[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 27, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5085-S5090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning

  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
opposing the motion to discharge President Biden's nominee to lead the 
Bureau of Land Management, Tracy Stone-Manning.
  Since Ms. Stone-Manning's first hearing in the beginning of June, 
members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have gathered 
copious amounts of information regarding a number of controversies that 
disqualify her for this important role within our Federal Government.
  As has been highlighted today, Ms. Stone-Manning was involved in a 
tree-spiking plot as a member of the ecoterrorist group Earth First!--a 
tree-spiking plot.
  I have to tell you, I didn't know what tree spiking was until a 
couple of weeks ago.
  Could you imagine taking this nail and driving it into a tree with 
the hopes it would deter that tree from ever being cut down
  And the concern is, someone that would take a chain saw, cutting 
through that tree, when they would hit this spike, what would happen?
  I, unfortunately, had to take care of more than one chain saw 
situation in the emergency room. Let me tell you about a chain saw 
accident. The chain doesn't cut the flesh; it tears the flesh apart. It 
tears the skin apart, the muscles apart. It grabs the tendon and 
literally wraps them around the chain saw, usually permanently maiming 
people.
  So could you imagine, if a chain saw hit this spike, what would 
happen?
  Again, I have ran a chain saw before, and I know, as you are running 
the chain saw and you hit something solid, something hard--a knot--
sometimes that chain saw bounces. It bounces back into your body. And 
that is where most of the accidents occur.
  So could you imagine, if that chain saw hit this spike, the chain saw 
is going to bounce back, going to recoil into the person's body, and 
turns this spike into a piece of shrapnel?
  This Earth First! Ms. Stone was a member of is a radical organization 
that spanned the late 1980s and early 1990s, during the peak years of 
what is often referred to as ``the wilderness wars.'' As described by 
the Wall Street Journal, Earth First! had, at the time, ``defined 
itself''--and I should quote here, ``defined itself as the tip of the 
fanatical spear,'' and Ms. Stone-Manning was referred to as ``an Earth 
First! spokesperson.''
  Debuting in 1985, the group engaged in a number of protests over the 
expansion of certain campgrounds and street theater asking people to 
take oaths to protect the Earth. However, they graduated into violence 
and ecoterrorist activities, including arson, equipment destruction, 
and the dangerous practice of tree spiking, which mangles saws and can 
easily result in the death of loggers.
  In 1989, Ms. Stone-Manning was involved in an incident of tree 
spiking herself. Despite her denial, she was aware of the act being 
carried out, aided those who were involved, and helped cover it up. She 
obstructed the investigation and, finally, traded testimony for 
immunity.
  At a time when the Biden administration has declared domestic 
extremism as one of the biggest threats the United States faces today, 
how can the President nominate someone with a record like this to lead 
the Agency that governs one-eighth of the country's landmass? How can 
this body bring her confirmation vote to the floor?
  It is reckless and dripping with hypocrisy.

[[Page S5086]]

  Republican Members who have come to the floor today are not the only 
individuals who believe she is unfit for this role. President Obama's 
first Bureau of Land Management Director, Bobby Abbey, who led the 
Agency from 2009 to 2012, said last month that Ms. Stone-Manning should 
withdraw her nomination due to her involvement in the tree-spiking 
case.
  Steve Ellis, who served as Deputy Director of BLM under President 
Obama, joined Mr. Abbey last week in expressing his concern about Ms. 
Stone-Manning's nomination, stating the leader of the BLM must--again, 
I quote--``be respected by career employees and across the landscape, 
in both blue and red states'' in order to be effective.
  In addition to her involvement with Earth First! and this horrific 
tree-spiking incident, Ms. Stone-Manning had a questionable financial 
history during her time serving in government. During the lengthy 
hearing process, I was alarmed to learn that Ms. Stone-Manning received 
a $100,000 loan from a Montana land developer and Democratic donor when 
she worked as a congressional staffer. Senate Ethics rules and Federal 
statute prohibit Senate staff from accepting gifts greater than $250, 
including a loan, unless a waiver is granted.
  By Ms. Stone-Manning's own admission, she did not consult with Senate 
Ethics about the loan, she did not disclose the loan to the Senate 
Ethics Committee, she did not seek a written determination that the 
personal friendship exemption applied, and she did not receive a 
written determination that the personal friendship exemption applied.
  Unfortunately, Ms. Stone-Manning has also been unable to provide any 
written documentation of the terms of the loan, the schedule of 
payments, the actual payments, or any other relevant documents. We can 
only rely on contradictory statements from the hearing and her vague 
responses to our questions submitted for the record. Many of her 
answers only lead to further questions about the legality and morality 
of accepting such a large loan.
  Due to the radical nature of many of President Biden's nominees, the 
majority leader has been forced to bring six motions to discharge to 
the floor in order to clear them from the committee.
  Under the previous power-sharing arrangements, which lasted for 5 
months during the 107th Congress, there were no instances where 
Majority Leader Trent Lott had to utilize a motion to discharge. With 
at least four other nominees having received a tie in committee and 
their nomination failing to be reported favorably, this practice is 
becoming commonplace under this administration. Ms. Stone-Manning's 
record of dishonesty should be unacceptable and is one of my many 
issues that should make rational people question her integrity in a 
position of power. I encourage all Members of this body to reject this 
motion to discharge and this radical nominee.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President and fellow Senators, I rise today to join 
the chorus of my colleagues that are urging that Tracy Stone-Manning 
not be confirmed and, indeed, not even be discharged from the committee 
that voted to not send her to the floor for confirmation.
  First of all, it is amazing to me that someone with this background 
has been appointed to this position. Now, I understand she has held 
some positions in the State of Montana for politicians there, and I 
don't comment on that. That is up to them, who they want the hire to do 
that.
  In Idaho, that has a very, very significant number of acres of BLM 
ground, we have a different view of how our public resources should be 
protected and be administered, and this appointee in no way reflects 
the values we have.
  This woman is an ecoterrorist. She participated in a conspiracy to 
murder people who work in the timber industry for a living. She is a 
perjurer, very recently. And she is someone who is supposed to put out 
fires and, as late as 2020, has made very disqualifying statements 
regarding her desire to do that and, indeed, commitment to do that.
  Let's start with the ecoterrorist charge. I want to go a little bit 
further than what my colleague who just spoke did about using a chain 
saw to tear down--or to take down a tree in the forest.
  Let me explain to you how this works. The prop that he held up was a 
spike that ecoterrorists put in trees. There is one reason to put a 
spike in a tree--one reason and one reason only--and that is to kill 
and to maim the people who harvest that tree.
  These are innocent people who are involved in the timber business. 
They are my friends. They are my neighbors. We have lots of them in 
Idaho, and they work in a dangerous industry anyway. But for someone to 
go out and intentionally put these spikes in the trees, as the Senator 
spoke before me, Senator Marshall mentioned, there can be an injury in 
the forest when you are actually cutting the tree with a chain saw.
  But that isn't the main difficulty with this. The main difficulty is 
when it hits the mill. They cut these logs up into mill-sized pieces 
and then run them through the mill, which is cut either with a circular 
saw or band saw into boards. And when that happens, the log and saw 
move very quickly through the log and cut up the wood into timber, 
which is not a problem unless there is a spike in the way. If there is 
a spike in the way, somebody in that mill will be badly injured and/or 
killed.
  When that saw hits the spike, the saw shatters, the spike shatters, 
and it sends shrapnel to everybody who is standing within the vicinity. 
It has happened. It is documented. And it is ugly.
  So when ecoterrorists do this, this is not a Sunday school prank. 
This is an act knowingly, willfully, intentionally with a black and 
abandoned heart committed in order to murder someone who works in the 
timber industry. This is wrong.
  The person that we are voting on today participated in a conspiracy 
to do just that. Indeed, she wrote a letter. She claims she just typed 
it. Originally, she said it was handed to her by some person and asked 
to type. We now find out, of course, that this was a letter that was 
composed by a number of people, not the least of which was a gentleman 
that she lived with; but she is the one who put this together and sent 
it to the Federal Government as part of this act of conspiring, to take 
the lives of innocent people in the forest.
  She says she edited the letter. But if she did, then it is what it is 
in front of us. She said she typed this and sent it to the Forest 
Service.
  She said: This letter is being sent to you to notify that the Post 
Office sale in Idaho has been spiked heavily. The project required that 
11 of us spend 9 days in God-awful weather conditions spiking trees. We 
unloaded a total of 500 pounds of spikes, measuring 8 to 10 inches, et 
cetera, et cetera.
  Well, if she edited this letter, then she properly stated what her 
participation was in all of this. And there is no question that she 
admits that she prepared this letter and sent it to the Forest Service.
  Today, in Idaho, those spikes remain in the trees. We don't know when 
one of those logs is going to be cut and going to cause damage, 
possibly the loss of life, but certainly the maiming of people who 
attempt to process that log into usable lumber. She says they put 500 
pounds total of spikes in those trees.
  This is a person whom the administration has chosen to administer the 
largest chunk of Federal land in the United States of America, possibly 
in the world. She is going to manage these after she committed this act 
of ecoterrorism and participated in this conspiracy.
  Now, you say: Why isn't she in prison? Well, her coconspirators went 
to prison because she testified against them. She was found out. The 
investigators determined what her participation was in the conspiracy. 
She hired an attorney, and the attorney negotiated a deal where she 
would rat on the fellow conspirators and she did so and thereby avoided 
going to prison.
  So that is what happened in her prior history. It is important to 
know those things because somewhere down in the recesses of her heart 
and her soul, she was prepared to participate in a conspiracy that 
would cause the death and the injury of innocent forest workers.

[[Page S5087]]

  Now, more recently than that, she has made statements that certainly 
call into considerable question how she will be able to do her job. For 
those of you who don't live in the Western States, as I do and many of 
us do, when public land starts on fire, it is important that the fire 
be put out and be put out as quickly as possible. Her husband wrote an 
article. I wouldn't ordinarily tag her with her husband's view of 
things, but she took that article; she republished it in 2020 and said 
this was a ``clarion call.'' Now, if you look up ``clarion call'' in 
the dictionary, it is an urgent call to require somebody to do 
something. She calls this a clarion call.
  He wrote this article about how people shouldn't be building in the 
forest around what is called interface land. If you are not--again, we 
westerners are familiar with interface. We have so much public land 
that many of our subdivisions, our individual homes, our cities butt up 
against interface land.
  So this is what she said was a clarion call. The solution to houses 
in the interface is to let them burn. This is the person that the 
administration is going to put in charge of fire suppression in an 
interface zone. Let me state it again. The solution to houses in the 
interface zone is to let them burn is what she said.
  Then: How do you feel about that?
  She said:

       There's a rude and satisfying justice in burning down the 
     House of someone who builds in the forest.

  That was in 2020. In 2020, she said that. This is whom the 
administration wants to take over the Bureau of Land Management.
  Well, in addition to that, she lied to the committee. She lied under 
oath. I will tell you, this is disgusting. She shouldn't be here. She 
should be charged and standing in front of a jury.
  Now, I told you what she did about her participation in the tree-
spiking incident, and this was a question that was asked of her under 
oath as she came to the committee for her confirmation:

       Did you have personal knowledge of, participate in, or in 
     any way directly or indirectly support activities associated 
     with the spiking of trees in any forest during your lifetime?
       No.

  Now, we know she wrote this letter. She admits it. She participated 
in it because she testified she participated in it when she testified 
against the other people who were eventually convicted and sent to 
prison. Yet she swore under oath to our committee this year that, no, 
she wasn't involved in that. They asked: Have you ever been arrested or 
charged--they asked her whether or not she had ever been a target of 
such an investigation. She says:

       No, I have never been arrested or charged and to my 
     knowledge I have never been the target of such investigation.

  She knew she was a target; she was sent a letter that she was a 
target; and she hired an attorney to get her out from underneath that 
mess because she was a target. Yet she said no. So she has perjured 
herself this year.
  Well, look, this is not the right person for this job. It just amazes 
me that they would even consider a person like this for this job. This 
is an insult to the thousands of good, hard-working people who are in 
the Bureau of Land Management and who work day and night to protect our 
resources on the public lands in the Western States.
  Look, I know we are going to lose this. It is going to be a party-
line vote. All Republicans are going to vote against confirming her. 
The Democrats are all going to vote in favor of her. I say to this 
administration, this is not going to go away. This person's record of 
perjury, of ecoterrorism, of participating as a person involved in this 
plot and this conspiracy to actually take the life of Forest Service 
workers--this is not going to go away during the entire time that she 
is the head of this Agency. It is going to come up again and again, and 
it should.
  So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I say to the 
President of the United States, who has nominated her for this 
position, if this is the character of someone who you want us to 
remember as the legacy of your administration, here she is, a perjurer, 
an ecoterrorist, a person who has participated in a conspiracy to 
murder innocent people working in the forest. If that is what you want 
as your administration, here it is. Vote for it. I suspect that is 
exactly what is going to happen, but this is not going to go away.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues in 
expressing my grave concern over the nomination of Ms. Tracy Stone-
Manning to be the Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
  The Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management is tasked 
with an enormous responsibility. As it manages an eighth of our 
Nation's land, its leadership should be held to the highest standards.
  Every nominee referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
must complete and submit the statement for completion by Presidential 
nominees, which is the standard committee questionnaire. In the sworn 
statement, Ms. Stone-Manning told the committee that she has never been 
arrested or charged and, to her knowledge, has never been the target of 
an investigation.
  Unfortunately, as many of us are now aware, Ms. Stone-Manning's 
responses were not forthcoming nor fully accurate.
  I am particularly disturbed by Ms. Stone-Manning's involvement with 
the ecoterrorist organization Earth First!, which organized the tree-
spiking plot in Idaho. As you all may know, tree spiking involves 
hammering a metal or ceramic rod into a tree trunk in order to prevent 
loggers from harvesting the timber. If the saw makes contact with a 
spike, it can result in severe injury or even the logger's death.
  Make no mistake, the people who put these spikes into the trees are 
well aware of the potential consequences of their actions. These 
schemes are carried out with intent to harm or even, at the very least, 
the intent to frighten the loggers who are carrying out their daily 
jobs.
  I want to be clear, no one is claiming that Ms. Stone-Manning put any 
spikes in any trees herself. However, it is undisputed that Ms. Stone-
Manning assisted the people who did.
  Ms. Stone-Manning wrote a letter laced with vulgarities to the U.S. 
Forest Service, threatening loggers who were simply carrying out their 
jobs, doing what they do for a living.
  In the aftermath of this tree-spiking conspiracy, Ms. Stone-Manning 
was investigated and subpoenaed by a Federal grand jury. Ms. Stone-
Manning was silent about her involvement in the plot, but when new 
evidence came to light 4 years later, she struck a deal for immunity in 
1993.
  Tracy Stone-Manning's involvement in ecoterrorism as well as her 
dishonesty to the Senate is more than alarming. There are questions 
that need to be revisited and answered. The statements from the former 
lead investigator of the Idaho tree-spiking scheme as well as the 
actions of the Federal grand jury tell a different tale than what Ms. 
Stone-Manning led the committee to believe. These discrepancies must 
not be cast aside.
  I am concerned about the precedent that will be set for future 
nominees if my colleagues simply agree to accept or disregard these 
inconsistencies.
  I am very disappointed that my Democratic colleagues on the Energy 
Committee moved forward with Ms. Stone-Manning's nomination. There are 
serious unanswered questions about her voracity and her qualifications 
to lead.
  I applaud my colleagues who have sought the truth, and I am 
disheartened that those efforts have met with resistance. The American 
people deserve transparency. I cannot support this nominee, and I would 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use a prop 
during my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, in 1989, Tracy Stone-Manning rented a 
typewriter to draft and then send a letter threatening those who might 
choose to harvest trees. The letter stated that the trees in question 
had been sabotaged with hundreds of pounds of spikes. She closed the 
letter with:

[[Page S5088]]

``You bastards go in there anyway,'' meaning notwithstanding her 
threat, ``and a lot of people could get hurt.''
  She and her cohorts thus used the threat of physical violence to 
achieve a political goal. This is the definition of terrorism.
  In 1993, multiple associates of Ms. Stone-Manning were convicted of 
tree spiking by a Federal jury. Though she signed and swore that the 
information provided to the committee was ``to the best of [her] 
knowledge and belief, current, accurate, and complete,'' Ms. Stone-
Manning told the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that she had 
never been investigated.
  This was, in fact, not true. It was widely reported that in 1990, Ms. 
Stone-Manning was required to give hair samples, a full set of 
fingerprints, and writing samples. This was already a year after she 
had conspired with her circle of friends, members of the radical 
environmentalist group Earth First!. She was still not cooperating with 
the authorities.
  Now, how do we know that she was, in fact, a target of the 
investigation and not simply a bystander? Well, we know that based on a 
letter from Michael Merkley, a retired special agent criminal 
investigator for the Forest Service. He writes the following:

       [The witness] described how Ms. Stone-Manning typed and 
     mailed the letter to the Forest Service. She also recounted a 
     conversation she had overheard wherein Ms. Stone-Manning 
     along with other co-conspirators planned the tree spiking and 
     discussed whether to use ceramic or metal spikes in the 
     trees.
       As a result of [the witness's] testimony, the grand jury 
     sent Ms. Stone-Manning a ``target letter'' which meant she 
     was going to be indicted on criminal charges for her active 
     participation in planning these crimes. She hired an attorney 
     who negotiated a deal with an Assistant United States 
     Attorney to gain immunity in exchange for her testimony 
     against the other defendants.

  Ms. Stone-Manning did not gain immunity simply for being a good 
person or a model citizen. No, she traded her knowledge after 
withholding it for years. This is verified by her own admission in the 
May 21, 1993, edition of the Missoulian, reading:

       Stone-Manning said she could have been charged with 
     conspiracy . . . were it not for the agreement she reached 
     with the U.S. attorney.

  Furthermore, she received a target letter, meaning she knew very well 
that she had been under investigation.
  This is a direct contradiction of a sworn statement that she made to 
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on which I serve, so 
she deliberately misled U.S. Senators. Unfortunately, Ms. Stone-Manning 
has been able to deceive a lot of people. Even a White House official 
acknowledged that this was a ``massive vetting failure.''
  So what exactly did this tree spiking involve? Well, it involved 
spikes like these, spikes made of steel that, when placed into a tree, 
can cause widespread damage to those harvesting the trees, those 
milling the trees They have maimed many and wounded many others as a 
result of radical environmentalists taking this tactic to try to stop 
the harvesting of timber on Federal lands.

  Now, regardless of how you may feel about timber-harvesting policy on 
Federal lands, I think all Americans of good faith and conscience can 
agree that it is not a good idea to use terrorism to advance your goals 
and that it is not a good idea to use threats of physical violence and 
present people with a real, foreseeable, and, in fact, foreseen and 
intended risk that they will be harmed or could even die as a result of 
the 500 pounds of these tree spikes that they placed in the trees in 
question.
  So, yes, the White House admitted that this was a vetting failure, 
and a vetting failure it was. It was either a vetting failure or no one 
at the administration cared when Tracy Stone-Manning tweeted out only 
months ago an article written by her husband, an article that itself 
states: ``There's a rude and satisfying justice in burning down the 
house of someone who builds in the forest.''
  When she tweeted out this story, apparently with her approval, she 
called it a clarion call--her words, not mine--seeming almost to 
celebrate their misfortune, to revel in the misery and loss of those 
who had just had their homes destroyed, oftentimes as a result of 
chronic mismanagement on Federal lands in allowing fuel to build up and 
remain untreated.
  There are plenty of homes in forests in Utah. I presume that there 
are plenty of homes elsewhere--that there are plenty of homes in 
Arizona, in Montana, in California, in Colorado, in Nevada, in West 
Virginia, and elsewhere. So I would ask the question: How can we 
entrust the responsibility to protect the homes of those Americans who 
live on or near a forest from forest fire to an individual who actively 
advocated only months ago for their demise and who, apparently, 
celebrated their demise?
  Lastly and, perhaps, most heinously, revelations have also come out 
regarding research that she conducted for her thesis. In 1992, Tracy 
Stone-Manning published her graduate student thesis at the University 
of Montana, entitled ``Into the Heart of the Beast: A Case for 
Environmental Advertising,'' which espoused several radical views on 
population and grazing.
  In this thesis, she published a photo of a child with the caption--
this photo with this caption right here. It has a picture of a young 
child, a toddler. ``Can you find the environmental hazard in this 
photo?'' She then indicated that the child--this baby--was the 
environmental hazard.
  She then elaborates:

       Americans believe that overpopulation is only a problem 
     somewhere else in the world. But it's a problem here too. . . 
     . We breed more than any other industrialized nation. At the 
     same time, we suck up one-third of the world's energy. . . . 
     When we overpopulate, the earth notices it more. Stop at two. 
     It could be the best thing you do for the planet. . . . Do 
     the truly smart thing. Stop at one or two kids.

  This is a fringe belief. It is a dangerous belief. Not only is it 
factually flawed, but it is morally repugnant. As a father of three, I 
am repulsed, ashamed, and saddened. As much as anything, as the 
resident of a State, two-thirds of which is owned by the Federal 
Government and 40 percent of which is under the direct management and 
control of the Bureau of Land Management, the entity that she has been 
nominated to head, I am mortified that she is going to be in charge of 
all of that land, because this is how she views human beings.
  We should all accept the fact that human beings are assets; they are 
blessings. They are not liabilities. Children are beautiful gifts from 
Heaven above, not environmental hazards.
  I have consistently voiced outrage at China's one-child policy, and 
we are here today, voting on a nominee who calls for a similar action--
telling parents in the most condescending tone imaginable: ``Stop at 
one or two kids.'' According to Ms. Stone-Manning, we are simply 
breeding too much.
  So now we must ask ourselves: Will this body advance the nomination 
of a person who played a central role in endangering the lives of 
foresters and sawmillers, who engaged in acts of reckless and 
deliberately harmful environmental terrorism in using 500 pounds of 
tree spikes, who attempted to deceive Members of the U.S. Senate about 
these same violent actions, who has advocated for homes to be left to 
burn in the wilderness, indicating that she would celebrate when that 
happened, and who has called children an environmental hazard?
  The Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the position that Ms. 
Stone-Manning has been nominated to fill, has immense discretionary 
power. This isn't simply a matter that is concerning for symbolic 
reasons. It is that, too, but far more than that. If confirmed to this 
position, she is going to have immense discretionary power.
  Could we rest knowing that she was at the helm of the Bureau of Land 
Management, making decisions about grazing, wildfire response, wildfire 
prevention, suppression, and rehabilitation and everything else that 
the Bureau of Land Management is charged with? I could not. I cannot 
and I will not. So I urge my colleagues to reject her nomination.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use a prop for 
my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, President Biden's nominee to lead the 
Bureau of Land Management, Tracy

[[Page S5089]]

Stone-Manning, may not have personally spiked trees--that is what the 
facts have shown as we have investigated--but she covered up a 
terrifying tree-spiking crime until she faced possible prosecution.
  For many who are watching, what is tree spiking? I think it is very 
important to know that these are these large spikes that ecoterrorists 
put into trees for the purposes of injuring loggers or sawmill 
operators. When the blade goes through it, when the blade strikes these 
large spikes, the blade explodes like a grenade, causing serious injury 
to sawmill operators or loggers.
  For 4 years, she refused to tell Federal investigators who the 
perpetrators were--the time from 1989 to 1993--even though she knew and 
had every opportunity to tell it. This happened in my home State. The 
actual spiking was in Idaho, but when the Feds were doing the 
investigation, this was in Missoula, MT. She was covering this up until 
she faced probable prosecution. She has never apologized for this 
crime, for covering it up. I think the coverup is as serious, in many 
ways, as anything else. For this reason and some others, I oppose her 
confirmation and believe that Montana and our Nation deserve better.
  One week ago today, I stood here and laid out the new and very 
damning information we had learned just over the last 47 days about Ms. 
Stone-Manning and her obstruction of a Federal investigation into an 
ecoterrorist tree-spiking crime. In fact, just last week, in a U.S. 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting on Ms. Stone-
Manning, my Republican colleagues and I urged committee Democrats to 
listen to the new information, to listen to the alarming new facts that 
we have learned about her knowledge of the crime and the relationship 
she had with the perpetrators.
  In coming from Montana and having spoken with several Montana State 
legislators, I want to make sure my colleagues understand that the 
story that was told for years is much different than what we now know 
to be true. Up until 47 days ago, Montanans, the Montana State 
Legislature, the Montana media, and I were led to believe that, in the 
tree-spiking crime that happened in 1989, Ms. Stone-Manning was a hero, 
that she helped put bad people in jail. As I shared last week, that is 
unequivocally false.
  Here is the truth: Ms. Stone-Manning obstructed the Federal 
investigation for 4 years. Rather than bring criminals to justice--we 
are talking about very bad people who went on to commit even more 
violence--Ms. Stone-Manning assisted and helped them evade justice for 
years--for years. Now, last week, during the committee meeting and the 
debate we had over Ms. Stone-Manning's nomination, there was 
discussion, discussion as to whether or not she was part of the 
investigation at all or whether she was a target of the investigation.
  What we know now is that Ms. Stone-Manning only came forward after 
she was caught. What happened is, 4 years later, suddenly, an insider 
to the crime came forward with new information to the FBI. So she came 
forward after she was caught. She knew she was likely headed to prison. 
She didn't come forward because she wanted to help put bad people in 
jail, primarily. She didn't come on her own volition. She knew she had 
to get some kind of a deal or she was on her way to prison. She didn't 
come forward when she was subpoenaed, when she was questioned about the 
crime, when she was asked by the FBI for her hair, handwriting, and 
fingerprint samples. In fact, she was described by the investigator as 
the ``nastiest of the suspects.'' She was described as being vulgar, 
antagonistic, and extremely anti-government.
  You see, Ms. Stone-Manning only came forward after she received a 
target letter from the grand jury, meaning that she was going to be 
indicted on criminal charges. She struck an immunity deal several years 
later for her involvement. I am not sure how one can argue that she was 
not part of an investigation. That is how she answered, by the way, 
when she was questioned by the committee if she were part of an 
investigation. She said no. Now, you tell me how you are not part of an 
investigation when I have laid out these facts.
  Ms. Stone-Manning bad-mouthed law enforcement for investigating her 
involvement despite the fact that she knew all of the details of the 
crime--all of them. She stonewalled the Federal investigation. For 4 
years, from 1989 to 1993, she remained silent, but she had all of the 
information. While she was withholding this information, tragically, 
one of the perpetrators went on to commit a terrible act of domestic 
violence
  I want to talk for a moment about that letter that Ms. Stone-Manning 
typed and mailed. Remember, this was not available to us until just 47 
days ago. Ms. Stone-Manning stated that she simply mailed this 
anonymous letter and that she got it from a rather ``frightening 
man''--her words. Well, we have learned since that, based on new 
information, that the frightening man was her roommate. We also learned 
that this letter had not only been collaboratively composed but that, 
after waiting for a few days, she went and typed it and sent it. She 
went and rented a typewriter to type this letter up when she sent it, 
which, according to her own testimony, was because she wanted to avoid 
having it on her own computer and avoid having any fingerprints that 
could be traced back to her.
  The words that Ms. Stone-Manning typed and mailed are explicit and 
not what you send and what you type when you want to protect people. 
They are what you say when you want to frighten people. That is the 
whole idea of terrorism.
  Ms. Stone-Manning typed: ``You bastards go in there anyway, and a lot 
of people could get hurt.''
  She also typed on this rented typewriter: ``I would be more than 
willing to pay you a dollar for the sale, but you would have to find me 
first, and that could be your WORST''--that was all typed in caps; it 
is publicly available--``nightmare.''
  The text of this letter was made public for the first time just 47 
days ago. You see, Montana has never had the opportunity to read what 
Stone-Manning retyped on a rented typewriter and mailed until 47 days 
ago.
  I find the most disturbing piece of this story to be that Stone-
Manning has never shown contrition or remorse for her handling of the 
situation. She has never apologized for her role or for misleading 
Montanans. We have yet to see a public statement from her in response 
to this new information.
  I believe healthy debate is important in this institution, and I 
believe it is important at the committee level when discussing and 
advancing nominees who will potentially lead a major Agency, including 
Stone-Manning and the Bureau of Land Management's--critical to the 
West--10,000 employees who are overseeing 245 million acres of land.
  In fact, last week, one of my colleagues across the aisle explained 
how it was a shame that Ms. Stone-Manning was not there to defend 
herself from this new information we have learned over the last few 
weeks. I agree with that. I agreed with her comment then, and I agree 
with it now, because in light of this new information and the fact we 
have yet to see a statement in response from the nominee, I think Ms. 
Stone-Manning should come before the committee before we move forward, 
further explain her involvement, and have the opportunity to speak to 
the new information we have learned about her involvement in a tree-
spiking crime. That is why I am urging my colleagues to take this step 
here to not discharge her nomination from the committee today.
  Now, by the way, for those who are watching, why is it we are going 
to discharge a nominee from the committee? What does that mean? Well, 
that means there was no bipartisan support for the nominee because we 
are in a 50-50 Senate. So it takes a special action here to bring a 
purely partisan kind of vote out of a committee for floor action. In 
fact, the only bipartisanship we have seen is her opposition, those who 
are opposed to her leading the Bureau of Land Management.
  In fact, we now have two Obama officials who have raised concerns 
about Ms. Stone-Manning and what her confirmation would mean for the 
Agency. In fact, President Obama's former Director of the Bureau of 
Land Management, Bob Abbey, said that her involvement in the tree-
spiking crime would cause needless controversy and that it ``should 
disqualify'' her. We just

[[Page S5090]]

learned yesterday that a second Obama official, Steve Ellis, who was 
the Deputy Director for the Agency under President Obama, said that 
this isn't a Republican or Democratic issue; it is about the letter she 
sent.
  He went on to say:

       The administration's got some great initiatives and their 
     agenda for public lands is good, but you need the career 
     employees to implement your agenda successfully across the 
     West. Your leader has got to be respected by career employees 
     and across the landscape, in both blue and red states.''

  We know, sadly, this isn't the case.
  I am here today to urge my colleagues to wait to move forward with 
this nomination of Ms. Stone-Manning and allow debate to continue at 
the committee level. We had very spirited debate last week.
  One important note that I want to make here before wrapping is that 
this is not just an issue for the West. Ms. Stone-Manning's conduct 
should cause alarm to not only Senators who represent Bureau of Land 
Management States but every State with a logging industry.
  Stone-Manning's refusal to come forward for 4 years placed the safety 
of loggers in jeopardy, which is offensive to loggers across our 
country, from the loggers in Maine, which is the most forested State in 
the Nation; to loggers in State likes New Hampshire, Georgia; to the 
forestry, wildlife, and logging groups like Meadow River Hardwood 
Lumber Company, the Houston Safari Club, the Idaho Logging Council, who 
withdrew their support or have come out in opposition.
  Ms. Stone-Manning's actions matter and should not be accepted by any 
Senator. Montanans and all Americans deserve to hear directly from her, 
from Ms. Stone-Manning, about why she obstructed a Federal 
investigation for 4 years and why she has yet to show any remorse.
  I think it is also important for my colleagues across the aisle who 
admitted they don't know anything about the nominee--we heard that in 
the committee hearing last week--or haven't spoken with her to have the 
opportunity to learn more as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois