Olympics is] all about.'''

And I think we all saw that when we watched this race. We saw that, including the two other competitors who won the silver and bronze, Lilly King and Tatjana Schoenmaker, who came over to Lydia and were so gracious, hugging her, joyful.

So I want to thank them. I want to thank Lydia's coaches, including Solomon, who put so much training and dedicated so much time and effort to her skills; and, of course, to her mom and dad for their very hard work, early morning practices, raising an exceptional daughter; to the competitors; really, everybody.

And, of course, to Lydia: Great job on your hard work, dedication, grit, determination. Throughout the years, so many people--throughout the decades, so many people have dreamed of finding gold in Alaska, and you are an Alaskan who found gold in a way that has inspired and overjoyed not just your community of Seward, not just our State, but literally our country and the world.

So, Lydia, congrats on the gold medal; congratulations on your win; and congratulations, for the first time in Senate history, on being the only person ever to be our Alaskan of the Week two times. Great job

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Barrasso, for leading the effort to do what is the obvious thing to do on the U.S. Senate floor. Here, in a couple minutes, we are going to vote on one of the most extreme nominees I have ever seen to be nominated for anything requiring the confirmation of the U.S. Senate.

To be honest, I can't believe we are even really having this debate. I can't believe that the Senate is going to put forward and vote on an ecoterrorist. I can't believe the President of the United States, after maybe not recognizing who he put forward, didn't withdraw the nomination. And yet here we are.

We know this administration supports far-left groups and certainly has nominated some far-left nominees for Senate confirmation to important positions in the Federal Government. But what hasn't happened yet is--they have knowingly put forward a far-left nominee who has clearly lied to the Senate, as Senator Barrasso just showed clearly, who is not just a far-left extremist, she is a violent extremist.

So, normally, you would think in America that would disqualify you from a position that requires Senate confirmation--a position, by the way, that is one of the most important positions to my State, the great State of Alaska.

And yet here we are. Here we are. We are going to vote for her. And it looks like all my Senate Democrat colleagues are going to vote aye. Shocking. I hope America is watching because this is a bigger vote than just for the BLM Director. This is a symbol of how crazy and far left this administration has gone and, to be honest, how fearful some of my colleagues are of that.

So I was here on the Senate floor a little over 1 month ago, and I called on the President to withdraw his nomination to lead the Bureau of Land Management, Tracy Stone-Manning. It was the first time in my Senate career I have called on a nominee to be withdrawn before they had gone through their vote on the Senate floor and vote out of committee. I have never done that before.

Usually, the President certainly gets to put forward who he or she wants for positions to fill out his Cabinet and his Federal Government. That is normal.

I have never done this before, but I have a reason, just like Senator Barrasso has been coming down on the Senate floor to talk about this, to actually call for this withdrawal, because we have not confronted someone with Tracy Stone-Manning's past, which involves being a member of part of an extreme, radical, violent group that performed violent acts in the name of getting attention, a violent group engaging in overt ecoterrorism.

Her past association with ecoterrorism is so heinous that even the Director of BLM from the Obama-Biden administration said that her actions should preclude her from consideration, and her nomination should be withdrawn by the President.

You would think that would have been it. The last Democrat nominee for that job said she wasn't qualified because of her ecoterrorism past. That was Mr. Bob Abbey.

I want to talk about BLM for a minute and why I am on the floor again talking about this issue. This is an incredibly important and powerful Federal agency, particularly as it relates to my State.

The Alaska BLM manages more surface and subsurface acres in my State than in any other State in the country, by far. In fact, I haven't done the math completely, but I believe they manage more acreage in Alaska than they do in the rest of the lower 48 combined. That is how important this is.

Let me give you some of the numbers. This includes over 70 million surface acres of land and 220 million subsurface acres of land in Alaska. That is the land equivalent to about one-fifth of the entire lower 48 States. Most States can't even comprehend that size. That is why this is such an important nominee.

This, of course, is a huge amount of land, and it is a huge amount of power over my constituents for access to land for our economy, for our environment, for our Native culture. It is imperative the Director of this Agency--and I am not going to always agree with the Director of this Agency--but the Director of the BLM, with so much power and so much control over Alaska and its future and our working families, be someone who is, at minimum, trustworthy, honest, fair-minded, beyond reproach, and certainly--certainly--not involved with an organization whose mission was to perpetuate violence against their fellow Americans.

Is that so hard a standard?

This nominee is none of these things. As Senator Barrasso so ably has presented, and as I mentioned, she was once a member of an ecoterrorist organization.

Now, maybe she can go work for President Biden in some other position, but to get Senate-confirmed, given what she has done, and have U.S. Senators look the other way--it is OK. She was part of a group that was perpetuating acts of violence against their fellow Americans to get attention, and we are OK with that? U.S. Senators are OK with that? My goodness, this is a low bar.

Tracy Stone-Manning was a member of Earth First!--a radical, far-left group who has engaged repeatedly in what is defined as ecoterrorism. She wasn't just a member of Earth First!; she was complicit, as Senator Barrasso just mentioned, putting big metal spikes, thick ones, in trees that were meant to either threaten to hurt or actually gravely injure Americans, working families who were harvesting trees in our country legally and who were putting trees in sawmills legally. This was a common technique--tree

spiking, as it was called--deployed by such ecoterrorist groups in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and it is extremely dangerous.

Let me briefly talk about the group Tracy Stone-Manning was a member of. Again, we know that this administration is putting forth far-left nominees with affiliations with certain groups but not violent groups. That should be a redline that every Senator agrees with.

Earth First! began in 1980 by disaffected environmentalists who thought the movement wasn't radical enough. They thought the environmental movement in America wasn't getting enough attention, so they thought, hmm, let's get more attention by perpetrating violence and destruction.

The group's slogan is this: ``No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth.'' In their view, ``no compromise'' meant destroying property, putting steel spikes in trees that could kill someone trying to harvest a tree, and they even celebrated and encouraged such actions. The group put out a manual--yes, a manual--on their ecoterrorist tactics detailing tree spiking and instructions on how to cause other sabotage: Cut down power lines. Flatten tires of vehicles for timber harvesters. Burn machinery. Again, these are all American citizens who were trying to do something legally.

We harvest trees legally in Alaska. We have loggers who have been doing this for generations from hard-working American families. So many other States in this Senate--represented here in the Senate. I certainly hope a Senator from one of those States is not going to vote yes in a couple of minutes here on this vote.

David Foreman was the founder of Earth First! He talked about these activities, and he said: ``This is where the ecoteur can have fun.'' That is a quote from the founder of Earth First! This is what he called fun.

This is how an article in the Washington Post from this time described such an incident of tree spiking that severely hurt one of our fellow American citizens, and I am going to quote from this article:

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 he was

working on.

Now, we have these saws and these mills in Alaska. These saws are huge, the size of people. They spin at incredibly fast speeds with huge teeth. They are dangerous to work on normally, but when you think about hitting a tree going through a mill with a spike in it, you can imagine, it is an explosion.

Let me continue this article:

It was May 1987, and [George] 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 saw [this

giant saw] exploded. One half of the blade stuck in the log.

The other half hit Alexander in the head [again, these are

giant saws] tearing through his safety helmet and [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! Good job trying to kill a fellow American. This is what Earth First! did.

I was up on the Yukon River over the Fourth of July at our fish camp cleaning brush, trees, working a chain saw, and I honestly was thinking about this. I was thinking, man, I have this saw, a little saw, not one of these huge things. Think about if you hit a spike

But these were the kind of tactics that Tracy Stone-Manning, the Biden administration's choice to lead the BLM, once conspired in. Does that disturb you, America? Does that disturb you, national media? Does that disturb you, my fellow Senators? It sure the heck disturbs me. Every U.S. Senator on the floor here should be very, very disturbed about this.

So what did she specifically do? Again, Senator Barrasso has highlighted this. She hasn't been truthful to the Senate, by the way. That is a crime in and of itself. Here is what she did. In 1989, she did a fellow friend, an Earth First! friend--really a comrade; it is more of a socialist Communist organization--a fellow comrade a favor. She rewrote word-for-word a profane, anonymous letter--you saw it here from Senator Barrasso a couple of minutes ago--from this Earth First! member about the 500 pounds of tree spikes that they had hammered into trees in an Idaho forest--by Earth First!, 500 pounds. That is a lot.

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 get caught. So she knew she was obviously doing something criminal. She didn't just handwrite it; she typed it and then sent the letter to the FBI. And you saw it is a very disturbing, profane letter where she threatens people who are going to get hurt. So she is all in. She is all in.

She kept quiet on this for years, and that was 1989, until she came forward in 1993, received immunity, obviously had been investigated-- lied about that--for her part in this tree spiking in Idaho.

She has since then portrayed herself as a victim. But a former criminal investigator for USDA Forest Service--again, Senator Barrasso laid this out--wrote a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and here is what he said:

Ms. Stone-Manning was not an innocent bystander, nor was

she a victim in this case. . . . Ms. Stone-Manning was not

only a member of Earth First!, but she played an active role

in the Earth First! hierarchy.

He described her as vulgar, antagonistic, and extremely anti- government. He said she was uncooperative and refused to provide hair, handwriting samples, and fingerprints as ordered by the Federal grand jury. Come on, U.S. Senate, really? You are going to confirm her?

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

In testimony submitted to the Senate, she claimed that the tree spiking was ``alleged'' but never investigated. That is untrue. None of this is true.

But here is what is true: She was a member of an ecoterrorist group who had as its goal to threaten or actually hurt Americans. Americans were hurt by this, hard-working Americans doing something legally. She is clearly dishonest, and she has no business heading up the BLM, a Federal Agency with enormous power, especially over my State.

So this is a really important issue for me, which is why I have been on the floor talking about it. As I said, the President should have withdrawn her nomination, and I certainly hope my Senate colleagues will not vote to confirm her. I don't think any Republican is going to. But any of my fellow Democrats who live in places where men and women harvest logs, hard-working American families, it is going to be really interesting to see how you write those families after you vote yes, if you do.

So I hope we defeat her vote here today, but I think there is something else to talk about. As I mentioned, it is one thing to put forward far-left individuals for these Senate-confirmed jobs. It is quite another to put forward someone who is far left and violent, with a record of trying to hurt your fellow Americans.

I think this is a symbol. We know the Biden administration has a lot of allies in some of these groups, but the fact that the President of the United States, with all this evidence that has come out--maybe they overlooked it, but now it is all out--lying, violence. He is still standing behind her, and it looks like all my colleagues are going to vote for her. This is a travesty.

I hope all Americans watching ask the proper question. Dishonest, lying ecoterrorist took action to hurt people, who is now going to have one of the most important positions of power in America over my constituents. We need to do better here, folks. If she passes, this is going to show just how far left the Biden administration is.

Again, I try to be bipartisan here. I have a lot of friends on both sides of the aisle. But how compliant or scared my Senate Democratic colleagues are of these radical groups.

Do the right thing, vote no on this nominee, and get the President to put forward someone else without a violent past who has been honest. We might disagree with them. But to my Senate Democratic colleagues today, do the

right thing. You know what the right thing is. Do the right thing. Vote to reject this very radical, unqualified, dishonest nominee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is Thursday. It is that time of week that I like to come down to the Senate floor and recognize someone special, someone we call our Alaskan of the Week. And it is--well, it is part of my, like I said, favorite time during the week.

I think some of our press like it because it signifies that most people are leaving. When we had pages, they loved it. But the reason is because you get to learn a little bit about Alaska, some great stories, some great individuals who are usually doing something really great for their community, their State, sometimes the country, sometimes the world. A lot of times, it is people who maybe don't want any recognition but deserve it. So I am going to talk about our Alaskan of the week, who is 85-year-old Chad Resari. And it is a real amazing story.

First, I want to talk a little about what is going on in Alaska right now. In Anchorage, where our Alaskan of the week lives, the sun rose at 5:08 a.m. and will set tonight at 11:01 p.m. Now, that is a lot of sunlight, a lot of energy, even though we lost 4 minutes and 41 seconds since yesterday. So we are losing a lot of daylight, but we still have a lot.

So my message to everybody is: You still have time to come up to Alaska, bask in the midnight sun--or at least midnight twilight, depending on where you are. And if you have to wait until next year, we would love to have you.

I would tell you, if you come to Alaska next year, one of the many things you should try to see, or even participate in if you are brave enough, is the annual Mount Marathon Race on July 4 in Seward, AK. It is a race that Chad Resari has run 25 times. At 85 years old this year, he was officially the oldest person to have ever finished this race.

So competing and finishing any race at the age of 85 is impressive. But let me tell you why finishing this race at that age is truly extraordinary, an inspiration to everybody who is watching--and trust me, he has inspired tens of thousands of Alaskans for his feat.

First, the history: The race dates back to 1915 when legend has it two of what we call ``sourdoughs'' were in a bar in Seward. By the way, a lot of legends begin in bars in Alaska.

So they were wagering how long it would take to get up and down the 3,022-foot peak in Seward, AK--by the way, a very steep mountain. One insisted that it could be done in less than an hour. The other said, in effect, ``No way.'' The loser was to buy the house a round of drinks. Somewhere in there, some entrepreneur decided to make it a real race, to make it on the Fourth of July. And so every year, the Mount Marathon Race has happened for over 100 years now.

The fastest runner in that first race--the race where there was a challenge in the bar, in 1915--did it in over an hour; the legend is one hour and 2 minutes. So he lost the bet. He had to buy rounds. But the race has lived on.

Now, the record holder is David Norris--he is from Anchorage--who ran the 2016 Mount Marathon in 41 minutes and 26 seconds.

David has since won the race two more times.

Now, here is the important thing about the race itself. It is more than a mile, and half of it is straight up a mountain and then back down a mountain, which is more precarious, 1\1/2\ miles.

Outside magazine calls it ``the toughest 5K on the planet'' Earth. Others use less polite words to describe it. But everyone who knows about the race will agree that anyone who takes to the mountain and completes it is a rock star. This, again, is from Outside magazine.

If you are watching or you are interested, Google Mount Marathon race in Seward, AK. You will get a sense from the pictures.

Here is what Outside magazine said--just a taste of what this race is like. I am quoting here:

That descent from Mount Marathon is sort of a controlled

dive . . . a hectic sliding rush along loose, soft rock--

Oftentimes there is still snow up there--

. . . it's part running, part skiing, part falling, and it

often leaves finishers dripping with blood or with gravel

shrapnel embedded in their butts and legs.

And knees.

This is the most pure mountain race I can think of. It's

straight up and straight down--no messing around.

One of this year's runners, who is one of the few professional runners who come from all over the world to run this race, he said:

Alaska doesn't mess around.

So that is the race. That is the race 85-year-old Chad Resari ran 3 weeks ago. Thousands of people come out to watch it. It is a huge event in Seward. Runners from around the world and our 85-year-old Alaskan just completed it.

Who is this tough, now-fabled person in my State?

Chad was born in Hawaii. His parents are Filipino. He spent most of his younger years with his parents on a sugar plantation in Maui. He was an active kid. He ran with his high school running team and, on his off time, sometimes ran up mountains. Good training for Mount Marathon later in his life.

After high school, he spent 7 years in the seminary. He is a deeply religious man. At the end of his time, he and his mentor decided that he should serve God, not as a priest, but as a layperson. And as a longtime member of our Lady of Guadalupe parish in Anchorage, he has stayed faithful to his mission since. In fact, my team was talking to him yesterday and he was on his way to mass, which he does very, very, very regularly.

After the seminary, Chad was open to a new experience. Someone told him that the wages in Alaska were high, $2.50 an hour at the time compared to about 90 cents an hour where he was.

Also, he had a brother in the Army stationed in Anchorage, so he said it ``might be a good idea. Who knows, I might even be able to find some gold''--in Alaska--``too.''

Also, he read in Reader's Digest he could grow strawberries in Alaska, which is true. So he was intrigued.

He arrived in Anchorage on March 12, 1962. It was 15 degrees below zero. Chad said:

The weather was cool. I'll probably like it here.

He didn't really like the heat and humidity in Hawaii.

He initially worked as a custodian at Catholic Junior High, then began to get interested in coaching students. As a pastor at the school took note of his interest in teaching, he helped send him to then Alaska Methodist University, now Alaska Pacific University, to get his teaching degree.

Until 1966, when Chad retired, he taught PE, first at Central Junior High, then at Mears Junior High. He taught basketball, hockey, soccer, softball, track and field--you name it. Great coach, and he loved working with students and teachers and the other coaches.

Throughout those years, and obviously later, he practiced what he preached. Not only did he continue running, he lifted weights, winning first place in his weight class in a power-lifting competition in 1973.

Although he continued to run and stay in shape, he ran the fabled Mount Marathon race just twice, in 1963 and in 1964, but then he took a long break because the training for the race is very rigorous and time- consuming. He was married then to Edna--49 years now--teaching, coaching, raising three daughters. He just didn't have time to train for this race.

But in 1996, after he retired, he started to train and run Mount Marathon again. He began in earnest from that time. He has only missed this race twice. Once when smoke from forest fires made it too dangerous and again last year, when the race was canceled due to COVID. So he really hasn't missed it at all.

What is his secret?

``I'm not sure I have any secret,'' he said. ``My wife is a nurse and she makes sure I have my fruits and vegetables,'' and like a lot of Alaskans, ``I eat a lot of fish,'' he said.

They go to mass daily. They always say their evening and morning prayers. When they travel, they pray for their own safety and the safety for everybody on the road or on the airplane with them.

``That's what the Lord would want us to do: keep others in mind.''

You can see Chad is a good man, a spiritual man. He credits God for giving him the strength and stamina to do what he just did, make it up a 3,000-foot mountain, 1\1/2\ miles straight up.

This race, when he was officially the oldest person to ever have run it and complete it, was very challenging. But it was also particularly special for him. All across the trail, the people watching--and when you go to Seward, you will see thousands of people--the people running the race, the officials, everybody in Alaska seemed like they were cheering Chad on, 85-year-old Chad running one of the toughest 5Ks on the planet Earth.

One of his former students, now in his 70s, was also there cheering him on. This year, his youngest daughter Trina also ran the race. Tough family. When the finish line was in sight, he could see her and his other daughters, Joanna, Sheila, and their children, who all ran up to urge him to finish strong, get to the finish line. His wife, his niece and her husband, his friends were all there cheering for him when he crossed the finish line of Mount Marathon; 2 hours, 29 minutes, 23 seconds up and down a steep mountain in Alaska at the tender age of 85 years old.

It was challenging, he said. And after, he was definitely tired. But here is the thing. He plans to do it next year and the year after that and the year after that. He says, as long as he can do it, he is going to continue to do it. ``For some reason, I just enjoy running that race,'' he said.

So Chad, thank you for being such a great inspiration. Thank you for praying for everybody, keeping your fellow Alaskans and Americans in your prayers.

Congratulations on being the oldest person ever to run the fabled Mount Marathon race. And, importantly, congratulations for being our Alaskan of the Week.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I first want to begin by complimenting my friend and colleague Senator Gillibrand of New York, who has been working diligently--and we all know it--for 10 years, a decade, on this issue, particularly the issue of sexual assault and the related crimes in our military. There is nobody who has been more focused on it, and I applaud her for her relentless efforts--relentless. And I have a lot of respect for her.

She has been coming to the floor every night here for the last 3 or 4 weeks and trying to move her bill. I am going to talk about her bill a little bit more and why I and others, in a bipartisan way--the chairman of the Armed Services, the ranking member of the Armed Services, and others--have been coming to the floor to object.

But I also want to say that I care deeply--deeply--about this issue for two very important reasons. No. 1, the issue of sexual assault, domestic violence, is an enormous problem in America but is a huge problem in my State, the great State of Alaska. And since my time as attorney general and now my time as a U.S. Senator, I have been very focused on these issues. And I think, again, Senator Gillibrand has done an outstanding job, not just on the military ones but on a whole broad-based number of these kinds of bills that focus on the issues of domestic violence and sexual assault. And I have been proud to work with her on a number of them--my bills, her bills--some of which have become law

So as Alaska's Senator, I have been 100-percent focused on this issue for American society, certainly for Alaska, which is a big, big problem that continues to impact millions of Americans and tens of thousands of my constituents. So we need to do something about it. I agree, not just for the military but for the country. And I am committed to continuing the work; for example, my ``Choose Respect'' series of bills that we have here in the U.S. Senate that I am working on with Senator Gillibrand.

The other reason I care about this issue--and there is no monopoly, by the way, on people who care about the troops--is that I have a 28- year career in the U.S. Marine Corps and still serving. I have been a commander, and I care deeply about every single member in the military, the challenges of sexual assault that we have, which are very real, which, again, Senator Gillibrand has done such a good job to highlight and to have good order and discipline in our military, which is part of the UCMJ, which is one of the reasons why this issue has taken so long and has been a challenge.

Now, the issue that Senator Gillibrand is talking about right now, we will be debating in the full committee in the Armed Services starting tomorrow. Actually, we are starting today, as she mentioned, in the Personnel Subcommittee today. This, again, a lot of the credit--most of the credit--I give to Senator Gillibrand on this issue.

We will have a fulsome debate, probably all day, on this issue tomorrow. And if her bill, which is often understood as removing these issues of sexual assault and violent crimes relating to sexual crimes, was the bill that will be passed tomorrow, I will be supportive, removing that out of the chain of command. That is what many, many Senators--and I have had discussions with them--believe that the primary focus of her legislation is and has been. She has convinced now the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States and the members of the Joint Chiefs. And if that is what the bill was, she would have very, very broad-based support. And I applaud her for that. That victory would be hers more than anyone's. In terms of legislation, of course, I think it will help our troops. Will it ultimately solve this problem, which is a problem in our country and in our military, a huge problem? I think it will help.

My view, as someone who understands the military well, is that it is not going to be solved until we have leaders who take this issue very seriously. That is what we need more than anything, and I think our leadership in the military is starting to do this, but more needs to happen.

So that would be what most of us think has been the focus of her legislation for 10 years and what would be the result likely to come out of committee as early as tomorrow, carving out these issues, not creating pink courts but creating a professional class of prosecutors and defense attorneys who know these issues, which are often challenging. Senator Gillibrand knows this. ``He said, she said'' kinds of accusations often are at the heart of these horrible crimes. And to have that for men and women--so there is no pink court there, by the way--to have that class of cases removed from the chain of command for all of the reasons she and others have been arguing, if that is the result tomorrow, I think it is going to get strong bipartisan support and support from the administration.

Unfortunately, that is not where the bill is. As she is now indicating, this bill would remove all crimes, all felonies--1 year in jail, anything; a bar fight, anything. In terms of the commander's ability to have good order and discipline, all of that under this legislation would be covered--1-year felony. And in many people's view--in my view, certainly--and in the chairman of the committee's view, and the ranking member's view, and many others, this is a hugely broad reworking of the UCMJ, probably one of the most dramatic reworkings of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ever.

Now, why are Senator Gillibrand and others making the argument? What she has been doing--she didn't come down here today, but I have been reading her speeches. She has been essentially saying we need this broad carve-out for every crime, every felony in the chain of command because of racial problems in the military.

This is a new argument. She and I have talked about it. This is a dramatic argument. This is essentially saying what she said in a recent speech: It is ``necessary''--1 year more--``because the current military justice system is simply not delivering justice, especially not to servicemembers of color.'' This is a big claim.

What Senator Gillibrand has been doing with her previous legislation--8 to 10 years of data to back it up on the sexual assault issues. Again, I applaud her on that. She has been dogged. She has gotten data. She has searched for data herself. But this new argument basing this whole broad-based revamping of the whole UCMJ based on the fact that she is now claiming the military justice system of the United States cannot serve minority members has not been backed up by data-- has not been backed up by data.

She cites three studies, recent studies. Again, this is a new argument. A lot of my colleagues say: Whoa. I didn't sign up for that bill thinking it was based on some kind of broad-based systemic racism in the military. But that is the new argument. We need to get that right before we claim that every member of the military, every commander, is somehow a racist. Even the studies that she has now focused on are saying that disparity is not proof of racial discrimination.

The U.S. Air Force--one of the studies that she has talked about says:

While the presence of disparity alone is not evidence of

racism, discrimination, or disparate treatment, it presents a

concern that requires more in-depth analysis.

I fully agree with that.

Last year, when we were debating the NDAA, there was an issue that came to my attention about how we had very senior military members, four-star generals, who were not making the rank. We have a Service Chief right now, General Brown, who is the first African-American Service Secretary, Indian Services. When I talked to him, that was disturbing to me. I put forward legislation saying: Why is that? What is going on with our military? Let's figure that out.

What I am saying to Senator Gillibrand is and what the Air Force is saying is, if this is a problem, let's figure that out.

The GAO study that she cites says this:

These findings show an association for disparities at

particular stages of the military justice process, but are

inconclusive regarding other stages. However, GAO's findings

of racial disparities, taken alone, do not establish whether

unlawful discrimination has occurred, as that is a legal

determination that would involve other corroborating

information and supporting statistics.

Again, is there a challenging disparity right now that Senator Gillibrand has been highlighting? I believe so. Is it proof that the UCMJ is somehow systemically racist and needs this broad-based change? That is what she has been arguing on the Senate floor.

Unlike her other argument on sexual assault and the crimes that we have seen over the years where there is 8 to 10 years of data that we have all been looking at--again, a lot to her credit--this is something that needs much, much more data before we make broad-based claims. For example, some of those who are supporting her bill sent out this supporting blog post that they said was supporting the legislation, the broad-based legislation. This was from the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. This has been put out by staff to support her broad-based legislation. It says:

Almost all military disciplinary action occurs at the

discretion of military officers, and with over 75% of the

officer corps [being] white, systemic bias is not just a

function of military justice, it's a foregone conclusion.

That is a pretty broad statement. That is a pretty broad statement. Where is the data to back that up? In essence, because you are a White commander, you are not going to give justice to minorities? I find that offensive as a commander who has commanded all kinds of Alaska Natives, African Americans, Hispanics, Whites.

So we can't base this broad-based legislation--all felonies--on this relatively new claim that does not have data supporting it that somehow we need to revamp the entire UCMJ because White commanders are racist. I don't think we should do it.

I want to work with Senator Gillibrand on these and other issues tomorrow. It will be an important debate. I am hopeful that the years of her hard work and data on this issue are going to result in a carve- out for sexual assault and related crimes of violence that will be bipartisan. It will be supported by the Secretary of Defense, the Service Secretaries. Again, I think Senator Gillibrand will deserve an enormous amount of credit for her determination over a decade to make that happen. But with regard to the broader legislation that she has asked for unanimous consent on, for the reasons I just discussed, I object.

Madam President, I just want to again compliment my colleague from New York, who has worked this issue hard. It is an emotional issue. I think we all have good intentions on this issue. We all want to get to the right answer for men and women in the military as it relates to these crimes and still have a force. As she said, it is the best military fighting force in the world.

I think we are going to have a good debate on this tomorrow, and I am certainly committed to continuing to work with Senator Gillibrand on these issues as they relate to the military and as they relate to the civilian world. They are enormously important, and I take them very seriously.

Again, I want to applaud her for her passion, her focus, her commitment. We wouldn't be this far in this debate at all if it weren't for her, and I have a lot of respect for that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize a critical member of my staff, my former State Director Renee Limoge Reeve, who left my office in June to become the vice president of Government & Community Relations at Cruise Lines International Association, or CLIA, Alaska. It is a big and important job for Alaska, and all of us with Team Sullivan are confident she will do a great job.

As a student at the University of Vermont, Renee explored her passions for government and English. After graduation, Renee left Vermont to start a new journey in Alaska.

Renee's work in Alaska began over a decade ago as an aide for the State legislature. In Juneau, Renee honed her skills for communication and leadership--fostering a fun and collaborative team environment.

I was honored when Renee joined Team Sullivan in 2018. As the director of my State office, Renee was the boots on the ground where our presence matters most. Enthusiastic and sharp, Renee was the ultimate liaison between Federal, State, and Tribal governments, and, most importantly, the people of Alaska, to whom she was ultimately committed.

Leadership is the measure of how we connect with people, empathize, and make others feel welcome. Renee is an outstanding leader. She has a keen political perspective and unrivaled wit.

Renee's talents for communication and humor culminated in her famous get-togethers. Renee is known for gathering people from all walks of life around good food, occasional adult prom parties, and always, laughter.

We wish her the best as Renee sets sail on her new adventure.

While she is no longer on my staff, Renee will always be a member of the Sullivan family. Please join me in wishing Renee success in her future. She will be missed.

Madam President, it is Thursday, and it is my favorite time

of the week. I get to come down to the Senate floor typically every Thursday and talk about Alaskans who are doing something amazing for their communities, their State, maybe even their country. Heck, this one is kind of doing something for the world, whom I refer to as the Alaskan of the Week. I love doing it.

We have a really special Alaskan of the Week this week whom I am going to talk about, Lydia Jacoby--a very special 17-year-old who is from Seward, AK. We are so excited about this.

Those of you who have been following our Alaskan of the Week speeches might notice that this is the first new poster board we have had ever. So this is the poster board of the Alaskan of the Week for Lydia because we are so excited about her.

Before I talk about Lydia, I always like to say a little bit about what is going on in Alaska.

A lot of people always ask about the light. They are curious about the light in the summer, particularly as we just had our summer solstice. If you want to come up and really see it, come on up. We are open. We would love to have you--a trip of a lifetime. If you are thinking about coming to Alaska, come to see it yourself this summer. Every American should come on up, but I will give you a hint. On the light that is happening right now, if you were in Seward, AK, where Lydia is from, the Sun will rise at 4:33 a.m. and set at 11:26 p.m., with a loss of just 36 seconds from the summer solstice, which occurred a few days ago. That is a lot of sunlight, and it doesn't really even get dark when the Sun goes down. It does just for a little bit.

So it is a great time to be in the State. Come on up. It is a great time to be in Alaska, and I can't wait to get home for the recess, our Fourth of July--lots of Sun, lots of excitement.

There is particularly a lot of excitement around this young, intrepid Alaskan, Lydia, who on Tuesday, in Omaha, NE, swam the second fastest time in the world in the women's 100-meter breaststroke finals in the Olympic trials. She is the second fastest breaststroker in the world, and she is only 17. This cinched her spot to represent the United States in the Summer Olympics in Tokyo. This is an incredible and--I will admit it--a rather unlikely story that we are all so proud of in Alaska.

With regard to the Olympics, Alaskans typically punch way above our weight. In the Winter Olympics, we really, really punch above our weight, with many, many Alaskans making the Olympic team for the Winter Olympics every 4 years. We have done well in the Summer Olympics as well. Olympic veteran, rugby player Alev Kelter, from Eagle River, will be competing this year. Shortly, will we will be learning if Allie Ostrander, who is a really amazing young woman, steeplechase champion and another incredible athlete, will be in the Olympics this year. We will learn soon. But we have never sent a swimmer to the Olympics. You don't always equate Alaska and swimming. She will be the first, and Alaskans across the State are cheering on Lydia. So let me tell you a little bit about this remarkable young woman.

Her parents, Leslie and Richard, are both boat camp captains. Leslie is the educational coordinator for the Marine Science Explorer Program at the Kenai Fjords Tours. Rich is a maritime instructor at the Alaska Vocational Technical Center, what we call AVTEC.

By the way, a little aside: AVTEC does great work. I have really enjoyed my visits there.

So, Rich, keep up the great job there.

He is also a guy for Arctic and Antarctic trips.

So that is Mom and Dad. They moved to Alaska when Lydia was 9 years old. Richard came to the State in 1992 when he was fresh out of college, and like so many, they fell in love with the State and stayed. They raised their daughter, as I mentioned, in the town of Seward, AK. There are a little under 3,000 people there, and it is just an hour south of Anchorage. It is nestled between Resurrection Bay and soaring mountains. Its motto is ``Alaska starts here.''

I love Seward, AK. I get there as much as I can. I am going to be there in a couple of weeks, actually. It is known for stunning landscapes, a strong, generous community, and amazing people. So if you are visiting Alaska, you have to go to Seward.

Leslie and Richard signed Lydia up for swim classes when she was just a toddler. She joined the swim club when she was 6 years old. When she was 10, she was selected for the Alaska Swim Zone Team. State qualifying meets allowed her to go on trips. In between all of this, she was a musician, learning to play the guitar. She played at folk festivals. She was also in theater and in track--an all-around great athlete and an all-around great young woman.

As she excelled at swimming, her parents continued to be, in their words, ``surprised and amazed.'' Obviously, she has a deeply competitive streak, but you would not know it when you meet her. Her parents were surprised. ``In the right setting, that streak can really be turned on,'' Rich said. When she has a lousy race, she just shrugs it off. Her dad remembered one of her first swim meets when, halfway across the pool, she inhaled some water. She jumped out and didn't want to get back in. Well, she is back in. As her dad said, she has come a long way.

One of her coaches, Solomon D'Amico, describes her as ``kind, quiet, confident.'' He says she has an ``intense fire,'' and when she sets her mind to something, like the Olympics, she goes for it.

Now, neither of her parents pushed her too hard--they wanted the drive to come from her, not them--but it certainly did come from her.

Solomon, her coach, is a former marine and athlete. Alaska is full of intense runs--marathons, ultra-marathons--but one of the most challenging is in Seward, AK. It is called the annual Mount Marathon Race, the Fourth of July, in Seward, a grueling 1.5-mile climb almost straight up and straight back down Mount Marathon. He has run this 24 years in a row. That is tough--Solomon, her coach.

Solomon really didn't know much about swimming when he started coaching the small Seward swim team. In fact, Seward, AK, doesn't even have an Olympic-size swimming pool, but they all worked hard. He encouraged them to be the best that they could be--to enjoy life but to also lift weights. Strength, Solomon said, is needed to excel in swimming, particularly at the breaststroke.

Lydia took to the weight rooms. She swims between 5 to 7 days a week, 1-hour to 90-minute sessions. She lifts weights about 3 hours a week. And as Solomon has said, ``You want . . . athletes to be more process than outcome driven.''

Lydia fell in love with all the hard work. No one was ever going to give her a hard time if she missed a practice or a session, but every single opportunity she had to swim, she would be there.

Well, on Sunday, Lydia will head to Hawaii to train with Team USA. Then, a few weeks later, she will head to Tokyo.

Now, because of COVID restrictions, unfortunately, her parents won't be there to watch in person. Her father said: ``It's a [bit of a] weird thing to send your kid across the world. But she's an experienced traveler and there are great people involved with USA swimming.''

``We are over the moon proud of her,'' her dad said.

So are we. We are so proud of you, Lydia. You are a role model for so many aspiring swimmers, not just across Alaska but across the country. So thank you for representing Alaska and our Nation so well.

Good luck in the Olympics. Congratulations on your success and congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week.

Madam President, as my colleague from Oklahoma Senator Lankford just gave a wonderful speech on the Fourth of July, we are all focused on heading home for the Fourth of July, celebrating freedom, celebrating our independence, celebrating liberty.

And we all know that that freedom is not free. There is a saying at the Korean War Memorial, etched in stone, that says those very words: ``Freedom is not free.''

The sacrifices of our military are something that all of us are going to be thinking about over the course of the Fourth of July week, weekend, as we

celebrate and commemorate American liberty, American independence, and American freedom.

Our military has helped us provide that, both here at home but also, importantly, abroad.

I had the opportunity to go on a congressional delegation--Senate delegation with two of my Senate colleagues, Senator Coons and Senator Duckworth, a couple weeks ago to Korea--South Korea and Taiwan.

And it doesn't matter where you are from in America, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, when you go overseas and you go to countries like that, countries and places that literally exist because of the sacrifice of the American military, it makes you humble, and it makes you proud.

South Korea and Taiwan--vibrant economics, vibrant democracies. And if you know the history, those two places wouldn't be that way if it weren't for the sacrifice, literally, of tens of thousands of Americans.

It is no exaggeration to say--whether it is in those places or in places at home or in Europe or in Asia--that the United States has been one of the most powerful forces for liberating humankind from oppression and tyranny than any other force in the world.

Think about it. Hundreds of millions of people across the world and in our own country, over the decades, have been liberated by men and women wearing the uniform of the United States.

As we contemplate the Fourth of July week, weekend, that is something every American can take pride in and should take pride in.

But as we all know, freedom is not free. Many of us think that defending our Nation should be our priority No. 1 as part of our job in the U.S. Senate. Budgets are a reflection of an administration's values and priorities.

And if you look at this budget--this is the $6 trillion blowout budget of the Biden administration, where up here you have every single Federal Agency with double-digit--20-percent increases, 40-percent increases, 15-percent increases across the board.

The two Agencies charged with the national security of our Nation, the Department of Defense and Homeland Security, in terms of priorities for this administration, are dead last.

Actually, if you adjust the budgets for inflation, these are cuts-- almost 3 percent cut in our military budgets and probably close to 4 to 5 percent for Homeland Security.

Budgets reflect values of administrations and priorities, and this administration, right now, is prioritizing our military and our national defense dead last.

We had the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in front of the Armed Services Committee last week, and I showed them this chart, and I asked them: How can you tell the troops that you lead that this administration prioritizes our military and national defense over other missions of the Federal Government?

They couldn't give a really good answer because there is no good answer. If you look at this chart, if you look at the Biden administration's budget, they are prioritized at the bottom.

This is a battle of ideas, and when we come back from the Fourth of July recess, we are going to have this battle. I know I have colleagues, Democrats and Republicans--I have spoken to many on both sides of the aisle--who fundamentally disagree with this--fundamentally disagree with this.

You might remember last summer we had a debate when Senator Sanders brought forth his defund the Pentagon amendment. That is what he called it. At the height of defunding the police, we had Senators saying we are going to now defund the Pentagon--15 percent across-the-board cuts to the military. That is what Senator Sanders wanted.

By the way, Senator Schumer was a cosponsor of that.

And now they are in charge here, the majority leader, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and in many ways they are getting what they wanted--almost 3 percent cut to our military.

I guarantee it is not what the American people want; it is not what my constituents want; and I don't think it is what the vast majority of U.S. Senators want.

So we are going to battle this. We are going to battle this, and I am going to ask my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to reject this. We need to reject this. We shouldn't prioritize our military dead last, which is what the Biden administration and, unfortunately, some of my colleagues here are doing.

I would like to end by just noting that tomorrow is actually another anniversary. We were talking about the Fourth of July, but June 25 is the 71st anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean war, which was June 25, 1950.

Unfortunately, not enough Americans, in my view, have a lot of knowledge of the Korean war. It is even called the forgotten war. I don't think it should be called the forgotten war. It should be called the noble war because Americans went to a place they didn't even know to defend freedom, which they did after a hard, difficult, violent struggle.

But in the summer of 1950, we lost thousands and thousands of young Americans, young American soldiers, young American servicemen. Why?

Because they were not prepared to fight. We went from 1945, having probably the most formidable military in the history of the world, to 5 years later--because of defense cuts, because of lack of leadership by civilian and military leaders in the United States--a military that could not fight, a military where we lost thousands of young American soldiers because they weren't ready because budgets had been gutted.

We can never allow that to happen again, and as we head into the Fourth of July weekend to celebrate the Fourth of July and our hard- fought freedoms and liberty, we need to look at this budget, come back here and say to the President and others: We are not--we are not going to prioritize the national security of our Nation last.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like recognize an important

member of my staff, my former director of national security policy, Jason Suslavich. I, along with the rest of my team was saddened to have Jason leave our office this February.

While born in Winchester, MA, Jason was quick to embrace the Alaskan spirit. Up north, Jason traded his beach walks for hikes and his golf clubs for a fishing rod. Like a true Alaskan, he loved his wild Alaska seafood and overall good cooking and could talk for hours about his favorite dishes at his favorite restaurants throughout the State. One of his favorites was the osso bucco at Orso--and could speak tirelessly about it. And did.

In high school, Jason was the all-State wrestling champion and was inducted into the National Wrestling Hall of Fame. His dedication and tenacity expanded beyond the wrestling mat into his academics. At John Hopkins University, Jason majored in international studies, which he has applied throughout his career.

Jason's work in Alaska politics began over a decade ago in Congressman Don Young's office. As the Congressman's legislative assistant, Jason laid the foundation for his career in the Senate, building productive coalitions and facilitating bipartisan collaboration.

One year into my first term. Jason joined our office. At this time, I was still learning the ropes in the Senate. His work ethic, experience, and dependability made my life a lot easier and made him an irreplaceable asset to my team.

Jason was good-natured, a team player, and a legendary prankster. From day-to-day tricks to years-long plots, Jason was committed to the craft of mischief--just ask his nemesis, Mike Anderson.

Jason's contributions to our office--and to the State of Alaska, particularly building on our three pillars of military might--were enormous. His leadership lives on with Team Sullivan. He is greatly missed.

If this past year has taught us anything, it is the importance of trusting our intuition. After 13 years working for Alaska s delegation, Jason has decided to chart a new journey--working in the aerospace sector. He has loved space since he was a child. In this next chapter, Jason can dedicate time to his great passions: space exploration, the strength of our Nation, the Boston Red Sox, and most importantly, his beautiful and brilliant wife Sarah.

Jason may not be working in my office, but he will always have a home in the Last Frontier. His dedication to the State has forever solidified him as a welcome friend and honorary Alaskan.

Please join me in wishing Jason much success and happiness in the future.

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

Madam President, I am here on the Senate floor this afternoon to call on President Biden to withdraw his nomination to lead the Bureau of Land Management, Tracy Stone-Manning. He should withdraw her for the reasons I am going to talk about here on the Senate floor, but let me stipulate that, while I have often spoken about what I consider far-left extremist environmentalists who are taking over many elements of the Biden administration, often in the context of why I voted against their confirmation, I have not yet called on--haven't in my entire Senate career--a nomination to be withdrawn before they even have gone through their Senate confirmation hearing before a Senate committee. But I am doing it this afternoon.

The reason I have never done this before is because we have not yet confronted someone with Tracy Stone-Manning's past, which involves being a member, part of an extreme group that performed violent acts as part of their platform for getting attention in America--violence, a group engaging in overt ecoterrorism.

By the way, this is becoming a bipartisan issue--a serious bipartisan issue--as I am going to talk about in a little bit more detail.

The Director of BLM from the Obama-Biden administration just yesterday made a statement saying that, if these allegations are true, which they are, then, he firmly believes that her nomination should be withdrawn by the President. That is Mr. Bob Abbey. So this is a serious issue, and it is a bipartisan issue.

Before I talk about Tracy Stone-Manning's involvement with ecoterrorism, let me start by saying that BLM is an incredibly important and very powerful Federal Agency, particularly as it relates to my State, 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. In fact, I haven't done the math, but I believe that they manage more acreage in Alaska than they do in the rest of the lower 48 combined. That is how important BLM is in my State.

Let me give you some of the numbers. This includes over 70 million surface acres of land and 220 million subsurface acres. That is the land equivalent to about one-fifth of the entire lower 48 States. Most States can't even comprehend that size. One-fifth of the lower 48 of the United States of America is the amount of land BLM manages just in the great State of Alaska. So it is a huge amount of land and, of course, by definition, it is a huge amount of power that this Federal Agency has over my State and the people I am honored to represent.

And it is imperative--imperative--for the Director of this Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, with so much power and so much control over my State and its future in economic opportunity for working Alaskan families--that the manager of BLM for the country be trustworthy--to be honest, to be fairminded, to be beyond reproach, and, certainly, not to have been involved in an organization that perpetuated violence against its fellow Americans.

And from what we know about Tracy Stone-Manning, she is none of these things--trustworthy, honest, and fairminded.

That this administration is full of people with far-left agendas certainly isn't surprising. We all know that the national Democratic Party is much further to the left than they were even 4 years ago with the Obama-Biden administration. But what is shocking beyond surprising is that the President of the United States would put forward someone for this incredibly important position in BLM who is not only far left but a member of a group that was an ecoterrorist organization, a group that was undertaking violence against their fellow Americans so they could make a point on environmental issues in America.

This is not an exaggeration. Tracy Stone-Manning was a member of Earth First!, a radical, far-left group that has engaged repeatedly in what is defined as ecoterrorism.

But she wasn't just a member of Earth First!; she herself was complicit in putting metal spikes--big, thick ones--in trees that were meant to either threaten to hurt or gravely injure those Americans who were harvesting trees, who were cutting down trees legally, who were putting trees in saw mills legally.

This was a common technique--tree spiking--deployed by such ecoterrorists in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Earth First! called such tactics ``monkey wrenching.'' That is kind of cute. It is dangerous. It could kill people--``monkey wrenching.''

Logging crews and the Americans who were legally harvesting timber in our country might have called such tactics terrifying, and certainly called such tactics very, very dangerous.

So let me briefly talk about the group that Tracy Stone-Manning was a member of. Earth First! began in 1980 by disaffected environmentalists who thought the movement wasn't radical enough, thought the movement wasn't getting enough attention. So they founded a new group that wanted to get more attention, sometimes by perpetuating violence. Among its proposed founding principles, ``all human decisions should consider Earth first, mankind second''--I am quoting now--``mankind second.'' OK. Not sure many U.S. Senators would agree with that. And ``the only true test of morality is whether an action, individual, social or political, benefits the earth.'' These are founding principles of this organization.

Given these principles, it is no mystery that the group's slogan is this: ``No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth.'' In their view, ``no compromise'' meant destroying property, putting steel spikes in trees that could kill someone trying to harvest a tree, and Earth First! celebrated and encouraged such actions.

The group even put out a manual--yes, a manual--detailing tree spiking and instructions on how to do other sabotage activities: cut down powerlines, flatten tires, burn machinery of those who were trying to harvest trees legally.

We harvest trees legally in Alaska. We have loggers who do that, who are from hard-working families.

David Foreman, the founder of Earth First!, talked about all of these activities, and he said: ``This is where the ecoteur can have fun.'' That is a quote from the founder of Earth First! ``Fun.'' That is what he called this--``fun.''

Tell that to those violently hurt by some of Earth First!'s tactics.

This is how an article in the Washington Post, from this time, described such an incident of tree spiking that severely, violently hurt one of our fellow Americans. And now I am going to quote from this article:

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 he was

working on.

By the way, I have seen these saws in Alaska, in mills in Alaska. They are huge. This isn't just some kind of tiny saw. They are gigantic, and they spin at incredibly fast speeds with huge teeth. They are dangerous, even when you are operating without tree spikes in the trees.

Let me continue. Here is the continuation of this article from the Washington Post: It was May 1987, and George Alexander was 23 years old. His job was to split logs. He was nearly 3 feet away when the log he was working on hit his saw, and the saw, this giant saw, exploded. One-half of the blade stuck in the log. The other half hit Alexander in the head--again, these are giant saws--tearing through his safety helmet and tearing through his face shield. His face was slashed from eye to chin, his teeth were smashed, and his jaw was cut in half.

That is what Earth First! did to this young American doing his job with a tree spike in it.

I am continuing with the Washington Post article: George Alexander had never even heard of a sabotage tactic called tree spiking until he himself had become a victim of ``eco-terrorism.''

That is the Washington Post's word, not my word, ``eco-terrorism.''

Someone who objected to tree cutting had imbedded a huge

steel spike in the log that violently jammed the saw.

And changed George Alexander's life. Tree spiking.

That is the Washington Post.

These were the kinds of tactics that Tracy Stone-Manning, the Biden administration's choice to lead the BLM for America, once conspired in. Does that disturb you, America?

Every U.S. Senator on the floor here in this body should be very, very disturbed.

Mr. President--and now I am talking to the President of the United States--think about this, sir. I say respectfully: Come on, man. This is the most qualified American citizen you can find to be the BLM Director?

She was part of a group--not just a radical, extreme environmental group but a radical, extreme, violent, environmental group.

President Biden, this should be a redline that we all agree to: no nominees who conducted violence against their fellow Americans.

But what did she do specifically? The Biden administration's Director of BLM--nominated Director of BLM--here is what she did. In 1989, she did a friend, a fellow Earth First! colleague--``comrade'' maybe is a better word--she did a friend, a comrade, a fellow comrade a favor. She rewrote word-for-word a profane, anonymous letter from this member of Earth First! about the 500 pounds of tree spikes that Earth First! had hammered into trees in Idaho--by Earth First! Pretty dangerous. Pretty violent. She rewrote the letter on a rented typewriter because, she later told a reporter, ``her fingerprints were all over'' it. So she knew she was obviously involved in criminal activity. So she didn't just handwrite it. She didn't want her fingerprints on it. She typed it. She then sent the letter to the FBI.

She kept quiet on what she did for years--that was in 1989--until she came forward in 1993 and received immunity for her part in this tree spiking in Idaho, 500 pounds of spikes. This is a serious operation. Deadly. Could be deadly. She received immunity for her part in this tree spiking when prosecutors went after the other members of Earth First! and she testified about it.

Here is something that should be very simple for all of us. No matter how young, no matter how naive, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management for the United States of

America should not--and I repeat, should not--have ever been involved in ecoterrorism. That is simply unacceptable, and the President of the United States should get that, and certainly every U.S. Senator should get that.

Working with people who were so radical on environmental issues that they thought it was OK to perpetuate violence against their fellow American citizens--come on, man.

President Biden, you cannot be serious.

It is not only me who thinks this is an outrage. I want to compliment my Senate colleague Senator Barrasso, who has been doing a great job. Unfortunately, our press has been asleep at the switch. Senator Barrasso has been doing a great job of highlighting these very issues. But, as I said earlier, this is now becoming a bipartisan issue. It is not just me and Senator Barrasso who have been raising this issue. Just yesterday, Bob Abbey, who led the BLM from 2009 through 2012 under President Obama and Vice President Biden, said the following:

If the reports regarding Ms. Stone-Manning's involvement

with spiking trees are true, then I firmly believe she should

immediately withdraw her name from further consideration for

the BLM director job.

Let me read that again. The BLM Director of the Biden-Obama administration just yesterday said the following:

If the reports regarding Ms. Stone-Manning's involvement

with spiking trees are true, then I firmly believe she should

immediately withdraw her name from further consideration for

the BLM director job.

Well, guess what. The reports about her involvement with tree spiking by the ecoterrorist organization Earth First! meant to harm her fellow Americans are true. They are true.

Madam President, there are other issues that also call into question Ms. Stone-Manning's character. I am not going to get into these. I will let others focus on them--low interest loans, other things. That is in some ways, in my view, a distraction. Her involvement with an organization that was focused on ecoterrorism certainly disqualifies her, and the President of the United States should know this.

I didn't agree with Bob Abbey on much when he was the head of BLM under the Obama-Biden administration, but I certainly agree with him about Tracy Stone-Manning, and I believe the President of the United States should withdraw her name from further consideration. If the President doesn't do that because he gets pressure from the extreme left, then I certainly hope--I certainly hope--my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans, will resoundingly vote to reject this nomination when it comes to the Senate floor.

Yes, we have differences on issues of resource development, energy for America, certainly on issues of jobs and resource development in my great State, the great State of Alaska. We have differences. There is no doubt about it. But here is the thing: We all know--I think every one of us, all 100 Senators, know and would say publicly that these differences should be resolved peacefully in debates here on the Senate floor, at the ballot box, arguing these issues--forcefully, yes, but not violently, not with violence.

So if this nominee comes to this floor, it shouldn't be even a close vote; it should be 100 to 0 rejecting her.

To my Democratic colleagues, I hope you join me, like Mr. Bob Abbey, in saying: Mr. President, guess what--you screwed up here. Withdraw her.

But if he won't do that, I hope every U.S. Senator votes against this. We cannot condone, endorse, or vote for somebody who has been part of an ecoterrorist, radical, extreme, violent organization.

My colleagues, America will be watching. If you vote for her, you have to go home and explain that vote to your fellow Americans. As I mentioned, it is one thing for this administration to put forward far- left, extreme environmental nominees. It is quite another to put forward a far-left, extreme, violent environmental nominee, and that is what she is.

To the President of the United States: Respectfully, sir, you need to withdraw this nomination.

To my colleagues on the Senate floor here: Respectfully to all of you, if the President doesn't take this commonsense action, we need to decisively reject this nomination when it comes to the floor of the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it is Thursday, and it is that time of the week. I know a lot of our reporters in the Senate like this because it is the signal of kind of the end of the workweek here. Of course, it is also a signal that I get to come to the floor and do what is one of my favorite elements about being a U.S. Senator: talking about someone who makes Alaska what I believe to be the greatest State in the country. We call this person our Alaskan of the Week.

Before I get to talking about our Alaskan of the Week--an extraordinary young man named Michael Martinez--let me tell you a little bit about what is going on in Alaska right now.

Today, in Anchorage, the Sun rose at 4:44 a.m., and it will set tonight at 11 p.m. It was light almost all day. Blackout curtains are up, and 12 midnight Sun celebrations are abounding. It is a great time of the year to be in Alaska. You can't believe the energy you feel.

We were recently able to pass a cruise ship bill--and I appreciate the Presiding Officer's doing that a couple of weeks ago--that enables cruise ships to come back to our State this summer. So we are going to have tourists coming, and you should, too, America. If you are watching on C-SPAN, come on up. Alaska is safe. It is beautiful. If it is on your bucket list, make it happen this summer. You will love it. You will see breathtaking scenery and some of the most generous, innovative people in the country. You will not be disappointed. So come on up.

You will be in a State where 21-year-old Michael Martinez, our Alaskan of the Week, was born and raised--one of the many, many reasons I remain optimistic about the state of our State and the state of our country. So let me tell you a little bit about Michael.

His mother, Mary, is from the village of Kotlik in the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta. She is Yupik. His father, Eufemio, is from Central Mexico. So those two met and married in Anchorage, and that is where Michael was raised.

As I said, he is 21 years old now and has one more year to go before he receives his bachelor of science degree in chemistry from the University of Alaska Anchorage--a great university. Although he has been very successful so far in his already having won many awards for his research, he plans on going to graduate school. There is so much for him to study, after all, and his interest in science runs very deep, as it has since he was a young boy when he began winning science fairs.

An Alaska reporter wrote a story in 2016--so 5 years ago--already documenting then young Michael's successes. The first award was for an experiment demonstrating how weight and length affect the throwing distance of traditional hunting spears used by Alaska Natives. Isn't that a cool research topic? In eighth grade, he won an award for designing a robot.

Eventually, he moved on to bigger and better things, like, at the tender age of 16, trying to find a cure for cancer and getting mentorship from his high school teachers at Service High School in Anchorage and, very importantly, in the Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program--what we call ANSEP--in Alaska. He won the Emperor Science Award, which is a prestigious science research award offered through PBS Learning Media and Stand Up to Cancer.

Michael worked with his mentor, Dr. Holly Martinson, Ph.D., from the University of Alaska Anchorage, to make a database for Alaska Natives suffering from cancer. It was his introduction to the world of research, and he fell in love with it. He entered ANSEP.

Let me talk to you a little bit about ANSEP. It is a program that attracts young Alaska Native students from all over Alaska and provides extraordinary educational opportunities for them in science, in the STEM fields. ANSEP students have been enormously successful and have gone on to do incredible, incredible things. I can't say enough about this tremendous program.

Eventually, Michael was introduced to another mentor, Dr. Brandon Briggs, a professor of biological sciences and the director of the Advanced Instrumentation for Microbiome Studies. It was his work at Dr. Briggs' lab that led him to his current passion of finding better environmentally friendly ways to extract much needed, even critical, materials from the Earth.

Increasingly, both here in Congress and across the country, we have been focusing on metals and minerals that are needed to power our future, particularly rare earth elements and critical minerals. So much of our economic future and our national defense depends upon these minerals. The problem--although we have many of these minerals, rare earths included, in our country and particularly in Alaska--is that our mining industry has had incredibly difficult times in terms of being able to access them, whether it be with permitting delays that take years, with far-left environmental lawsuits that prohibit the extracting of them, or with the lack of production capacity. The result is that China, like it is in so many other areas, is dominant, controlling up to 90 percent of some of these critical minerals.

Like many of the challenges we face and confront with China, we need the best minds in America working on these things. Our young minds hold the promise of our future.

That is one of the reasons we recently passed a bill right here in the Senate this week to fund research institutions, so that we can unleash this talent and creativity.

This is where our Alaskan of the Week, Michael, comes in. It was recently announced that Michael won first place in the High North Young Entrepreneur Award at the High North Dialogue, an international pitch competition for Arctic-related business ideas. Here is what he won it for: forming a company with his adviser-mentor, Dr. Briggs, called Arctic Biotech Oath, which is working on sustainably extracting rare- earth elements, as I said, which are in abundance in Alaska.

How does this work? What is the science and chemistry that he is already working on? In a lab, they are using microorganisms, fungi, which dig into the ore, breaking it up, and releasing the rare-earth element into a solution, which is a more natural and sustainable process to extract these rare-earth elements.

This process is still in research and development, but it has incredible potential for our Nation and for our State, and he has founded a company that is doing this, and Michael is just 21 years old. Michael could be anywhere doing this, but he is staying in Alaska because Alaska is home, and he is committed to contributing to our State.

That is why I'm still here. And that's why the company will

be here and will be based in Alaska. I was born and raised

here. I am trying to improve our State and see Alaska soar

and thrive within the next couple of decades. I want to see a

green energy sector evolve in Alaska.

So that is Michael. He wants to be part of this, and he is part of this at the tender age of 21.

So to Michael, thanks for all your hard work.

By the way, thanks to all the mentors in Michael's life and ANSEP and UAA, which have helped him along the way.

Good luck in your endeavors, and congratulations, Michael, for being our Alaskan of the Week.

Mr. President, here is how this excellent editorial begins:

The U.S. is barreling toward one of the greatest self-

inflicted wounds in our country's history.

I could not agree more.

The editorial goes on to list the different actions that I just mentioned--restricting energy production in America, including in Alaska, with ANWR, restricting pipelines, encouraging defunding of the energy sector. It is not good for the country.

The editorial also notes that this will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. None. None. It is virtue signaling at the expense of working families, working Americans, and our national security.

Right now, we are beginning to import more oil from Russia than we ever have. How does that make any sense? How does that help a working family in Alaska or Maryland or anywhere? It doesn't. It does one thing: It empowers countries like Russia and Putin and Saudi Arabia at the expense of the United States. This is a fact. Yet, every day you hear a new action. You read a new quote from someone in this administration focused on killing the energy sector of the United States. Again, as the Wall Street Journal just mentioned, this will be recognized in history as one of the greatest self-inflicted wounds, with no upside. No upside.

We have the highest environmental standards in the world in Alaska when we produce oil. Highest in the world. Russians have the lowest, and yet we are now preferring Russian oil over American oil.

Can anyone tell me how this makes sense? It doesn't.

Here is how the editorial concludes:

Progressives want to surrender one of America's [most]

strategic economic advantages in the name of [so-called]

saving the climate. But banishing fossil fuels in the [United

States] won't eliminate carbon emissions, which will [just]

be produced [elsewhere]. So will . . . jobs [and] economic

growth and [the] geopolitical [advantage that comes with our

energy dominance].

Let me conclude by saying this. As I mentioned, I agree with President Biden and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. We need to address challenges, particularly with our adversaries like China and Russia, from positions of strength. Two of the most prominent positions of strength--the U.S. military and our energy dominance--right now are being undermined by this very administration.

They need to change course, and if they do, we will support their actions.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to commend my colleagues for the important work that everybody is doing down here on the Senate floor, bipartisan work, addressing one of the most important challenges we have as a nation. Not just today but for years this challenge is going to be with us, and that is the challenge of dealing with the rise of the Communist Party of China. That is going to be more and more of a challenge and focus of the efforts of all elements of America's economy, military, society.

And here is the good news. As you are seeing here, there is a lot of focus, a lot of effort, and a lot of bipartisan work. It is a democracy, a Republic, right? It is messy. It is not going to be perfect. But, for the Chinese, I think the worst nightmare of the Chinese Communist Party is to see Americans coming together and recognizing that this is something we all need to work on together.

China's economy is growing. Their high-tech capability is growing. Their military capability is growing. Their aggressiveness throughout the region is growing.

Just look in the last year: Hong Kong; the disputes along the China- India border with India; the aggressiveness toward Taiwan; the economic embargo, in many ways, against our ally Australia; Xinjiang Province; the full discrimination against the Uighurs. And, of course, China is now fully focused on exporting its authoritarian model abroad--not just at home but abroad. But again, as I mentioned, the good news is that we as a nation, we as a Senate, we as a Congress, Republicans and Democrats, are starting to awaken to this challenge.

This is an issue I have been focused on since I came to the Senate over 6 years ago. I think the previous administration, the Trump administration, with their National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, which said, hey, we know we have challenges with violent extremists organizations, but we need to start shifting our focus to great power competition with China as the pacing threat--that is where we should be focused.

Those strategy documents--the National Defense Strategy, the National Security Strategy--these were actually quite bipartisan documents, quite bipartisan strategies. The National Defense Authorization Act, which will be taken up here in a couple of months, in the last few years has been built around this National Defense Strategy, focusing on great power competition--China, Russia. So that is continuing. It is actually continuing on the floor here in the U.S. Senate as we speak.

What I have been trying to do is work with Members on both sides of the aisle--certainly with the Trump administration but also with the Biden administration--as they address this challenge. I had some good meetings with a number of senior officials in the administration, and one takeaway I got from discussing these issues with the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, was a comment he had made about how when we were looking at our challenges with China, we need to think about these in the way in which Dean Acheson, who was a very famous Secretary of State, talked about the beginning of the Cold War with the Soviet Union in the late 1940s; how America needs to be dealing with the Soviet Union and that Cold War from situations of strength, positions of strength. I thought that was a really insightful comment by the current National Security Advisor.

So I want to mention a few of these because we have a lot of them relative to China. Our comparative advantages, in my view, are much greater than theirs in this competition that is going to, in my view, last for decades. So let me name a few of these situations of strength.

First, our allies. The United States is an ally-rich nation. China is an ally-poor nation and getting poorer by the day, by the way. Maybe North Korea is one ally. Maybe Russia sometimes, but I don't really buy it. So that is a huge comparative advantage that we have as a nation, and we need to look at our system, our network of allies and deepen them and expand them.

One area that that has happened with regard to our allies, really is a cornerstone of our alliance system in Asia, is the continued focus on what is called the Quad. The Quad is three of the biggest economies and democracies in the whole world: the United States, Japan, India, and Australia.

The Quad actually began in terms of a focus of strategy in the George W. Bush administration. The Trump administration highlighted it even more. To the Biden administration's credit, they took the Minister- level meetings that were the focus of the Trump administration's effort with the Quad and took it to the leader level. President Biden met with the leaders--India, Japan, Australia, and the United States--recently. It is a very important development. The Quad can help anchor our alliances in the Asia-Pacific and beyond in a very significant way. The Chinese are constantly talking about it because they don't like it because they know what it signifies.

So that is one area of strength, situation of strength that I think all of us can agree on, and I think Members of this body can certainly help play a role

As we look to head into a work session, I am going to head to the Asia-Pacific with some of my Senate colleagues here--Senator Duckworth, Senator Coons, and maybe a few others--and we are going to help build on this important comparative advantage that we have as a nation-- allies. We are an ally-rich nation. China is ally-poor. The more aggressive they are acting in the region, the more this situation of strength is going to play to our advantage.

Let me give you another situation of strength for the United States, particularly as it relates to China. It is a huge

position of strength. It is our energy sector, the all-above energy sector for America--I mean renewables, oil, natural gas. This is an area that for decades we have tried to become energy independent. We have tried to return to the status we had during World War II, which was the world's energy superpower in terms of the production of energy.

The good news on that is we have returned to that. Prior to the pandemic, the United States had once again become the world's energy superpower--a lot of people thought we could never achieve that again, but we have--the largest producer of natural gas in the world, bigger than Russia; largest producer of oil in the world, bigger than Saudi Arabia; largest producer of renewables in the world. This is really good for our economy. It is really good for jobs. It is really good for our national security and foreign policy. And yes, it is really good for our environment.

Why is that? I know some people don't like the production of energy in America, but here is a fact: We need energy, ``all of the above'' energy. My State has it all, all the things that I just mentioned--oil, gas, renewables. We have an enormous abundance in Alaska.

But here is the other fact: We produced these energy opportunities, we produced this energy in America with a higher environmental standard than any other place on the planet. That is a fact. That is a fact. So if we need energy, which we do, ``all of the above'' energy, which we do, we need to make sure we are producing it in a place with the highest standards, in a place that will employ American people workers. By the way, energy jobs are great jobs.

Here is one other thing. You look at the intel. You talk to people who know the region. The Communist Party in China recognizes this comparative advantage, and it scares the living daylight out of them because they are very energy dependent, and we have literally become, through the hard work and ingenuity of so many in our great Nation, energy independent.

By the way, not only has this helped our environment, it has helped with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. From 2005 to 2017, the United States reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by almost 15 percent--15 percent. You don't hear that often, but it is a fact--more than any other industrialized nation in the world.

China was going like this. Still is. By the way, right now, the latest numbers on greenhouse gas emissions--China is producing more than the United States, the EU, and India combined. That is also a fact.

So we have reduced global greenhouse gas emissions dramatically. Why? We all know why. It was the revolution and the production of American natural gas. That is a fact. That is a fact.

So if we want to grow our economy, have an enormous comparative advantage relative to China and adversaries like Russia, produce more good-paying jobs, protect our environment, and enhance our national security and foreign policy, continuing the production of ``all of the above'' energy, which we are going to need for decades, is something that we should be doing.

Now, some in the Biden administration understand this. Others don't and want to restrict production of American energy, and when those people speak, guys like John Kerry, the leaders in China and Russia are smiling. They are smiling.

Fortunately, this legislation here, the Endless Frontier Act, is focused on outcompeting the Chinese, all of us coming together and outcompeting them in many different areas--artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and, yes, energy as well.

Specifically, what is in the bill is called advanced energy and industrial efficiency technologies, advanced energy technologies. That is in the legislation.

Again, I think it is here because we recognize what a critical, comparative advantage we have relative to China in this sector, so we want to take advantage of it. It is in the legislation.

Advanced energy technology is not defined in this bill, but that is because the Congress has been abundantly clear on what this means. In my discussions with Senators and, more importantly, what the Congress has passed a number of times, advanced energy technology means what it states in the definition of a law unanimously passed in the Senate and in the House just two Congresses ago, 42 USC 18632. It actually has the definition of advanced energy technology, which is what is the focus of this bill, the Endless Frontier Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 42 USC 18632 be printed in the Record

The definition of advanced energy technology, which is in the bill, the Endless Frontier Act, and is defined in 42 USC 18632 is along the following lines. It says ``Definitions,'' ``advanced energy technology'' means an ``innovative technology that produces energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, tidal, wave, ocean, or other renewable energy.''

That is important for our country. It goes on to say ``that produces nuclear energy''--that is important for our country--``for carbon capture and sequestration.'' Again, a critical comparative advantage. ``That enables advanced vehicles, vehicle components,

and related technologies that result in significant energy savings.'' Again, important.

And it also says ``that enhances the energy independence and security of the United States by enabling improved or expanded supply and production of domestic energy resources, including coal, oil, and natural gas.''

That is in the definition of advanced energy technologies, and that is the definition that was passed two Congresses ago, unanimously, and that is why it has not been defined here because it has already been defined in this.

Congress is very clear on what advanced energy technology means in the Endless Frontier Act. That is a huge comparative advantage, as I mentioned, oil, gas, renewables. And that is an important element of this legislation in our competition with China, and I am glad that is recognized.

One final area of what, again, the current administration's National Security Advisor called a situation of strength relative to China, and that, of course, is our military. To be honest, this is where I am worried.

The second term of the Obama-Biden administration cut defense spending by 25 percent. That is actually one of the reasons I ran for the Senate. I never ran for anything, but what I saw what was happening to the U.S. military--an institution I love and I served in for over 25 years--that was enough motivation for me to say I need to help do something. The readiness of our forces during that era, the second term of the Obama-Biden administration--the readiness of our forces plummeted--plummeted. And our adversaries in Moscow and Beijing watched this and were gleeful.

We can talk about AI and everything else that we are talking about in this bill, but if we are gutting our military, that is one of the worst things we can do with regard to sending a message to China about our seriousness. I worry.

Last year on this floor--last summer--we had a big debate in the NDAA over defense spending. The majority leader--who was then the minority leader--and the Senator from Vermont, Senator Sanders, put forward an amendment they called--no kidding--``defund the Pentagon'' then. That was the name of their amendment, with 14 percent across-the-board cuts to the entire U.S. military. My response was: There they go again. There they go again.

Well, now that they regained power, it looks like this movie is coming to a theater near us again, and it is not going to be nice. Tomorrow, the Biden administration's budget is going to be coming out. The numbers that we are anticipating are about a 16-percent increase in domestic spending and a real decrease in military spending--inflation- adjusted decrease in military spending again. Beijing will be watching this and will be gleeful.

When Republicans were in the White House and the Senate majority just recently, we were respectful of our colleagues in the minority, and there was an agreement essentially about a one-for-one, domestic programs increasing and the military budget is going to increase by about the same amount. That is what we all agreed on here. That is what we worked on here. Now, it looks like it is going to be 16-for-1 or maybe even worse. This is something we really need to focus on.

Make no mistake, we can talk about supply chains, intellectual property, competitiveness, which is what we are talking about here with this legislation. These are all important topics. But all the policy changes that we are debating here right now are not going to amount to much in our overall competition with respect to China if we lose our military edge with respect to China.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues just don't recognize that or don't want to recognize that. Soft power isn't much good without hard power to back it up. We learned that lesson before. It has been a painful lesson, if you look at our history.

But the Chinese Communist Party certainly appears to understand this. According to one watchdog, it has increased its military investments by 76 percent over the last decade, and we are going to put out a budget tomorrow with an inflation-adjusted decrease in our military spending, despite the runaway domestic spending proposed by this administration. That is worrisome, and that is not operating from a position of strength with regard to the Chinese Communist Party. We need to watch out for that one. I am very concerned.

Yes, there is a lot of bipartisan work going on in the Senate, but if the leadership on the Senate floor and the House leadership as well and the Biden administration work together to cut defense spending, that is going to be one of the worst things we can do for our long-term competition with regard to China.

As we are focused on these challenges with the rise of China, let me conclude by predicting that not only is this challenge going to be with us for decades, but how we need to address it. I have talked about some of these situations of strength. We must face this challenge with confidence and strategic resolve.

As I have noted and I just talked about a few, America has extraordinary advantages relative to China: our global network of alliances, our military power, and economic leadership, our innovative society, our abundant and innovative energy supplies, advanced energy technology as defined in this bill and other bills, the world's most productive workforce, and a democratic value system.

Yes, it can be messy, but that makes countries around the world, and particularly in the INDOPACOM region, far more comfortable as American partners and allies than as subservient members of a New Middle Kingdom led by China. As a result of the long twilight struggle with the Soviet Union, we also know what works: maintaining peace through strength, promoting free markets and free people at home, and having the confidence in George Kennan's insights when he set forth the strategy of containment in the late forties to deal with the Soviet Union--that the Chinese Communist Party, like the Soviet Communist Party, likely bears within it the seeds of its own decay. While democracies are resilient, adaptive, and self-renewing, there are many vulnerabilities embedded in Chinese's perceived strength.

One-man rule creates acute political risks. Historical grievance can bring violent nationalism. State-directed economic growth can produce massive overcapacity and mountains of debt, and the gradual snuffing out of freedom that we are literally seeing daily in places like Hong Kong sends fear throughout the entire region.

China's budding military power and historical view of itself as a natural and cultural superior to many others is beginning to alarm neighboring states, inspiring them to want to step up security cooperation with the United States, not with China. Nearly half of wealthy Chinese want to emigrate. Remember, these are the winners from China's four decades of heady economic growth.

As we have in the past, we can prevail in this geopolitical and ideological contest, but doing so will require a new level of strategic initiative, organization, and confidence in who we are as a people and what we stand for. This also means that we must redouble our efforts in making this strategic case to others around the world, particularly our allies. This kind of work here--although it can be messy, although it can be difficult, although it can be challenging--is part of the process we need to put together to compete.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, for decades, even centuries, America's universities have been the envy of the world and one of America's biggest comparative advantages. At their best, they are hubs for innovative thinking, places where free exchange of ideas are not only encouraged but expected on campus. They have been the backbones of innovations that have changed countless lives in America and, really, across the world for the better.

Now, of course, freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution. The birth of our Nation was the result of our Founding Fathers escaping tyranny and pursuit of freedom of thought and expression.

And since the inception of our country, we have prevailed over every country an empire that we have competed with, in part, because of America's commitment to the free exchange of ideas, and our universities have traditionally amplified this longstanding American ideal and comparative advantage.

But, unfortunately, this is changing. Today, it is becoming increasingly clear that many of our universities too often stamp out the exchange of ideas for certain politically correct narratives. This is having a chilling effect on our students, on campus, and most importantly, their ability to express themselves.

Let me present some disturbing findings. A recent Gallup survey of 3,000 undergraduate students found that 81 percent of students widely support a campus environment where they are exposed to all types of speech, even speech they find offensive--81 percent. However, that same survey found that only 59 percent of college students believe that free speech rights are secure, and that is down from 73 percent just 4 years ago.

That same survey also found that 63 percent of university students in America agree that the climate on their campus deters students from expressing themselves openly, almost two-thirds of American students. That is remarkable. It is dangerous, not just for university life but for American life, and I believe it is unacceptable. Fortunately, we can do something about it with the simple amendment that I have offered today.

This bill that we are debating right now, the Endless Frontier Act, will be sending billions, tens of billions, of dollars--taxpayer dollars--to America's universities. My amendment says, in return for these billions of dollars when applying for National Science Foundation funds, universities will be required to attest that they are protecting free speech, religious liberty, and prohibiting discrimination on campus and explain what steps they are taking to ensure compliance. That is it, a letter to the NSF once a year for billions in Federal research dollars.

Now, already, we are hearing that some universities oppose my amendment, calling it ``burdensome.'' Well, here it is. It is 2 pages. It is simple. It is easy. This university opposition actually illustrates the problem that, in exchange for billions of dollars in Federal research money, America's universities can't be bothered to demonstrate to Congress and the American people that they are committed to the principles of the First Amendment which, by the way, have made our country and our universities so exceptional.

Censorship, oppression, and one-sided thoughts are characteristics of Communist China, not America, and certainly should not be the characteristics of America's great universities--to the contrary.

One of the most important ways to compete with and win against Communist China is to ensure that America--and, yes, our universities-- remain what they have traditionally been: laboratories of free expression, free thought, creativity, innovation, and ingenuity.

My simple amendment will help make sure this happens, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes to support this amendment, an America of free liberty, free thinking, and innovation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleague from Washington, when the universities say they can't do this because it is too burdensome, again, to me that actually demonstrates the very problem my simple amendment is trying to resolve.

All it is saying is in exchange for the tens of billions of dollars that America's universities will be getting as part of the Endless Frontier Act, they have to do one simple thing: once a year, send a letter to the National Science Foundation saying--and this is in the amendment right here--they have committed to protecting free speech, viewpoint diversity, the free exchange of ideas, academic freedom, and the protection of religious liberty, and prohibiting against discrimination.

That is it, Mr. President. It is very simple. This is what universities should be doing. It is a letter, once a year, that is very simple in exchange for billions and billions of Federal research dollars. I certainly hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment--simple, needed.

Again, this is how we outcompete communist China, which is all about what the Endless Frontier Act is focused on.

I encourage my colleagues to vote yes.

Vote on Amendment No. 1911

I ask for the yeas and nays.