[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 10, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2368-S2373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of David Bernhardt

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senate is just hours away from voting 
on whether to confirm David Bernhardt to head the Interior Department. 
He would replace Ryan Zinke, who was forced from office in the eye of 
an ethical hurricane. I am here tonight to put the Senate on notice 
that I believe, if David Bernhardt is confirmed as Interior Secretary, 
another ethical storm will be on us in the very near future. The Zinke 
ethics hurricane was bad enough. America should not be harmed again if 
it is followed by a Bernhardt ethical typhoon.
  I believe the Bernhardt nomination ought to be stopped in its tracks 
right here, right now. At a minimum, the Senate ought to put on hold 
this whole matter until we can gather more information so an informed 
decision can be based on all the facts.
  At this moment, with the debate hurtling possibly toward an end, 
there are four pending requests by a dozen Senators, including myself, 
for inspector general investigations of the issues involving Mr. 
Bernhardt. In the other body, there are a host of requests for 
investigations as well. There has been a lot of speculation about how 
all of these issues have been aired.
  This is old news, say some. The fact is, that is not right. This 
doesn't go back months. My concerns aren't information that has been 
sitting out in public view for years. The prospect of an investigation 
is developing in real time right now. I am going to run through some of 
the basic facts before getting into deeper details.
  First, according to the Office of Government Ethics, Mr. Bernhardt 
has 27 different former clients who are posing a potential of unlimited 
numbers of conflicts of interests--oil clients, coal clients, water 
clients, major ag and resources clients. All of them have business 
before the Department that the Interior Secretary is supposed to be 
running for the benefit of the public, not for special interests.
  My sense is, with all of these conflicts, Mr. Bernhardt would have 
basically two choices; one, he could comply with the ethics pledge and 
pretty much recuse himself from everything. Lord knows what he would be 
doing all day because he would have to recuse himself; or two, he would 
basically do business and just violate the ethical principles.
  Lately, he seems to have been on what seems like a victory parade on 
Capitol Hill, touting what he says is a record of being a champion of 
ethics, but if you take a look at that record and take a look at what 
was said during his confirmation hearing, as my son William Peter 
Wyden, age 11--pictures available on my iPhone after my presentation--
would say, that Bernhardt statement was one big whopper.
  Mr. Bernhardt served as Deputy Secretary to Ryan Zinke. All through 
this parade of environmental horrors that were visited upon us, Mr. 
Bernhardt was the key man in that office. There is not one shred of 
evidence that Mr. Bernhardt objected to Ryan Zinke's corruption. There 
is no evidence of it. Just think about it. He is always described as 
the guy who made the Interior Department run and that he was the key to 
all of these pieces. Ryan Zinke is out there with flagrant conflicts of 
interest and the like. Yet there is no evidence that Mr. Bernhardt--the 
self-styled expert on ethics--ever objected to anything.
  Second, not even 2 weeks ago, Mr. Bernhardt came before the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee for his nomination. He admitted that he 
had a role in blocking a landmark scientific report on toxic 
pesticides--the kind of report that career, nonpartisan scientists and 
staff spend years developing in close consultation with Department 
lawyers. Mr. Bernhardt's excuse for blocking the report was that it 
needed to be ``read by the lawyers,'' and he gave the impression to the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the country--people were 
following it on C-SPAN--he gave the impression, when he said it needed 
to be read by the lawyers, as though that was not already the routine. 
His claim doesn't pass the smell test. I believe he lied to the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee.
  Third, let's talk about his lobbying. Mr. Bernhardt deregistered as a 
lobbyist to join the Trump transition team before the President's 
inauguration. There is evidence he kept right on lobbying, nonetheless, 
in violation of the law. There is a whole lot of talk about mislabeled 
invoices and simple errors that attempted to explain it all the way. 
The fact is, there were multiple cases in which Mr. Bernhardt was 
engaged in activities that made him the de facto lobbyist, carrying on 
with the same job he had been doing all along.
  So you have a pattern of unethical behavior right in front of our 
eyes. He said he had to do this lawyering. There hadn't been any 
lawyering. Then we go back and look at the rules, and they say that in 
these situations, there is lawyering all the way through the process. 
That is why I am very troubled about his trustworthiness.
  After Ryan Zinke's departure, every Senator ought to be interested in 
restoring integrity and honor to the Interior Department. Yet the Trump 
administration has double downed on its commitment to graft by 
nominating David Bernhardt for this job. As I mentioned, there are 
pending requests for inspector general investigations. I have also 
called for an investigation by the U.S. attorney. Neither of those has 
had adequate time to respond, but the majority leader has rushed this 
nomination to the floor.
  To indicate how fast the nomination is moving, the President 
obviously nominated Mr. Bernhardt to lead the Interior Department less 
than a month ago. Less than 2 weeks ago, the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee held the confirmation hearing on his nomination. 
Exactly a week later, the committee voted to approve it. One week after 
that, the Senate may choose to vote on his final confirmation. I just 
think it is a grave mistake to be moving forward with so many serious 
unanswered questions, and let me go through the history about why.

  The Interior Department is still reeling from Ryan Zinke and what I 
call this self-generated ethical hurricane. In addition to overseeing 
the largest rollback of Federal land protections in American history, 
Ryan Zinke triggered so many Federal inquiries and investigations 
before he resigned in

[[Page S2369]]

shame that you can't even easily track them. By most public reporting, 
he triggered at least 17 different Federal inquiries before he 
officially left office at the start of the year: the inappropriate 
censorship of scientific reports, the wasting of tens of thousands--if 
not hundreds of thousands--of dollars on office doors and chartered 
flights, and of cutting potentially illegal land deals with oil 
industry executives. His rap sheet basically goes on and on. It is as 
long as the Columbia River. In his brief tenure, Ryan Zinke 
demonstrated that he was better at corrupt self-dealing than he was at 
protecting our treasured public lands.
  I mentioned David Bernhardt was Mr. Zinke's Deputy, and he was the 
Solicitor for the Interior Department during the Bush administration. 
He knows a lot about how the Department works.
  I want to say this to my colleagues: If this is a guy who is hands on 
and if he really understands the Department of the Interior, I think 
you have to wonder why Mr. Bernhardt never seems to have objected to 
any of Mr. Zinke's corrupt activities.
  The Interior Department, unfortunately, isn't new to scandal, and I 
am going to take a brief moment to look back at one particular scandal 
that relates to these matters--Julie MacDonald, a notoriously corrupt 
Interior official during the George W. Bush administration who was 
forced to resign.
  In December of 2006, after an anonymous complaint sparked an 
investigation, the inspector general released a report showing that Ms. 
MacDonald had given internal Department documents to industry lobbyists 
and that she had run roughshod over career Department staff who tried 
to stand in her way.
  I had serious concerns about the report and what was happening at the 
Department. So, literally, more than a decade ago, I placed a hold on a 
nominee to the Interior Department, pending some accountability for 
these flagrant abuses by Ms. MacDonald. The next day, which was months 
after the original report became public, she finally resigned. Later 
that year, I requested an expanded probe into Interior decisions 
related to the Endangered Species Act that Ms. MacDonald had been 
involved in.
  There was evidence of her meddling having directly affected species 
in the Pacific Northwest. The Interior's inspector general released a 
report. According to the New York Times, it found ``Ms. MacDonald's 
zeal to advance her agenda has caused considerable harm to the 
integrity of the Endangered Species Act program and to the morale and 
reputation of the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as potential harm 
to individual species.''
  I bring this up because here is where David Bernhardt figures into 
the story.
  A few weeks ago, I was surprised that Mr. Bernhardt requested to meet 
with me in my office. I said I would be glad to do it. When nominees 
come by, I usually just start with the questions: Why should I vote for 
you? Why should I be supportive? It is kind of an easy way for the 
nominee to get into it. That is why I do it.
  What Mr. Bernhardt said was that he was a big ethics champion.
  He said: Hey, do you remember Julie MacDonald? I am captain ethics. I 
advised Julie MacDonald to clean up her act.
  I didn't ask Mr. Bernhardt about Julie MacDonald. He brought it up.
  I have met with a lot of nominees, and I have heard a lot of reasons 
as to why they deserve my vote, but this meeting was certainly a head-
scratcher. A nominee who had been present for Ryan Zinke's reign of 
corruption and conflict and who had seemed not to do anything about it 
had shown up, at his request, to tout his own ethics.
  A few hours after the meeting in my office with Mr. Bernhardt, I 
decided I would look at his record for myself. Interior Department 
documents that had been obtained through a Freedom of Information Act 
request showed he had recently blocked the release of a Fish and 
Wildlife report about the effects of dangerous, toxic pesticides.
  Career staff at the Fish and Wildlife Service, an Interior Department 
Agency, were on the brink of completing a comprehensive report on the 
impact of three pesticides on, potentially, hundreds of endangered 
species. This was a report by career staff. It was not put together by 
people who were political appointees. It defined pesticides that were 
so dangerous and so toxic that they jeopardized the continued existence 
of more than 1,000 species. This report, had it been made public, would 
have had profound consequences for pesticide manufacturers in the 
businesses that had used them.
  The dedicated team of career staff at the Fish and Wildlife Service 
that had worked so long on this in order to make sure they really dug 
into the science--and they took years to be fastidious about it--wanted 
to make it public. The team was working rapidly to submit its findings 
to the Environmental Protection Agency for its review.
  The documents show that before this landmark report could make it 
into public view, Mr. Bernhardt came along and pushed himself into the 
middle of the process. The documents show his emails on the pesticide 
report. He demanded briefings from these career scientists. They show 
meetings with White House officials and others about the specific 
section of the law that governs the role of Fish and Wildlife in these 
types of assessments. There is even included an email in which Mr. 
Bernhardt edited the letter that Interior officials used to block the 
release of the pesticide report. There were digital fingerprints 
everywhere.
  I have to say that I looked at this, and I said: This sure sounds 
like Julie MacDonald all over again. The guy who said: ``Hey, I was the 
one who pushed Julie MacDonald to clean up her act,'' looked like he 
was meddling with the science just the way Julie MacDonald was. Ms. 
MacDonald was found by the inspector general to have meddled with the 
scientific conclusions, and now there is David Bernhardt, who has been 
alleged to have manipulated the process and blocked the release of an 
Endangered Species Act report.
  So Mr. Bernhardt came to say that his ethics were unimpeachable and 
that he was above reproach. Yet I will tell you, for my colleagues who 
are thinking about this, if you read the documents I read from the 
Freedom of Information Act, they make him sound like another Julie 
MacDonald. I worked through all of these documents, and they left me 
with the impression that Mr. Bernhardt had lied to me about his ethics 
during our one-on-one meeting as well. It left me wondering why he 
would go out of his way to talk up his ethics when he must have known 
the truth was going to come out eventually.
  During his confirmation hearing, he claimed he would strive to bring 
a culture of ethical compliance. He said he hoped to overhaul the 
ethics of the Ryan Zinke period and the Julie MacDonald experience. 
Senators called his qualifications unparalleled and claimed that the 
allegations of ethical misconduct against him were false. I respect 
those colleagues who have their opinions. I have my own, and my 
opinions are going to be based on the documents.
  The document I entered into the record at his confirmation hearing 
showed that the pesticide industry repeatedly asked political 
appointees at the Interior Department and at the Environmental 
Protection Agency to intervene in the scientific analysis. It showed 
that Mr. Bernhardt eventually did so.
  According to documents that had been made public by the Freedom of 
Information Act, a pesticide industry attorney wrote to then-Secretary 
Zinke and then-Administrator Scott Pruitt on April 13 of 2017. The 
pesticide industry was asking for changes to the Endangered Species 
Act. The industry followed it up very shortly with a request to meet 
with the Environmental Protection Agency's staff. At that time, a 
pesticide industry executive called an attorney of the Interior 
Department for a meeting as well. Another official from a pesticide 
trade association reached out to the same Interior Department attorney 
to discuss the Endangered Species Act.
  Other supporting documentation consisted of an email that was dated 
October 5, 2017, from Mr. Bernhardt to Gary Frazer, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service's Assistant Director, who handles these endangered 
species. He ``was the top official overseeing the assessment of the 
impact,'' according to the press, while looking at the implications of 
these pesticides. In this email, Mr. Bernhardt asked Mr. Frazer for a 
briefing the following week. Additional documents

[[Page S2370]]

show that Mr. Bernhardt held a series of meetings with Mr. Frazer over 
the next 3 weeks.
  On October 30, according to the calendar released by the Freedom of 
Information Act, Mr. Bernhardt met with White House officials to 
discuss Endangered Species Act provisions. It is called section 7. That 
is the section that pertains to the role that the Fish and Wildlife 
plays in ensuring other Agencies aren't jeopardizing species.
  An email from November of 2017 shows Mr. Bernhardt edited the draft 
of a letter from career Fish and Wildlife Service staff to the EPA. It 
announced the Interior Department wouldn't be delivering the Fish and 
Wildlife's assessment to the Agency as planned. This, colleagues, is 
where Mr. Bernhardt put the brakes on this important Fish and Wildlife 
report about the pesticides.
  According to a New York Times report, the pesticide analysis was 
blocked in conjunction with a ``radical shift'' in how the Fish and 
Wildlife analyzes the effects of these pesticides. The change greatly 
increased the burden of proof the Agency is required to meet to 
demonstrate pesticide effects on species. According to that article in 
the Times, it would likely result in fewer new restrictions on 
pesticide use. CropLife and RISE--two trade associations that represent 
the pesticide companies--were very much in favor of this. They were 
praising it.
  Based on the documents, at the hearing, I asked Mr. Bernhardt why he 
would come to my office and sell me on ethics when the reports and the 
documents I just read showed otherwise. He had no response.
  At the hearing, I asked Mr. Bernhardt specifically why he would come 
to the office and make these claims. He had no response at the hearing 
but took a long sip of water as though he had meant to go on awhile. 
Mr. Bernhardt made the claim that career Fish and Wildlife staff 
``clearly'' didn't complete any legal review on the pesticide report, 
which is why he stepped in.
  During the hearing and while under oath, I believe Mr. Bernhardt 
confirmed allegations that he interfered with the release of an 
Endangered Species Act report. He didn't, however, acknowledge that his 
involvement was inappropriate political meddling.
  Following the hearing and with serious questions remaining about 
whether he had lied under oath to the committee, I wrote the Interior 
Department's inspector general for her help in getting to the bottom of 
the matter. Here are the facts I included:
  On March 28, 2019, Mr. Bernhardt appeared before the U.S. Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for his confirmation hearing 
to become Secretary of the Department of the Interior. I questioned him 
about these documents and his role in blocking the Fish and Wildlife's 
analyses. He confirmed to me that he had reviewed the analyses. He 
claimed he believed the analyses had not been subject to legal review 
and made the determination to delay the report.
  Second, Mr. Bernhardt's response:

       You're dealing with some of the most difficult 
     consultations on the planet, and when I read the document, my 
     reaction to it was this is really an interesting draft. But 
     it clearly didn't have any legal review, and in our world you 
     can't ignore the law and come up with a scheme.

  He continued:

       And so what we decided is that the approach needed to be 
     readdressed.

  Mr. Bernhardt's answer is totally off base with respect to the way 
legal analyses work.
  Under standard procedure, there would be legal analysis through the 
development of this kind of fish and wildlife report. It would involve 
lawyers at Fish and Wildlife, Interior Department, or both.
  So I am especially troubled by what appears to be a political 
appointee meddling in the scientific process with respect to a report 
that revealed the extraordinary danger of toxic pesticides.
  I am the senior member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
a former chairman of the committee. I cannot recall ever having this 
kind of exchange with a nominee.
  That is why I had to request that the Office of Inspector General 
investigate the following: What role did Mr. Bernhardt and other 
political appointees at the Interior Department play in delaying or 
obstructing the Fish and Wildlife Service pesticide report? What role 
did he play in changing Fish and Wildlife policy with regard to this 
key section in the Endangered Species Act? What role did other 
political appointees--Agriculture Senior Advisor, former CropLife 
lobbyist, Ms. Adcock--play in the Interior Department and Fish and 
Wildlife Service's decision making? Whether, as Mr. Bernhardt alleged 
to me under oath on March 28, 2019, the Fish and Wildlife draft 
analysis ``clearly didn't have any legal review'' and whether, as Mr. 
Bernhardt alleged to me, career lawyers at the Interior Department 
agreed with his analysis--these are all questions that haven't been 
answered.
  I would just say to the Senate, if you need more evidence that there 
are too many questions to allow this nomination to move forward, the 
story just gets more complicated.
  After Mr. Bernhardt demonstrated that he simply was going to dance 
around the truth, the Senate has to question his basic understanding of 
the law.
  So on Monday, I asked the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia 
to thoroughly investigate potential civil and criminal violations of 
the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by Mr. Bernhardt, as well as his 
former lobbying firm.
  By the way, again, a newspaper reports--this time the Washington 
Post--that Mr. Bernhardt's ex-firm has quadrupled its business, earning 
nearly $5 million to lobby the Interior Department since he has taken 
his most recent spin through the Interior Department revolving door.
  So here is what I said to the U.S. attorney: Lobbying Disclosure Act 
filings show Mr. Bernhardt registered to lobby for his law firm on 
behalf of the Westlands Water District on March 30, 2011. Westlands is 
the largest agricultural water district in the United States, in 
central California. Public reporting indicates Mr. Bernhardt ran his 
former lobby firm's natural resources department.
  That lobby firm filed its 2016 fourth quarter report on November 18, 
2016--1 week after the 2016 Presidential election--terminating Mr. 
Bernhardt's lobbying status as of that day.
  Public reporting at the time indicates Mr. Bernhardt ``delisted 
himself as a lobbyist in November after Trump won the election to avoid 
running afoul of the new President's ban on lobbyists joining his 
administration.''
  Public reporting and documents obtained via public records show that 
Mr. Bernhardt maintained his relationship with Westlands after his 
lobbyist deregistration on November 18, 2016. Furthermore, he may have 
repeatedly engaged in activity that would require him to continue 
registering as a Federal lobbyist. So he claimed he was no longer a 
lobbyist, but it sure looks as though he went right on lobbying.
  The Lobbying Disclosure Act is pretty clear. I will read from public 
guidance provided by the U.S. House of Representatives. A lobbyist can 
terminate their registration ``only when the individual's lobbying 
activities on behalf of that client did not constitute at the end of 
the quarter . . . 20 percent of the time that such employee is engaged 
in total activities for that client; or that individual doesn't 
reasonably expect to make further lobbying contacts.''
  What does the law mean by ``lobbying contacts?'' That is pretty clear 
too. The same guidance says it is ``any oral, written, or electronic 
communication to a covered Federal official that is made on behalf of a 
client'' with regard to Federal legislation, rulemaking, executive 
orders and the like. ``Covered Federal officials'' include all Members 
of Congress and their staff.
  The evidence I included in my request to the U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Columbia included several emails showing Mr. Bernhardt may 
have engaged in repeated, regulated lobbying contacts with covered 
Federal legislative branch officials.
  The first time, according to the information that is already public, 
appears to be on November 22, 2016, just a few days after he 
deregistered as a lobbyist. Mr. Bernhardt agreed to join a conference 
call with Westlands and the offices of Representative Devin Nunes and 
former Representative Valadao to discuss upcoming legislation.
  The second and third times are covered in a complaint filed with the 
U.S.

[[Page S2371]]

attorney's office in 2017. That complaint included copies of emails 
documenting Mr. Bernhardt's role in 2016 and 2017 as an intermediary 
for congressional staff and Westlands. It also appeared to include a 
trip to California for Mr. Bernhardt, paid for by Westlands.
  So here is what it appears happened: Mr. Bernhardt provided his 
client, Westlands, with information about legislative efforts in 2016 
and 2017. His old lobbying firm also disclosed lobbying on behalf of 
Westlands on those same legislative efforts over the same timeframe.
  Another new report shows that Mr. Bernhardt was also in contact in 
December 2016 with a Senate employee covered by lobbying regulations.
  On March 8, 2017, his old lobby firm sent Westlands an invoice for 
more than $27,000 for ``Federal lobbying.'' It included an itemized 
list of expenses related to Mr. Bernhardt's January 2017 travel to 
California for a ``Westlands'' trip.
  On April 20, 2017, the lobbying firm filed its 2017 first quarter 
disclosure that is required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act. It showed 
Westlands paid the firm $70,000 for lobbying services related to H.R. 
1769, a bill involving the San Luis unit drainage district, among other 
measures. It was a longstanding priority for Westlands--a moneymaking 
opportunity. It was sponsored by then-Representative Valadao, one of 
the Congressmen Mr. Bernhardt appears to have been in contact with on 
November 22, 2016, and January 2, 2017.
  The lobby firm's 2017 first quarter disclosure was filed shortly 
after the firm sent Westlands the March invoice for Mr. Bernhardt's 
February 2017 ``Federal lobbying'' activity.
  According to a media report in July of 2017, a Westlands 
representative claimed Bernhardt ceased all lobbying activity ``the 
moment he deregistered as a lobbyist.'' In May of 2017, during his 
confirmation process to be Deputy Secretary, Mr. Bernhardt also claimed 
in writing to the committee he had ``not engaged in regulated lobbying 
on behalf of Westlands Water District after November 18, 2016.''
  These Bernhardt claims simply do not line up with the documents. 
Perhaps that is why he refused when one of my colleagues requested he 
provide complete records relating to any communications he had with 
covered legislative branch officials after the date of his 
deregistration.
  Let me repeat that.
  When one of the Senators on the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee asked Mr. Bernhardt to provide documents that would help the 
committee get to the bottom of this issue, he just stonewalled. He just 
refused.
  The Lobbying Disclosure Act isn't that burdensome. The firm and Mr. 
Bernhardt could have chosen to disclose his lobbying activity on behalf 
of Westlands. They chose not to do so, so everybody is going to ask 
why.
  The U.S. attorney's office is responsible for enforcement of the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. So this week I wrote to the U.S. 
attorney, requesting a thorough investigation.
  I have spent this time highlighting some of the major reasons that 
make me feel strongly that Mr. Bernhardt's nomination should not move 
forward at this time. Chief among them are that I have two pending 
requests for investigations at this time, neither of which have been 
responded to because it has been a short time and the majority leader 
is interested in steamrolling this flawed nominee by the American 
people.
  I am just going to conclude my remarks by summarizing a couple of Mr. 
Bernhardt's greatest hits with respect to why he is thoroughly 
unqualified to be Secretary of the Department of Interior.
  The first is the matter of the conflicts. He is a former oil 
lobbyist. In fact, at one point, I was going to say that he was the oil 
industry's guy, but the oil industry lobbyists beat me to it. A secret 
tape came out, and they were quoted as saying: We are glad he is our 
guy. Dozens of his ex-clients have business before Interior. According 
to his ethics pledge, he should be conflicted out of working on those 
issues. If he remains involved, he will be flagrantly violating his 
ethics pledge. So if he follows the rules and stays out of all of these 
issues his clients have before the Department, I will tell you, for the 
life of me, I can't figure out what he is going to do all day because 
he is going to be conflicted out of all of these matters that are going 
to be before the Department.
  Just last week, Mr. Bernhardt's previously unrevealed calendars were 
partially made public. To nobody's surprise, many of those secret 
meetings have been with industry. This is yet another item that 
Congress, including the other body, has asked for more information 
about.
  So the damage has been done. The conflicts are clear. He has already 
taken actions that benefit his former clients and former employers.
  He has taken steps specifically to weaken the Endangered Species 
Act--worked to weaken wildlife protections for a California fish 
species, according to another investigation. This weakening of 
protections for the California fish species is a policy change that one 
of Mr. Bernhardt's former clients--Westlands Water District--had been 
pushing for for years.
  Mr. Bernhardt's Interior announced that the Agency is basically going 
to stop holding oil companies accountable for oilspills by ending 
enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This move has been long 
supported by yet another energy lobby, another one of Mr. Bernhardt's 
former clients.
  Mr. Bernhardt's Interior Department increased drilling and mining 
access on millions of acres of sage-grouse habitat across five Western 
States. That drilling will be conducted by companies, again, linked to 
Mr. Bernhardt. It could make the sage-grouse an endangered species, and 
it could endanger the livelihoods of ranching families on the rural 
frontier who are just hoping to preserve their traditional way of life.
  Mr. Bernhardt continues delivering for the oil and gas industry. A 
CNN report found the Agency has advanced at least 15 policies supported 
by his former clients during his time at Interior Department--
everything from the elimination of BLM's methane reduction rules and 
gutting safety rules for natural gas drilling on public lands, to 
risking the lives of workers by reducing safety standards for offshore 
drilling. I don't think it is any big surprise why those oil executives 
were cheering about Mr. Bernhardt's nomination and calling him, 
literally, their guy.
  During the longest government shutdown on record, when national parks 
were unstaffed and overflowing with human waste, Mr. Bernhardt even 
recalled Interior employees to specifically approve hundreds of 
drilling permits. Certainly, the oil and gas giants are getting their 
money's worth.
  To cap off my list, Mr. Bernhardt's Interior Department even proposed 
opening up the entire U.S. coastline for offshore oil drilling.
  I am heading home. I am sure my colleague from North Dakota and other 
Senators are also. I am having town meetings and listening to people. 
There isn't going to be anybody who comes to my town meetings starting 
in the next couple of days who wants to see the Oregon coastline up for 
offshore drilling or who wants to see the oil derricks at Haystack 
Rock, and they don't want to be standing on our beaches holding oil-
soaked sponges.
  The entire time Mr. Bernhardt has been at the Interior Department, 
his former lobbying firm has just been raking in the cash. So the 
question really becomes: Has he already broken the law? My bottom line 
is that the Senate ought to take the time to actually look into that 
issue. It isn't some trivial matter after the self-generated Zinke 
ethical hurricane.
  Shouldn't we say, after that ethics horror show, that it is the job 
of every Member in the Senate--every Democrat and every Republican--to 
work for policies that bring honor and credibility back to the Interior 
Department? I just don't think that is going to be the case if this 
body confirms David Bernhardt.
  We will be voting, at least tonight, on the procedure, and depending 
on how that goes, we may be voting on final passage.
  I will just tell you that I don't want to be back on this floor in a 
matter of months talking about yet another Interior leader, like Ryan 
Zinke, forced from office as the result of a grotesque scandal. The 
Senate doesn't have to leave the door of the Interior Department wide 
open for more conflicted individuals to waltz into positions of

[[Page S2372]]

power where they can work against the interests of the American people. 
I believe that is exactly what America will get from David Bernhardt.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this rush to confirm 
David Bernhardt to serve as the 53rd Secretary of the Interior.
  The Secretary of the Interior is the chief steward of nearly 500 
million acres of public lands and 1.7 billion acres of the Outer 
Continental Shelf. The Interior Secretary is charged with managing the 
public's natural resources and protecting our Nation's most iconic 
spaces for now and for generations to come, and the Secretary has the 
duty of making sure that our trust and treaty responsibilities to 
American Indians and Alaska Natives are met. It is essential to have 
the right individual serving in this position--someone who has a record 
of honoring these critical responsibilities and someone who will 
approach the solemn duties with only the interests of the American 
people at the top of his or her agenda.
  After considering the whole of Mr. Bernhardt's record, especially the 
open questions about his actions that have benefited his former 
clients, I cannot vote to confirm this nominee. His policies are too 
slanted toward private interests, and as a former lobbyist for many of 
these interests, his conflicts are too many. Any discussion of this 
nomination must begin there--by addressing the serious conflicts of 
interest that Mr. Bernhardt brings to this role and by addressing the 
ethical cloud that is plainly hanging over this nomination.
  I am rising today to call on the Republican leadership to put a halt 
to this nomination until that ethical cloud can be cleared, and if that 
cloud cannot be cleared, then, Mr. Bernhardt should be withdrawn.
  The concerns that have been raised are serious. Let's talk about a 
few of them.
  Much has been made of Mr. Bernhardt's ethics pledge and whether he 
has complied with the letter of the law, but we all know that he 
certainly has not complied with the spirit of the law. The Interior 
Department has begun or completed at least 19 policy actions requested 
or supported by at least 16 of Mr. Bernhardt's former clients since he 
came to Interior, according to just 1 analysis.
  Mr. Bernhardt's ethics pledge didn't stop him from trying to divert 
water to his former client, Westlands Water District in California's 
Central Valley, one of the largest agricultural water users in the 
county. On their behalf, Mr. Bernhardt sought to weaken protections for 
endangered fish species so that his client could pump more water. While 
an Interior official ``verbally'' ruled that he could participate in 
the matter, outside ethics experts disagreed. Mr. Bernhardt is clearly 
making a decision that directly benefits one of his former clients.
  Last month, I wrote to the DOI inspector general requesting an 
investigation into this matter. The Senate should know the outcome of 
such reviews before considering a Cabinet nominee. Otherwise, we are 
flying blind when it comes to a nominee's fitness for office.
  Just last week, it came to light that Mr. Bernhardt continued to work 
with Westlands after he filed notice that he was no longer lobbying on 
its behalf. He filed his notice on November 2016, but invoices from Mr. 
Bernhardt's firm show that he worked with his client all the way up to 
his nomination for Deputy Secretary.
  A spokeswoman claims that the work was not technically ``lobbying,'' 
but the fact is that Mr. Bernhardt's actions are benefiting his former 
clients. Westlands is getting the relief from the Endangered Species 
Act that they have sought for years.
  Once again, we need to know the full truth before we can vote on a 
nominee of such consequence.
  Americans deserve to have confidence in the impartiality of public 
officials, but how can they when the Trump administration has become a 
revolving door of lobbyists and industry advocates?
  As an attorney and lobbyist, Mr. Bernhardt built a profitable career 
trying to open public lands for development for his clients, and he 
spent years attacking the foundation of the Endangered Species Act. The 
problem is that since assuming his role as Deputy Secretary, he has 
continued to advocate for policies that benefit these same special 
interests.
  He helped to open millions of acres of public lands to oil and gas 
drilling, while looking to limit public input, and helped to gut 
protections that would mitigate the environmental harm of such 
development.
  He has tried to manipulate and bury the science of toxic pesticides 
that threaten endangered species. He has largely ignored the science of 
climate change. None of this is a personal attack on the Deputy 
Secretary, but we simply should not install private industry's 
representatives to run the Department of the Interior, because when we 
do, the American people pay the price.
  Just look at the policy outcomes. Climate change, for instance, is an 
existential issue--the most pressing issue facing our planet. The 
Department of the Interior oversees 20 percent of the lands in our 
Nation. These lands and their ecosystems and wildlife are threatened by 
a changing climate: drought and wildfires in the Southwest, wildfires 
and flooding in California, and hurricanes in the Southeast.
  Mr. Bernhardt has been clear that climate science will take a 
backseat to the President's politics. Under Mr. Bernhardt's guidance, 
the Department is blatantly ignoring the science of climate change. The 
Department took down its climate change web page, rescinded orders and 
policies aimed at addressing the impacts of climate change, and gutted 
the methane emission control rule at the behest of the worst performers 
in the oil and gas industry.
  Mr. Bernhardt now has the audacity to claim that there are no laws on 
the books that require Interior to act on climate change, all because 
his administration has attempted to dismantle every rule or regulation 
that requires the Department to take action.
  Very concerning is Mr. Bernhardt's role as the Trump administration's 
architect of opening public lands for unfettered energy development. In 
the last 2 years, Interior has auctioned off more than 16.8 million 
acres of public land for oil and gas drilling. In the first quarter of 
2019, nearly 2.3 million more acres were put on the auction block. That 
includes potential lease sales within striking distance of the Chaco 
Culture National Historical Park, a UNESCO world heritage site sacred 
to the Tribes. That is why I just introduced legislation to permanently 
establish a 10-mile buffer surrounding Chaco so that we can enjoy this 
culturally significant area for generations to come without the 
constant threat of development.
  The Department has tried to open up nearly all coastal waters for 
offshore drilling and is speeding toward selling leases to drill in the 
coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--home to Native 
American Tribes and an area that supports a diversity of wildlife in a 
wild and untamed setting unlike any other on this planet. There are 
nearly 250 species, from caribou and grizzly bears to wolves and 
migratory birds. Yet this administration, under Mr. Bernhardt, is 
racing toward an outcome that could decimate this unique, grand, and 
biologically rich place.
  The Endangered Species Act stands as the Nation's commitment to 
protect wildlife from extinction. Protecting biodiversity is more 
important now than ever, as we see animal and plant species dying off 
in record numbers due to the loss of habitat and climate change.
  Mr. Bernhardt has had the ESA in his sights for a long time. Under 
his leadership, Interior has now proposed allowing economic 
considerations to override wildlife protections. Extinction is becoming 
just another cost of doing business.
  As I mentioned, on behalf of his former client Westlands, Mr. 
Bernhardt

[[Page S2373]]

sought to weaken protections for endangered fish species, the delta 
smelt, and the Chinook salmon so that Westlands could pump more water. 
Mr. Bernhardt has looked to implement the very same policies he lobbied 
for, from within the walls of the Department. As Deputy Secretary, Mr. 
Bernhardt also dismantled a landmark agreement among bipartisan western 
Governors to protect the greater sage-grouse, opening up millions of 
acres of its habitat to oil and gas drilling without protections.
  The Endangered Species Act should be classified as ``endangered'' 
under Mr. Bernhardt's client-friendly Interior Department.
  Let's talk about another extinction risk: chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos 
is not yet a household name like DDT, but it will be. It is a dangerous 
neurotoxin used in agriculture throughout the United States. It is 
linked to brain damage in children and can cause serious harm to human 
health and wildlife.
  In 2016, scientists from the EPA recommended a ban on all uses of 
this toxic pesticide. One of Scott Pruitt's first actions as EPA 
Administrator was to rescind that proposed ban. One of Mr. Bernhardt's 
early actions as Deputy Secretary was to bury a scientific study 
concluding that chlorpyrifos and another pesticide could ``jeopardize 
the continued existence'' of more than 1,200 endangered birds, fish, 
and other animals and plants. Let me repeat. More than 1,200 birds, 
fish, and other species are at risk of extinction from two toxic 
pesticides. Mr. Bernhardt reportedly ordered the staff to go back to 
the drawing board to block the release of this report.
  I have been working to get chlorpyrifos off the market with 
legislation, and the Federal courts have ordered EPA to move forward 
with the ban. There is no good reason chlorpyrifos is still in use 
except that it is manufactured by a powerful DowDuPont company. Mr. 
Bernhardt's withdrawal of the scientific study serves Big Chemical's 
interests, not the public's.
  One of the most egregious anti-conservation actions of this 
administration is the unprecedented attacks on the Antiquities Act, 
which has stood since President Theodore Roosevelt. The President 
reduced Bears Ears National Monument by 85 percent and Grand Staircase-
Escalante by over 45 percent--the largest rollback of protections for 
our collective Federal lands in history and an unlawful Presidential 
action, in my view.
  Each of these monuments is home to ruggedly beautiful lands that are 
at risk. The Bears Ears designation was the result of many years of 
hard work and collaboration by five Tribes who trace their ancestry to 
this remarkable area. Now the Department is pushing to open up the land 
outside their boundaries for coal and mineral mining corporations.
  Last month, I led 16 Democratic Senators in a letter to Mr. Bernhardt 
seeking his commitment to leave existing boundaries of other national 
monuments intact. So far, we have received no assurance from Mr. 
Bernhardt that any other monuments won't meet the same fate as Bears 
Ears and Grand Staircase.
  The pattern is clear: From the Arctic Refuge to California's Central 
Valley, from the Atlantic coast to Bears Ears, Mr. Bernhardt's Interior 
Department places profits over people.
  The American public deserves an Interior Secretary they can trust to 
look out for their interests--protecting public land, species, the air, 
and the water--but Mr. Bernhardt has not demonstrated that he has the 
necessary independence from his former clients. He has made them very 
happy. He has shut out scientists, Native Americans, conservationists, 
and the American people. He is tangled with conflicts.
  The Senate should stop the rush to confirm Deputy Secretary Bernhardt 
while these fundamental ethics and conflicts of interest questions are 
under review. If we move forward, I will vote no on this nomination.
  Before I conclude, I would like to offer one final point. I made my 
concerns with Mr. Bernhardt clear, but if Mr. Bernhardt is confirmed, 
one of his most important duties will be honoring our trust 
responsibility to Native Americans. On this count, I hope he will do 
better than what the Trump Interior Department has shown us so far.
  As the vice chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I want 
to ensure that the Department respects Tribes' sovereignty and self-
determination and engages in meaningful consultation with Tribes. The 
Trump administration's record with Tribes and Native communities is, to 
put it lightly, lacking. The Tribes in New Mexico do not believe they 
are being properly consulted as leasing pushes ahead close to Chaco 
Canyon.
  For 3 years running, the administration has proposed budgets that 
would significantly cut BIA and BIE funding. Those are education 
budgets and budgets that help Native Americans on their reservations.
  Congress has historically worked across party lines on Native issues. 
Congress rejected the administration's proposed cuts for fiscal years 
2018 and 2019, and I fully expect it to do so again for 2020.
  If confirmed, I would like to see Mr. Bernhardt follow suit and 
commit to do better on Tribal issues, commit to meet with Tribal 
leaders to understand their priorities and demonstrate in action that 
he respects Tribal sovereignty and that he commits the Agency to 
consult with Tribes whenever their interests are affected.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.