Cynthia Lummis

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I also rise to protest the manner in which funding for the people of Ukraine has been strapped to this spending bill, thereby delaying aid to Ukraine and strapping it to a bill that is going to need days to get to the President's desk so it is in good shape. I have been following--just as you have--the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, and I am incredibly concerned for the people there: the women and children who have been murdered in the streets by Vladimir Putin's bombs, the housing complexes that have been destroyed, the maternity hospital that was bombed just yesterday, all from unprovoked Russian aggression. We want to help these people. The people of Wyoming whom I represent want to help these people. Because of this, I was particularly appalled at the decision by congressional Democrats to include Ukraine aid funding in the massive government funding omnibus bill that we are starting to consider. We could get this Ukraine money on its way today. We could get it to the President's desk today. Most of us agree. I think it would be unanimous to send the money to Ukraine. As a former House Member and a longtime legislator, I know that any big piece of legislation has good pieces and bad or, as former U.S. Senator Al Simpson used to say, ``some spinach.'' But this is a cynical approach to legislating. It forces Members of Congress to make an unnecessary choice: choose between helping the Ukrainian people and further indebting our own constituents. It is a cynical ploy, and it is cynical because of what is in the rest of bill, the omnibus spending bill. At a time when the United States is over $30 trillion in debt, instead of taking a serious look at our budget, we are piling on. We are increasing nondefense discretionary spending by 7 percent, even though inflation this year is more than 7 percent. Worse still, the omnibus continues to fund President Biden's vaccine mandates, even after the President himself called for a return to normal. This bill also contains anti-Second Amendment provisions that threaten the rights of law-abiding citizens in Wyoming. Finally, after banning the practice for years, this omnibus contains around $10 billion in earmarks for pet projects around the country. Here is the book of earmarks. Look how thick this is. It is printed on both sides in about 4-point font. You almost have to have a looking glass to see what is in here--4,000 earmarks after we had gotten away from this. I am sympathetic to the argument that earmarks are a more direct way of addressing problems around the country, but historically they have been abused as a way for leadership to whip votes on bad legislation and a way to fund unnecessary pet projects to curry favor back home. But instead of having a debate about these and other concerns of the massive spending bill, Ukraine funding was dropped in here in an effort to get Members to vote for a bad bill so we can get funding to Ukraine. We should have a stand-alone vote on the aid for the people of Ukraine. This issue is entirely separate from the omnibus spending bill that Congress is considering and should be recognized as such on the Senate floor. Anything less does a disservice to the people we are trying to help and to the American people we serve. I am proud of Senator Rick Scott for calling for a separate vote to help the people of Ukraine. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

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

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I am just profoundly sad and also humbled and proud to honor the memory of a cherished son of Wyoming. More than anything, I rise to honor my longtime friend Leland Christensen. Leland was most recently State director for my U.S. Senate office. Truly, his death cuts me to the depths of my heart. I have known Leland for decades, and there are few losses in my life that I have ever felt as deeply as this one. Leland was all Wyoming. He was tough as nails, endlessly patient, and unwaveringly kind. Prior to his time in my office, Leland served the people of Wyoming and our great Nation in a number of roles. He was formerly a member of the Wyoming National Guard; a sheriff; a county commissioner for Teton County; a State senator and chair of our State senate's Judiciary Committee; a deputy director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security; and, of course, most recently, State director for our U.S. Senate office. When I was elected to the U.S. Senate, I knew I needed Leland on my team because he loved Wyoming people. He loved to help his fellow man. He cared about the challenges faced by our State and its people. His smile would light up every room, and his laugh was infectious. He was a joy to be with. He was my dear friend. He even guided my daughter and me into the Teton wilderness, along with his own family, on horseback to Hawks Rest, the most remote place in the lower 48 States--in tents, in the rain, fishing, with mules, panniers, packs. It was an incredible experience. We also floated the Snake River together, with Leland at the helm of his own raft. His knowledge and skill had a timeless quality to them. He rescued people in swollen rivers. He rescued their horses. He searched for people in wilderness areas because he knew the wilderness areas like the back of his hand. He was a totally unique human being. His knowledge and skill were so timeless, he would have thrived and excelled had he lived 200 years ago just as surely as he did in the 21st century, where he skillfully navigated legislation, people issues, computer issues, and listened to endless books on tape while he traveled all over Wyoming. He was a timeless, wonderful individual. I can honestly say I never worried about whether my team was taking care of the needs of my constituents in Wyoming because I always knew that Leland was watching. He always made sure that anyone who needed help with a Federal Agency was assisted and that our team was doing everything possible to help them resolve their problems. By every estimation--certainly by my estimation--he was 10 feet tall and bulletproof. But, in His own good time, God calls all His children home to be of service there. Leland was prepared for his service in Heaven each and every day throughout his entire life in Wyoming. I can remember Leland praying before a meal out in the wilderness with such gratitude that you had heard a sermon in gratitude by the time he was done offering grace over a meal. I have talked a lot about Leland as a public servant and a friend, but he was first and foremost a loving and devoted father and husband. I am mourning his loss with his wife Anita; children Hunter, Brittany, Simone, Jed, and Wyatt; their spouses; and his grandchildren. My staff and I, many of whom are here today joining me in this Senate Chamber, along with the entire Wyoming community, tens of thousands of whom knew Leland and loved Leland, are all praying for Leland's family. Words cannot truly convey the loss that we as a team feel since Leland passed away. I have worked with hundreds of colleagues, many of whom I have cared for very much, but rarely do I come across someone whose sincere humility, generosity, and selflessness come close to those of Leland Christensen. Every day spent with Leland was a better day. He was the definition of both ``civil servant'' and ``statesman.'' On behalf of the people of Wyoming, I want to say thank you for his service to our State and our country. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, it is always an honor to address the people of the United States from the floor of the U.S. Senate, and tonight is no exception. I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his wonderful remarks. In order to form a more perfect Union, our Founding Fathers gave us a government that filters the will of the majority through a deliberative process of amendment and debate. For centuries, this has meant that legislative change, while slower in the United States than in some other countries, is moderated through healthy compromises and informed by a greater number of voices. This, in turn, has tended to give us legislation that benefits more Americans. In recent decades, one of the most important factors in this process has been the Senate filibuster. It is one of the defining characteristics that sets the Senate apart from the House, and I served in the House. I remember how frustrating it was to send bill after bill to the Senate only to watch those bills die. But because the House is set up on a more partisan basis, some of the bills we sent over here were pretty partisan. So the Senate has a chance to either look at those and reject them as purely partisan or, more frequently, take up bills that have been crafted on a bipartisan basis in this body, and I respect that. The House is about simple majority rule, but the Senate, thanks in part to the filibuster, is defined by the rights of the minority party. Simply put, it gives the party not in power a voice to speak for forgotten Americans and for small States like Wyoming. I am continually amazed at the whiplash-inducing about-face that Senate Democrats are doing on this issue. It was mentioned earlier by the previous speaker. Senate Democrats may be trying to end the filibuster today, but until recently, they sang a very different tune. As was pointed out, Majority Leader Schumer, in 2005, said that abolishing the filibuster would be doomsday for democracy--doomsday. Majority Whip Durbin said in 2018 that ending the filibuster would be the end of the Senate as was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers. Vice President Harris signed a letter in 2017, with 31 Democratic Senators, urging the protection of the filibuster. President Biden was also a big supporter of the filibuster, calling it a Senator's right to require 60 votes for legislation and claiming that efforts to undermine the filibuster are a ``power grab'' by the majority party. Well, today President Biden and Senate Democrats are trying to do just that, grab power. They are trying to overhaul our voting system by nuking the filibuster and seizing unchecked power. Some of their more levelheaded and forward-thinking colleagues really are hesitant to do that. To their great credit and to the benefit of the institution of the Senate, my colleagues Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin recognize that what goes around comes around. Senator Manchin criticized the idea of a filibuster carve-out for election takeover legislation saying that ``anytime there's a carve-out, you eat the whole turkey.'' There is nothing left. Senator Sinema wrote in the Washington Post that Democrats had more to lose than gain by changing filibuster rules, noting that the best way to achieve durable lasting results is through bipartisan cooperation. You know, I agree. We saw earlier this year, the infrastructure bill was the product of bipartisan discussion, and it produced legislation that had an overwhelming majority of the votes in the Senate. Now, I was not a ``yes'' vote on that bill. I was a ``no'' vote on that bill. I felt it spent too much money, but I will say this. It was a fine work product that was developed by people of good will in both parties. They accepted ideas that I had and that others of us had who eventually voted against the bill, and they worked tirelessly for months. They would not give up because they recognized that when you can get a significant majority in this Senate to support something on a bipartisan basis, you have a better product for the Nation. And I will say, I am proud of their work. I compliment them as frequently as I can for that work product, even though I didn't vote for it. It was an example of true bipartisanship, a true bipartisan compromise. That is another reason that I have worked with my friend from Arizona Senator Sinema and with my friend from Oregon Ron Wyden on financial innovation. I had never met Ron Wyden until that bill. That infrastructure bill came to the floor, and it had an amendment on the definition of broker that would apply in financial innovation instances. It did not adequately represent what really happens in the world of digital assets. So Senator Wyden and I met here on the floor. We became friends and started working on financial innovation issues, digital assets. And even though we were unsuccessful in changing the definition of ``broker'' in that bill, it forged a working friendship that I am confident will last for as long as I am here and as long as he is here together. That is one of the reasons that I have come to believe so strongly in the filibuster. I saw it work in that specific piece of legislation, even in my first year in the U.S. Senate. It is why I have worked with Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island on a foreign agent registration reform. It is why I have worked with other Members of the other party on issues where we see more common ground than we see differences. If you want lasting change, it requires broad bipartisan support. Otherwise, the next administration will work to overturn your actions. The last time Democrats changed the filibuster, it ultimately led to three Supreme Court Justices picked by President Trump. If Democrats thought that was bad, they should think carefully before changing the filibuster for other legislation. We should all think long and hard, as we prepare to vote, over this radical proposal. I implore my Democratic colleagues, consider when the Senate was in Republican hands and when President Trump wanted Republicans to end the filibuster. Republicans rejected the Republican President's request to end the filibuster, and they did it out of respect for this institution. I am sure it was frustrating for the previous President. In some ways, it was frustrating for people like me. I was not in Washington during the 4 years of the Trump Presidency. I was here during the 8 years of the Obama Presidency, serving in the House. I was not here during the Trump Presidency. I was back in Wyoming. In that time, you know, we were characterized as being a big red State, where a bunch of people in a ``basket of deplorables''--I was in there with them--were living and clinging to their guns and their Bibles and we were treated like outcasts in our own country and it felt antagonistic. It was part of what creates this great divide that this country is in right now. That is how we felt about ourselves. I have to tell you, that is how we felt when President Biden went to Georgia and gave a speech and compared anyone who didn't support election reform to people like George Wallace. He compared people in my State and me, quite frankly, to a bunch of racists. That rhetoric is so damaging to trying to heal this country. We all know our Nation is divided right now. Yesterday didn't help. If we want a more perfect Union than we have today, we need more compromise, not less. That is why we have institutional norms like the filibuster. When one party starts tearing up the norms, they might gain in the short term, but they do irreversible, lasting damage not only to our institutions but to our ``e pluribus unum,'' ``out of many, one.'' If we want to be one, we should keep the filibuster in place. As those entrusted with the upkeep of our Constitution for future generations, we need to take a longer term view of what will be best for the country, not just our short-term political aspirations. Our Founders understood that the ends do not always justify the means. That is why we have the separation of powers--two Chambers of Congress and a Bill of Rights that protects the individuals, that protects freedom. Sometimes you have to choose the harder right over the easier wrong. Compromise is hard. I will tell you, I am not all that good at it. I am trying to learn from the people in this Senate Chamber who are so successful at it. You know, the American people have placed a great deal of faith in each one of us to get this done. I have faith in us as well. I will admit that I really disliked my first year in this U.S. Senate. It was a huge disappointment to me. It was ugly. It was nasty. It seemed un-American. But I still have faith in us. We need to protect our institutions. One of those institutions is the filibuster. I think it will allow us to continue to be a nation that is out of many and yet is still one. God willing, that will be the case. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, I am joining my colleagues today to highlight the real harm that the President's overreaching vaccine mandates are causing the people of Wyoming and the United States. While I am vaccinated and support others making the decision to get the COVID-19 vaccine to protect themselves, I am very concerned about unacceptable actions by the executive branch to force Americans to get the vaccine. Frankly, I cannot stay silent about these blatant violations of personal freedom. Over the last several months, the President has signed numerous Executive orders mandating vaccines for Federal workers, contractors, and employers with over 100 workers. This is unacceptable. These mandates are far-reaching and burdensome. Additionally, these mandates will not achieve the desired results of stopping the spread of COVID-19. Instead, they will only further politicalize healthcare choices, sow greater discord across the Nation, and exacerbate our employment crisis. I worry they will also further harm our supply chain issues. All of these should concern every American, particularly with the holiday season rapidly approaching. Consumers are going to face empty shelves in stores, and for what is available, prices will continue to rise. In the freight industry, these mandates could mean that up to one- third of employees will be leaving their jobs. On Monday, POLITICO noted that several trucking companies are looking to end their work with the Federal Government as the vaccine mandate deadlines loom closer. This doesn't only impact the shipping industry but also our defense and law enforcement sectors as well. Former Deputy Under Secretary for Industrial Policy William Greenwalt noted that ``even a couple of welders or engineers who walk off their jobs on a highly classified program could wreak havoc with our national security.'' Meanwhile, it is more than a couple of individuals who are looking at leaving. Defense contractor Raytheon says they expect to lose thousands of employees when the mandate goes into effect. Finally, I would like to give an example of how this is impacting my home State of Wyoming. Across the Nation, we are facing nursing shortages, but in Wyoming, it is becoming critical. I have heard over and over again from my hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes that they just don't have the staff. Many have left the field, whether due to the strain of COVID-19 or because they believe they can find better work as traveling nurses. This has left our healthcare community shortstaffed. If we lose additional nurses from these vaccine mandates, my State is looking at losing healthcare capabilities. This means turning away patients and potentially closing nursing homes. These patients, at the end of their lives, frequently have nowhere else to go. If there is no one else to care for them, the healthcare system will be at the end of its rope trying to find ways to care for these patients. For these reasons, I cannot support these mandates, nor should anyone else. Knowing the damage these mandates will cause, the President must immediately rescind these Executive orders and find a better way to keep our Nation safe.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until November 4, 2021: Alyssa Burleson, Charlotte Holding, and Tanner Weekly.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I thank the gentleman from Utah. I wish to address the subject of the President's overreaching vaccine mandates. First, we all recognize the devastation caused by the COVID- 19 pandemic spread from Wuhan, China, throughout the world. This virus has taken too many lives: more than 4.7 million around the globe and over 686,000 here in the United States. Each death is a tragedy. My heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones and suffered from this terrible disease. Many of those families in Wyoming have reached out to me. I have heard from thousands of constituents concerned about the vaccine, pro and con, but mostly about confusing guidance and particularly about masking--most notably in our schools. Our response to this pandemic should have been unifying, but, instead, it has sown discord and distrust across our country, and that discord is exacerbated by the Federal Government's extreme overreach. I want to be clear. I support individuals getting the COVID vaccine. I am vaccinated. I got vaccinated to protect myself because I have no natural immunity. I haven't had COVID. I have no underlying health concerns. I was not advised by a physician not to get it. It made sense for me making that decision for myself. Scientists have been researching and working for decades to make the emergency treatments that we have all had access to in 2021 available to us. However, I do not support the government mandating--mandating-- matters that come between a patient and their conscience, a patient and their healthcare provider, a patient and their own care decisions. And the recent mandates from the Biden administration do just that. I believe they are far-reaching and burdensome, as do my constituents, including those who have been vaccinated. They will not achieve the desired result. They will not convince millions of Americans on the fence about the vaccine to suddenly get it. They cause people to dig in. They further politicize our healthcare system. They compound our unemployment problems. Don't take my word for it. Look at the Federal Government itself. Even unions are opposed to a vaccine mandate, with the American Postal Workers Union, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the American Federation of Teachers coming out in opposition not to the vaccine but to the mandate. The pandemic does not make the Constitution irrelevant or put our rights as private citizens up for discussion. We are a nation of liberties, not mandates. We respect individuals. That is why I am cosponsoring several different bills that would protect our citizens from this overreach. One bill, S. 2849, clarifies that Federal Agencies do not have the power to mandate COVID-19 vaccines. While this should be self-evident, sadly, many in Washington, DC, have forgotten about America's founding principles. Another bill, S. 2843, blocks Federal Agencies from fining anyone who violates the COVID-19 mandates. Further, the bill that Senator Lee is offering today, S. 2851, audits COVID funding so the American people know where their tax dollars went over the past year and a half, so we can evaluate what has worked and what has not, as Senator Lee has said. The Biden administration should work to bring us together, not drive us further apart through politicized Executive actions. No matter what President Biden decides to do, an individual's right to be in charge of their own healthcare is sacrosanct, and I believe Senator Lee's bills are a step in the right direction. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise to address the elephant in the room that almost no one is talking about. Everyone is talking about the debt limit, but almost no one is talking about the debt. I am a rancher, and I often think about policy in ranching terms. This is ``all hat, no cattle'' politics. We are starting down a track of a $29 trillion national debt. Let me say that again: a $29 trillion debt. When I first came to Congress, it was just under $10 trillion, which seemed at the time an insurmountable debt. Now, we are getting closer to $30 trillion. Certainly, if the spending that is being entertained by the majority party and the Biden administration passes, we will be well over $30 trillion. In the immortal, but edited, words of Jimmy MacMillan--``the rent is too [dang] high,'' guy--the debt is too dang high. Another sobering statistic that was raised by the last speaker, in February, the Congressional Budget Office said that the national debt would surpass the economy's size this year, meaning the debt-to-GDP ratio has long been an indicator of the country's fiscal health and countries have historically tended to decline once their debt surpassed their gross domestic product. This year, that country is us. It is the United States of America. Remember, countries historically decline once their debt passes their gross domestic product. That is what is happening here. It is a very sobering thought, but not a thought that is part of the debate for raising the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling increase that is being discussed now is so more spending can occur without addressing our debt-to-GDP ratio. We cannot go on like this. It is irresponsible at the deepest levels. Now, I understand and I appreciate the concerns that have led to this short-term debt limit deal, but the fact of the matter is, unless we actually address the spending problems that are driving our national debt--and soon--we are already saddling future generations of people in my State of Wyoming and all the American people with a debt that they will never be able to repay. And soon, interest payments on that debt will crowd out other spending. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because interest rates have been relatively low. But we have to pay interest on our debt before we pay other things, including the things that are in the majority party and the Biden administration's $3.5 trillion plan. I believe this is unforgiveable. Now, I am new to the Senate, so I was not here the last time we had to address the debt ceiling issue. But the last time it came up, it was Republicans who were the majority party and were on the dance floor by themselves. Since Republicans were in power in Senate, Democrats left the Republicans to dance by themselves and raise the debt limit alone. So anyone talking about this issue today needs to recognize that history. It is normal for the party in power--where now the Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House, it is normal for them to raise the debt ceiling. The problem is that both when Republicans have been in the majority and have raised the debt ceiling and now Democrats are in the majority and are going to raise the debt ceiling, neither party seems to talk about the debt. They only talk about raising the debt ceiling. It is really kind of shocking that the main focus of this debate, whenever it occurs, is never on how we got here. It is never on why we spend too much. It is never on the debt itself. It is always on just raising the ceiling or suspending the ceiling so we can spend more, so we can run up more debt, so we can have higher interest payments that can crowd out other spending, that can create the vicious cycle that creates deficit after deficit after deficit. Our colleagues on the left can throw back at any Republican here that spending has gone on like drunken sailors, even among Republicans, and they are not wrong--and, also, I mean no disrespect to the Navy in referencing sailors. Happy birthday to the Navy, celebrating its 246th birthday yesterday. There is a lot of blame to go around here. What I would like to see us do is get together, both parties, all colleagues who are interested in this subject, come up with a way to address our debt, to balance our budget, whether it is freezing spending or addressing our trust funds or recognizing how we can fix our entitlement programs or how we can make the Social Security fund solvent, which we know how to do and do not have the political courage to do. We have to contain these massive interest payments. We must start addressing this issue. Earlier this year, I proposed the Sustainable Budget Act to create bipartisan solutions to our long-term spending. The Sustainable Budget Act should be on the table. My colleagues Senators Romney and Manchin also introduced the Trust Act to shore up the long-term fiscal solvency of our trust funds. That is another bill that should be on the table at the same time that we are debating raising the debt ceiling. Both of these ideas are worthy proposals that we should be discussing now on a bipartisan basis because this problem isn't one that only affects one party. When the time comes to pay the bill, our debt holders don't care--won't care--if you are a Republican or a Democrat. They only care about getting paid, and we are swiftly approaching a time when we will be unable to do so. You know, one of the reasons that I became so interested in digital currencies, in nonfiat currencies, is because they are not issued by a government. Bitcoin is not issued by a government, so it is not beholding to the debts that are run up by governments, including the greatest government that has ever existed on the face of the Earth, the United States of America. The United States of America is now at the point where our debt exceeds our GDP ratio. It is the point at which nations decline. If we are going to let the dollar decline, having the lessons of history in front of us, and failing to act, we are truly irresponsible. In the event that that contingency occurs, I want to make sure that nonfiat currencies--currencies not issued by government, currencies not beholden to political elections--can grow, can allow people to save, can be there in the event that we fail at what we know we have to do. There is no proof yet in the 21st century that we are going to make this right. Time and again, in the U.S. House and the Senate, time and again, Presidents of both parties have run up the debt irresponsibly, with no plan to address it. So thank God for bitcoin and other nonfiat currencies that transcends the irresponsibility of governments, including our own. That is an indictment of our responsibility-- Democrats and Republicans, Presidents and Congress--our responsibility to address this looming, predictable, massive issue. Thank you.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise today to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Idaho and the gentleman from Utah, who just spoke about one of the most egregious nominations to ever receive a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I am speaking of President Biden's nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management. I have been here in Washington, DC, for close to a decade now, and I know that oftentimes it feels there are few things that unite us as Democrats and Republicans. I would have hoped that just one of those things that would have united us would be opposition to ecoterrorism; and yet, in about an hour, the Senate will be voting to confirm a known ecoterrorist collaborator to lead one of the most consequential land management agencies. I am flabbergasted. I am aghast. I am horrified. This is a solemn, bad day for land management in the United States. Here we are, $28 trillion-plus in debt--28 trillion-plus in debt. Inflation is threatening every single American. We have a global pandemic, a major crisis at our southern border, a massive government expansion, and debt ceiling debate, and Senate Democrats want to put an ecoterrorist collaborator to manage one of the biggest land management agencies in the United States. The Bureau of Land Management administers about 245 million acres of land. It manages 18.4 million acres of public land surface in my State and nearly 43 million acres of Federal mineral estate in my home State of Wyoming. As is required by law, the Bureau of Land Management operates under a multiple-use mandate that balances recreation needs, energy development, grazing, conservation, mining, wildlife habitat, and more. Leading this Agency requires someone who is balanced and committed to supporting this multiple-use mandate. It is the law that governs the Bureau of Land Management. Do we have that in Ms. Stone-Manning? As reported by the Washington Post, of all places, Ms. Stone-Manning was a spokeswoman for Earth First!, the group responsible for the ecoterrorist tree spiking spoken of by Mr. Risch and Mr. Lee moments ago in Idaho's Clearwater National Forests. So what is the motto for the group for which Ms. Stone-Manning served as a mouthpiece? Here it is: ``No compromise in the defense of Mother Earth.'' No compromise. None. And yet we are supposed to trust that Ms. Stone- Manning will compromise on the inevitable conflicts that will come before her as BLM Director, the requirement that she balance the interests on use of BLM land? For President Biden and my Senate colleagues across the aisle, do you really want your names associated with a ``no compromise'' mouthpiece of a convicted ecoterrorist organization; someone who lied under oath to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee? In her testimony, she lied under oath. Someone who has advocated for population control as a means to save the environment; someone who has written that grazing is ``destroying the West.'' Now, pair that remark with what you just heard from Senator Risch. Senator Risch says: She and her husband want those houses in the interface with the forest to burn. What prevents them from burning? It is grazing. Grazing done right helps keep the forest floor and the grasses from igniting conflagrations. Grazing is good for the West, yet she has written that grazing destroys the West. Grazing is one of the elements of multiple use. Does that mean that she is going to use her position to try to eliminate grazing in the West? That would add to catastrophic fires. That would add to carbon emissions from these monster fires that we are having. Management requires land management. That is why it is called the Bureau of Land Management. It is not the bureau of land let it be, let it burn, let it rot, let it be ignored. It is the Bureau of Land Management, with a multiple-use mandate. Ms. Manning is wholly unqualified to serve in this position-- absolutely unqualified. I urge President Biden to withdraw her nomination before 7:00 tonight, and for Senate Democrats to join us in saying no to this nominee. This nominee is an insult to the American West. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

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

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors will soon be releasing a discussion paper on a potential U.S. central bank digital currency. Additionally, the President's Working Group on Financial Markets is expected to release a set of recommendations relating to the supervision of stablecoins in the coming weeks. I want to lay out my views on central bank digital currencies and stablecoins in advance of these coming discussions. Financial innovation has the potential to bring new prosperity to the next generation of Americans, reduce systemic risk, and promote inclusion for many who are, unfortunately, at the periphery of our financial system. America's leadership in global financial services is a heritage our country can rightly be proud of, but our country must not become complacent, because this leadership is a privilege, not a right. I am supportive of the Federal Reserve Board's efforts to study how central bank digital currency, or CBDC, may be appropriate in the United States. I want to lay out what I believe are the key tenets of a consumer-focused U.S. central bank digital currency, including factors such as legitimate need, financial inclusion, programmability, privacy, and avoiding systemic risk. My comments are only focused on a consumer- focused central bank digital currency, as an interbank or wholesale central bank digital currency is a different proposition. The first principle is legitimate need. A serious value proposition must exist in order to move forward with a central bank digital currency, one that cannot be reliably met by private-sector innovation. It is important to note that the U.S. dollar is already digitized; that is, it has been reduced to electronic form. Most Americans predominantly use an electronic means of banking every day, and interbank settlement also takes place through electronic channels. These payment rails are generally electronic commercial bank money, however. A CBDC would be central bank money, which represents a direct claim on the Federal Reserve System. So we must ask hard questions about whether there are other means of accomplishing the goals of a central bank digital currency and identify opportunities, risks, and costs. The second is financial inclusion. About 5.4 percent of households in the United States did not have a bank account as of 2019, with a further 18.7-percent of the population being underbanked. A CBDC should meaningfully reduce these statistics. A CBDC also has the potential to reduce the cost of payments for both depository institutions and consumers by removing existing frictions in sending money. The programmability of a CBDC will also likely promote financial inclusion by giving consumers more control over their money, allowing those from disadvantaged backgrounds access to the latest technology features. This would allow consumers to automate the payment of bills, assist with monthly budgeting, reduce or eliminate overdraft fees, and most importantly, allow hard-working Americans to receive their paychecks earlier. Some additional factors that must be considered as part of the inclusion are the reduction or elimination of minimum balance requirements, ease of access to a CBDC, and convertibility into physical cash. Third is the concept of programmability. Money represents value, but it is not programmable today. Programmability, at its core, is the technological means to specify the automated behavior or control logic of money in a manner that is tied to the actual value itself. Programmability focuses on the characteristics of money, including the identity of the owner, the amount of money being transferred, and the conditions under which the outside world can interact with that money. A CBDC should contain robust programmability, allowing users to easily specify conditions with respect to that money, such as interest payments; payment versus payment, which is ``I only pay you if you pay me''; delivery versus payment, which is ``I give you a security or a commodity only if you pay me''; escrow, or preventing your child from buying ice cream except on Fridays; and, of course, avoiding overdraft fees. A central bank digital currency should also be future-proofed, with a core code that can be adapted to fully meet future demands and which also contains room for value-added services built upon the CBDC architecture. Fourth is the critical role of privacy. A CBDC must have the same level of privacy as physical cash today. Appropriate transactional anonymity is a public good. Americans must have confidence that a central bank digital currency is not being used for surveillance and that their personal financial data is either not being collected or is subject to rigorous technological and legal controls, including the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We cannot allow a CBDC to become a panopticon, or an all-seeing eye, as will soon be the case with China's central bank digital currency. Fifth is avoiding systemic risk and disruption. A CBDC should not create systemic risk or undue disruption to the U.S. economy. Transitional arrangements for a CBDC may be necessary, and physical cash must remain legal tender as long as Americans desire it, with Congress's having the final say on the future of physical cash. These are the five principles that I consider essential to any central bank digital currency proposal. Congress must have the ultimate say on whether the United States adopts a central bank digital currency. I encourage my colleagues to think deeply about these issues and to develop their own rubric for the future of money. Finally, I want to say a few words about stablecoins in advance of the President's working group report that will be coming out shortly. Stablecoins are a claim on commercial bank money or Treasurys or other securities that are freely tradeable on a distributed ledger or blockchain and that are intended to be redeemable at par for the U.S. dollar. Stablecoins are highly liquid and have higher monetary velocity than other forms of the U.S. dollar. Stablecoins also enable faster payments between individuals and businesses than are possible today. For these reasons, stablecoins are a very important private-sector innovation that have the potential to promote financial inclusion and new market opportunities. However, stablecoins also present certain novel risks to the U.S. economy. In particular, stablecoins must be 100 percent backed by cash and cash equivalents, and this should be audited regularly. I am concerned that some stablecoins are not always fully backed by appropriate assets in a transparent manner. I am also concerned that some stablecoin designs could become a silo for high-quality liquid assets, including Treasurys, which have an important and independent role as collateral in capital markets. Additionally, stablecoin issuers should comply with anti-money laundering and sanctions law and should exhibit a high degree of resiliency. This includes operational risk, cybersecurity and liquidity, and redemption management, consistent with the Federal Reserve's payment system risk policy. Some issuers of stablecoins and stablecoin-like instruments, including Paxos and Avanti Bank and Trust, are already inside the regulatory parameter. Properly supervised, stablecoins are not tantamount to the so-called ``wildcat banks'' of the 19th century. It may be the case that stablecoins should only be issued by depository institutions or through money market funds or similar vehicles. We must do more to ensure stablecoins are subject to right-sized regulations and supervision. But, at the same time, we must ensure that these rules enable innovation that can make payments faster, cheaper, and more inclusive. Properly supervised, stablecoins have an important role to play moving forward. I look forward to continuing the conversation around financial innovation that we began a few months ago as we consider the future of money in our country. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, Wyoming's heart is heavy with grief today. I rise to honor the life, sacrifice, and memory of Wyoming native LCpl Rylee McCollum. He, along with 12 of his fellow servicemembers, lost their lives while defending the airport in Kabul as American citizens and allies escaped the clutches of the Taliban. Their selfless service and sacrifice will be honored and remembered, and they will be forever cherished by a grateful nation. Rylee was a Wyoming guy through and through. His life's goal of serving in the U.S. Marine Corps began seemingly while he was still in diapers, before he could even comprehend what that entailed. He was born with the heart of a soldier. He joined the military right out of high school. He heard the call to defend our Nation, and he didn't hesitate to answer that call. He had plans to become a history teacher and coach once he finished his commitment to the Marines. He was about to become a father. I had the opportunity to meet with some of Rylee's family this past weekend. I had the great honor of expressing my deepest appreciation of Rylee's sacrifice to them in person on behalf of a very grateful Wyoming. Wyoming's very special way of honoring its beloved Rylee was on full display last Friday. People waving Americans flags lined the streets of Jackson to give Rylee a hero's welcome as his remains were returned home. The people of Wyoming are heartbroken but infinitely proud of his bravery and sacrifice. Just yesterday, September 13, 2021, Rylee's family welcomed into the world his daughter, Levi Rylee Rose--8 pounds, 10 ounces. Although she will never meet her father, who was killed before she was born, she will be surrounded by love from mother Gigi, proud grandfather Jim McCollum, Rylee's sisters, and many other relatives who will share with Levi what a wonderful and heroic father she had. Our hearts, our love, our prayers, and our embrace are with Rylee's wife, child, friends, and family as they grieve his loss and remember his bravery. Madam President, Wyoming will never ever forget. I yield back.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3104 and ask that it be reported by number.

Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, as Americans are trying to enjoy their last month of summer vacation before the kids go back to school, they are facing gasoline prices at a near 7-year high. What is the Biden administration doing about this? They are begging Russia and the OPEC oil cartels to pump more oil so that U.S. gasoline prices don't rise any more than they already have under his watch. Meanwhile, through various Executive actions, such as the Biden ban on new oil and gas industry drilling and development and canceling pipelines, this President is attacking American workers and American energy independence. The oil and natural gas industry supports 11.3 million jobs across the country and contributes nearly $1.7 trillion to the American economy. It makes no sense to send production to other countries when we could be doing it here, produced cleaner, more efficiently.

Ms. LUMMIS. I yield back.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in urging the Senate to allow this widely supported bipartisan amendment to move forward. I want to thank Ranking Member Toomey, Senator Warner, Senator Portman, Senator Sinema, and Chairman Wyden. Chairman Wyden, in particular, thank you for your early commitment to me to get this right and for your partnership. The amendment before us specifies that persons who validate distributed ledger data, including digital asset miners and stakers, and those who provide hardware and software wallets, are not required to report customer information to the Internal Revenue Service. This is essential because those persons would not have access to the customer information necessary to comply with this requirement anyway. Equally important in this amendment are clarifications to the definition of ``broker'' that will ensure that software protocol developers will not be swept up in IRS reporting requirements. Developers are the lifeblood of innovation and subjecting them to reporting would have far-reaching implications on privacy and on the evolution of technology in this country, not to mention that most developers would not have access to useful data. This bill is very likely going to become law, and it is important that these changes become law along with the bill. That is why I urge my colleagues not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I recognize there is dissatisfaction on both sides of the aisle with the lack of opportunity to offer amendments and to expedite debate. However, I ask you to weigh those concerns against the importance of providing millions of Americans with additional clarity on the scope of their coming obligations to the IRS. America is a country of innovation. Right now, our financial system is evolving before our eyes in much the same way that the internet first began to find a foothold in the mid-1990s. Distributed ledgers, digital assets, and other forms of financial technology are in the early stages of transforming the way we share and store value. This amendment has started the debate on many difficult questions related to financial technology that the Senate must address over the next few years. We are reacting to what was put before us. I wish that we were implementing from the get-go, but that is not where we find ourselves today. So let's get this broker definition as good as possible now and then move forward this fall with other definitions that will be important to producing a regulatory sandbox for digital assets that allows innovators to keep innovating. We are in a difficult space right now. We are transitioning from the industrial economy to technology, and it is a bumpy ride. It is disruptive for all of us, especially those of us who grew up at the end of the industrial age and are so new to this technology age. But we can adapt, we can be helpful, and we can help forge a very reasonable place for the innovators to work from. There is a proverb that says: ``A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.'' This amendment is the very first step in a long journey, and we are all going to take it together. This journey is about America renewing its commitment to innovation and retaining its role as the leader in the global economy for future generations. I look forward to working with each of you to make sure we get there, and I promise to be a partner to anyone willing to listen and learn. I urge my colleagues not to object and to allow this amendment to proceed to adoption. I yield back to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the Wyden- Lummis-Toomey amendment that is ready before the Senate to vote on tonight. America is, at its core, a country of innovators. It is written into our DNA. It is why we were the first country to develop a computer, land on the Moon, and develop the internet. Right now, our financial system is evolving before our eyes, much in the same way that the internet first began to find a foothold in the mid-1990s. Distributed ledgers, digital assets, and other forms of financial technology are in the early stages of transforming the way we share and store value. These technologies have the potential, if implemented properly, to create a vast, new economic opportunity, reduce systemic risk in our economy, and provide for faster payments and create a more inclusive financial system. These are principles that all Americans can agree on. America has a heritage of being the global leader in financial services, and this has created enormous wealth and opportunity in this Nation. But we must be careful not to rest on our laurels. America's leadership in the global economy is a privilege, not a right, and one we must earn through innovation and hard work. Europe, China, Singapore, and other nations have a head start on the United States in implementing financial technology and integrating it into their economies. We have a window to catch up because the U.S. dollar is still the world's reserve currency and because our central role in payments and the capital markets put us there. But let's not make a mistake here; we still have a lot of catching up to do. The digital asset reporting provisions in the infrastructure bill is one of the first times the Senate has been required to grapple with the opportunities and risks of digital assets. I thank Senator Portman for bringing attention to this very important issue: the issue of ensuring tax compliance in the digital asset markets. Everyone should be paying the taxes they owe under the law, and I support the spirit of this provision. I also want to thank Senator Portman for his willingness to work with me over the last week to make changes to the language currently in the bill. It has come a long way. But even with these changes, it isn't quite ready to become law. The Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment is very simple. It clarifies in law what most of us already believe, that validators of distributed ledger data like miners and stakers, hardware wallet providers, and software developers should be required to report transactional data to the Internal Revenue Service. This is common sense. The most important thing this amendment does is say in plain English what the law means. This is so important to startups, small business owners, and ordinary Americans who want to take a risk on their ideas. In many cases, these Americans can't hire a fancy lawyer to tell them what a complicated law means. The amendment makes clear that Congress is about to have a really important debate on the legal status of digital assets as securities or commodities and the appropriate regulatory framework in which to house digital assets. We must make sure that the validators of distributed ledger assets-- like miners and stakers, hardware wallet providers, and software developers--are not in a position to report transaction data to the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. President, this amendment is the first step in a long journey towards America renewing its commitment to innovation and retaining its role as the leader in the global economy. This is why Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Toomey, and I brought this amendment forward. It is because we care deeply about the future of American innovation, and we want to see thoughtful debate and good public policy around these issues. I am very thankful to Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Toomey, Senator Sinema, Senator Portman, and others for allowing us to have this debate today. It will be the first of many in the coming years. I urge my colleagues to thoughtfully consider Senate amendment No. 2498 and to support it when it comes up for a vote. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, this amendment is the first step to determine how we invest in our infrastructure moving forward. Since 2008, we have repeatedly bailed out the highway trust fund. That makes it a trust fund that we cannot actually trust. A highway cost allocation study provides the data that we need in order to make long-term, sustainable, and fiscally sound decisions about how best to invest in our Nation's aging infrastructure. These studies used to occur regularly, but the last one was completed over 20 years ago. My amendment would direct the Department of Transportation to carry out a study in 4 years, giving those of us here in Congress a full year to analyze the results before the highway programs expire once again. We can't continue to burden future generations with out-of-control spending, and this amendment is a signal to future Congresses that we must find lasting solutions for infrastructure investment. I want to thank Senator Kelly and Senator Cornyn for their support in this effort, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, I rise today to recognize my summer 2021 interns. Team Lummis was fortunate to be joined this summer by an amazing group of six interns, in both our State and DC offices. These young people's willingness to participate in an internship shows motivation to learn, dedication to becoming educated and engaged citizens, and a love for the State of Wyoming and this country. Interacting with this group of interns has been rewarding for both my staff and me and given us renewed hope for the future. As they leave our office and embark on their next adventures, I want to thank: Tanner Conley, Karryn MacDonald, Payton McEndree, and Madison Stoddard who served in my DC office; Bailey Harshell, who served in my Casper office; and Sullivan Fagan who served in my Cheyenne office. Keep working hard, take pride in the work you do, and don't forget to enjoy the ride.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, today I am honored to recognize my good friend Dr. Jim Logan, who is being inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Since the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame was established in 1992, 67 agriculture leaders have been recognized for their substantial contributions to our great State. I speak for many when I say Dr. Logan is more than deserving of this distinguished honor. He built an outstanding career in Wyoming and has risen to the highest ranks of his profession. Beyond his professional success, he exemplifies what it means to be an outstanding Wyoming citizen. Dr. Logan began his studies at the University of Wyoming in 1969 and continued his education at Colorado State University earning his doctor of veterinary medicine degree. Upon graduation, he returned home to Riverton, WY, and joined a veterinary medicine practice. He later opened his own practice, and for over 40 years, he graciously served his community. During that time, he established a strong reputation among Wyoming's farmers and ranchers. He quickly excelled and became a reputable leader in his profession. After developing extensive knowledge and expertise in his field, he generously offered many years of service to the State of Wyoming. Dr. Logan served the Wyoming Livestock Board in many capacities, including as the State veterinarian. The agriculture community in Wyoming is grateful for Dr. Logan's contributions and his commitment to health and safety for an industry that makes up the very fabric of Wyoming culture. As a member of various working groups and regulatory boards, he helped address some of the most pressing issues affecting our State. He was a central figure in the development of Wyoming Brucellosis Designated Surveillance Area regulations. With any decision, he constantly kept the best interest of Wyoming's livestock producers in mind. For this, we are thankful. I would also like to mention that Dr. Logan has exceeded all expectations in what it means to be a leader in the community. His passion for agriculture has inspired the next generation of farmers and ranchers. Dr. Logan is a proud supporter of 4-H and FFA, serving as a mentor and instructor to young people with a heart for agriculture. He has also taken on many other leadership responsibilities on several State and national industry associations and committees, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, American Sheep Industry Association, and the Western States Livestock Health Association. Outside of the agriculture industry, he served as the chairman of the Riverton Memorial Hospital Board. Earlier this year, Dr. Logan announced his retirement as the Wyoming State veterinarian. While his retirement is a true loss for farmers and ranchers across the State, no one is more deserving of a happy and joyful retirement. I want to offer my deepest congratulations on a successful career. It is my privilege to recognize Dr. Logan's achievements and honor his induction to the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Wyoming is grateful for his decades of service and respect the personal sacrifices that were made for the State. Dr. Logan, your contributions and dedication will always be remembered. As you start your retirement, you can be proud of the work you have done, but also know that you still have a long ride to enjoy. Happy Trails.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. President, today, Wyoming mourns the loss of a gentle giant, Mike Enzi. Mike spent his life working to make Wyoming a better place while creating opportunities for our people. As the mayor of Gillette, a State legislator, or as a U.S. Senator and senior statesman, Wyoming had no greater champion than Mike Enzi. He always put Wyoming first and worked harder than anyone to serve his constituents. Growing up, Mike's dad would say: I don't care if he is a doctor or a lawyer or a ditchdigger; I just want him to be proud of what he does. If he is a ditchdigger, I want any darned fool to be able to look at that ditch and say: That is a Mike Enzi ditch. That creed became commonplace in Mike's Senate office. I will echo Mike's former chief of staff, Coy Knobel, by saying: I think it is a pretty good ditch. Mike was a soft-spoken leader, but the many legislative wins he delivered attest to the impact of his service. At a time of increasing political incivility, Mike Enzi managed to tactfully and graciously navigate the upper Chamber, producing results that will be felt for generations to come. His retirement left a hole in the Senate, and his death to this world leaves a hole in our State and in our hearts. Throughout Mike's career in the Senate, he came up with multiple plans to address our debt and deficit. As an accountant by training and trade, he knew how to balance a budget and make it through the lean times. He wanted to set our great Nation up for success for his children and his grandchildren. My prayers are with his wife Diana; his children Amy, Emily, and Brad; and his four grandchildren at this very difficult time. I know they are proud of the powerful legacy he leaves behind. We all are, and we have every right to be. To me, personally, he was more than just our senior Senator. I have known Mike since the early 1980s, and over the last 40 years, he has been my personal friend and, as John Barrasso said, mentor. We first worked together when we were both in the Wyoming State Legislature. Then we served together in the Wyoming State Senate. Finally, when he came to the U.S. Senate, I followed him a few years later to the House of Representatives. I always joked that I was just following him around like a puppy dog my whole life. Mike taught me about legislating, but he also taught me about life. He had a rock-solid faith. His faith was his guiding light. It is something that my late husband had, too, and I take comfort in knowing that Mike is peacefully at home in Heaven with his Lord and Savior. I am Lutheran, and in Martin ``Luther's Small Catechism,'' it says that Christians like Mike and me and John are redeemed so that I may be His own and live under Him in His Kingdom and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness. I note that because Mike was such a servant leader. He gave his earthly life to public service, and as Heaven is an everlasting service of the Lord, I know that no one is more prepared for that than Mike. He was a servant leader on Earth, and I know he will be a servant leader in Heaven. I will say one last thing. Mike's unexpected death is a reminder that you can never say thank you to the ones you care about and appreciate too soon or too often. I, along with John, was blessed to be able to pay tribute to Mike's lasting accomplishments and impact on Wyoming just last week when John Barrasso and I recorded a tribute to him and his service to Wyoming's mining community. At this event honoring Mike Enzi, at which he was in attendance in his hometown of Gillette, he joked, he had fun, and he got to enjoy the camaraderie of the people in the State he loved so very much. I am grateful, John, that you and I got to say thank you to him one last time like that. I am heartbroken that Mike has passed away from this life. For selfish reasons, I will miss him terribly. He was a beloved, kind Member of the U.S. Senate. He was an accomplished, quiet leader. He was Wyoming's friend. He was my friend. God bless you, Mike. We will see you down the road. Happy trails. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two troubling nominations by President Biden for positions that have very real impacts on my State of Wyoming and the people who live there. One of the simplest yet truest rules of governance is that personnel is policy. We have seen this rule play out over and over under President Biden. During last year's election, the media created a narrative that a Biden Presidency would unite the country with bipartisanship. That has not happened. Many of the President's policies have been extreme appeals to the far left and decidedly hostile to our way of life in Wyoming and the West. I believe much of this can be traced to the people with whom he has surrounded himself and to those he has appointed. That is why I am so concerned about two of the President's nominees that the Senate is considering. First, there is Tracy Stone-Manning, President Biden's nominee to serve as Director of the Bureau of Land Management. I am particularly interested in this nomination because the BLM manages about 18 million acres in Wyoming and huge tracts of land throughout the West. In fact, 90 percent of Federal and public land is west of the Mississippi. We need a land manager who understands, respects, and implements multiple use of public lands with which Americans in the West are particularly accustomed. The BLM has historically managed for multiple use, which is, in many cases, required by law. Under Ms. Stone-Manning, I am very concerned that multiple-use principles will change. The reason is quite simple. This nominee is a radical. She has been involved with ecoterrorists in the past, including a tree-spiking incident in Idaho. Her extremist ties and past activism have even led a former Obama BLM Director to withdraw his support for her. Wyoming and other States in the West would be completely hamstrung if BLM land policy changed. Given Ms. Stone-Manning's militant history, I am not sure she would care. Then there is David Chipman, President Biden's nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. One would be hard- pressed to identify a worse candidate for the job. According to reports, Chipman may have lost his own gun while serving as an ATF agent. He also failed twice to define the term ``assault weapon'' during his confirmation hearing. This level of irresponsibility and lack of basic firearms knowledge is hardly an endorsement for someone tasked with overseeing gun use in the United States. Chipman has also reportedly accused Black Americans who were successful on an ATF test of cheating because, in his opinion, too many were passing the test. Let's be real. This kind of discrimination would tank a Republican candidate. Mr. Chipman has also endorsed efforts to defund the police and has supported the science fiction-sounding notion of precrime arrests. His idea of effective law enforcement would be to arrest people before they commit crimes. I came to Washington to solve real problems and get things done. I don't care if the solutions come from the right or the left. I am here to support good legislation and good policy. That is why I have backed President Biden's decision to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. That is why I have supported many of his nominees with whom I may disagree on some policy points, but they are nonetheless qualified for the roles--nominees including Janet Yellen, Pete Buttigieg, and Gary Gensler. But based on their past experience and expressed behavior, Tracy Stone-Manning and David Chipman have disqualified themselves and are direct contradictions to the bipartisanship and unity that President Biden called for and promised in his inaugural address. If these extremist nominees are confirmed, they will direct their respective agencies toward ends that are actively and openly hostile to the Wyoming way of life that I am here in Washington to support and defend. I call on President Biden to withdraw these names and, instead, send us nominees for these positions who better reflect the bipartisan reputation the President spent decades cultivating in this Senate. If the President does not withdraw these nominees, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote to reject them. I yield the floor

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges today, July 14, 2021: Tanner Conley, Karryn MacDonald, Payton McEndree, and Madison Stoddard.

Ms. LUMMIS

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