Nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, President Biden's nominee to lead the Bureau of Land Management, Tracy 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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source