vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 56, the nays are 426789 the nomination -- 42, the nomination is confirmed. the majority. the senate is not in order. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent with respect to the brady nomination the motion to reconsider be considered made -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent with respect to the brady nomination, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we,

the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on on the nomination of daiched steven -- daiched steven morales of texas to be united states district judge for the district of texas. the presiding officer: the mandatory quorum call has been waived. is it the sense of the senate for david steven morales shall be the judge for the direct of texas will be brought to a close. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 57, the nays are 41. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. david steven morales of texas to be united states district judge for the southern district of texas. mr. daines: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: madam president, two years ago i exposed the democrats' plans for socialized medicine and allowed every senator here to take a clear stand and reject this disastrous idea once and for all. unfortunately, very few senate democrats were willing to oppose socialized medicine then.

well, they're back at it again today. and so now i'm here again to shed some much-needed light on what seems to be a never-ending game to score political points and, even worse, set the stage for terrible policy -- a continuing call for socialized medicine. we're seeing this false narrative of, quote, free socialized medicine making headlines. but, you see, it's not actually free. somebody's got to pay for it. in fact, every single one of us -- our kids and our grandkids -- will be paying for it a long time if this nonsensical plan backs reality. montanans face enough hardships with rising prescription drug costs and rising premiums. the democrats' socialized medicine scheme will cost the american taxpayer $32 trillion over ten years -- $32 trillion. not to mention this seem would kick millions off their health

care plan and eliminate private health insurance. now, in combination with the left's absurd green new deal, what we're seeing here today, madam president, is a pattern when it comes to the democrats' very liberal and leftist agenda. they don't blink an eye when their liberal policies cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars. and they aren't coming up with feasible solutions. in fact, too many montanans are faced with the very tough choice of choosing between health and putting food on the table. prescription drug prices are out of control. montanans are sick and tired of being sick and tired. they want congress to do something. they want results. they want outcomes. and that's why i've been fighting for a commonsense solution like my bill that creates act, which addresses high prescription drug costs and improves access to care in our

rural communities. the left's pie-in-the-sky proposal promises a great deal, but we all know the extent of empty promises in this town. these proposals do nothing but throw hardworking montanans your honor the bus, and they foot the massive tax bill to the taxpayers and prop up failed policies just to appease our radicalizing base across this country in the democrat party. the people of montana want better than this. they deserve better than this. so to my colleagues who are attempting to take a hard run to the left to score some points within their base, i simply ask you this: will you please put your country over your party. will you please put the interests of the people over your own self-political interests. or will you continue to peddle the lie of socialized medicine to the american people? i, for one, think it's time we get to work of the.

it's time we hunker down, produce the real results that our people across the nation deserve. they deserve serious answers. they deserve serious solutions. and it's long overdue that we give them that. thank you, and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, thank you. i rise to speak today about the vote we cast earlier confirming retired general john abizaid to be united states ambassador to saudi arabia. i was proud to vote for him. i think he is very well-qualified that are that position. the position has been vacant since january of 2017. other critical countries in this most important region are without ambassadors -- egypt, jordan, and pakistan. general abizaid has his work cut out for him, and i want to speak specifically about some of the challenges in saudi arabia now and i believe there is a great day of reckoning that is now

pending in the u.s.-saudi relationship. last week the house of representatives passed a senates resolution ordering the president to stop u.s. military action in support of saudi arabia's intervention in yemen's civil war. the senate had earlier act -- acted on that bill in 2018. it went to the house and died. the senate took up the bill again recently and the house passed it. the bill is now on its way to the president's desk. the president has indicated that he is likely to veto the bill, to continue u.s. support for saudi military activity in yemen, and if that happens, the bill will come back to the senate and the senate will then have the opportunity to vote on whether that veto should be overridden. the house vote to withdraw u.s. support for this military activity was 247-175. the senate vote was 54-46. the yemen six war has been a

humanitarian -- the yemen civil war has been a humanitarian catastrophe. many of my colleagues have spoken at length about this. i will not speak about it at length. but it has been a humanitarian disaster and the u.s. should not be involved. saudi intervention has made it worse. as of november 2018, nearly 7,000 civilians have been killed, nearly 11,000 have been wounded. the majority by saudi arabian-led coalition air strikes -- many that are targeted and prosecuted in amateurish ways -- those statistics,, according to the office of the u.n. high commissioner for human rights, the actual civilian casualties are likely much higher because the civil war has also led to famine and disease outbreaks that have killed many, many more. thousands have been displaced by footing and millions are suffering from shortage of food and medical care with the

country on the brink of famine. 12 million to 13 million civilians at risk of starvation, largely because of the effect of this civil war. in addition to the poor prosecution of this military activity by saudi arabia, there are other issues that we have to grapple with. a virginia resident who is saudi citizen, adnan khashoggi, who was a journalist for "the washington post," criticized the saudi policy in yemen. for his advocacy against the war, the government of saudi arabia lured him into their consulate is stan balance, then murdered him, dismembering his body with a bone saw. then the saudi government engaged in a disinformation campaign lying to the united states and to the world about what happened saying that he had left the embassy on his own, saying that it had been an accident. coming up with all manner of

excuses before the -- even the cursory investigation demonstrated that he'd been assassinated. the u.s. intelligence community is unified in their assessment of what happened to this virginia resident, a gross violation of human rights to assassinate a journalist, especially in a safe haven, which is what a consulate is supposed to be. in addition to the brutal murder of adnan khashoggi, saudi arabia has been arresting civil rights activists for year, including recently two virginia residents, slusef, a saudi citizen who studied at virginia commonwealth university in richmond, and then went back to saudi arabia to teach women computer science. her son salah al hider also has been arrested for advocating for civil rights. what rights rights are they advg for? the right for women to drive.

the right of women to make some of their own decisions under saudi law, the decisions of women must -- cannot be paid independently but must generally be agreed to by either a father or husband. and simply for advocating that women be treated as equal with equal rights, these virginia residents and many others have been jailed, have been tortured. you would think that the united states would be up in arms about the assassination of a u.s. resident journalist, about the arrest of u.s. residents, including u.s. citizens advocating for women's rights. but that is not the case. the president refuses to submit a report determining whether or not adnan khashoggi's murder was a human rights violation, the magnitsky act is an act passed by congress that was designed to promote cooperation between the legislative and executive branches when congress has information to suggest that there's a significant human rights violation by a foreign

government, we right a letter to the president. the president has 120 days to investigate. and then offer a determination about whether there was or was not a human rights violation. it's a cooperative dialogue. we wrote the letter. 120 days passed, and president trump and the administration will not answer t they will not say that there was a human rights violation. they will not say that there wasn't a human rights violation. for saudi arabia, i'm not aware of them doing it for any other nation -- for saudi arabia, they are ignoring the clear requirements of the magnitsky act. president trump said, quote, it could very well be that the crown prince had knowledge of this tragic event. maybe he did and maybe he didn't. that comment is at odds with the assessment of u.s. intelligence community that this assassination was an official act of the saudi government that would not have happened without the knowledge of the crown prince, m.b.s.

so the relationship following this arrest, this assassination has not been downgraded. it has not suffered repercussions within this administration. in fact, madam president, to the contrary, two weeks ago we learned right before an armed services hearing where secretary of energy rick periwas testifying that the trump administration has approved secret transfers of nuclear technical information from american companies to saudi arabia on seven occasions since 2017. transfers or are called part a-10 authorizations. they require an approval of the department of energy. under my cross-examination, secretary perry was forced to confirm that, yes, the administration has authorized on seven occasions transfers of this nuclear know-how to saudi arabia. in the past, when these transfers were approved, they were made public so that the american public and congress could exercise oversight on

which nations in the world are being given nuclear technology. but in this instance, and possibly others in this administration, the approvals were kept secret. why are they secret now? we know that saudi arabia is intent on building a nuclear program. that's well covered. but they haven't agreed to the nonproliferation rules that would prevent the development of nuclear weapons, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty is a bedrock principle international law that the united states has sponsored for a very long time. and the principle is simple. we would not want countries get nuclear technology unless they give us guarantees that the technology is only for peaceful use, medical research, power production but not to produce nuclear weapons. we are transferring this technical know-how to the saudi arabian government secretly without yet requiring that they sign on to the important safety protections in the npt.

it's only logical that congress would want to know more about these approvals to make sure that they don't spark a nuclear arms race in the middle east. in the recent hearing, i asked secretary perry about whether the secret approvals of nuclear information transfer occurred before or after the october 2018 murder of jamal cam khashoggi. he claimed not to know. he has indicated he would provide that information in response to written questions. i submitted the written questions. he has still not provided the information. it's wrong to do these transfers without letting congress know. it's wrong to do these transfers when saudi arabia has not yet agreed to the principles that would -- that would disallow nuclear proliferation. and it would certainly be wrong to agree to transfer this kind of information after the assassination of jamal khashoggi, but as of yet the administration hasn't given us

the data. and beyond just the timing, who is getting these secret approvals? secretary perry said the approvals were secret because there's proprietary information. companies might not want to have information that they have developed through their own research available to all, but that doesn't explain you don't have to give the proprietary information just to indicate what company has gotten an approval on what day to do the transfer. who is getting these secret approvals? one major nuclear firm westinghouse has been reported as a front runner in the competitive effort to do nuclear reactor construction in saudi arabia. westinghouse is owned by the same investors who bailed white house advisor jared kuchner out of a bad real estate deal. he was initially denied a security clearance due to concerns about foreign influence

and personal financial conflicts. additional reporting connects disgraced national security advisor michael flynn would has been convicted for lying about his ties to and communication with foreign governments to the push for the saudi nuclear deal. and finally, madam president, earlier today, i asked secretary pompeo in a foreign relations committee hearing about public reports in the national interest in september of 2018 that say that the saudis have a robust antiballistic missile program that has been largely built on chinese missiles, missiles from china, missiles that were constructed originally to carry nuclear warheads but that the saudis have i a pairntszly used -- have apparently used with nonnuclear pay loads or outfitted with nonnuclear pay loads. the article that i entered into the record dated september 21,

2018, indicate thad in saudi arabia, these missiles have been -- some of them would be directed toward tehran and others would be directed toward israel. all of these issues on the table, poor prosecution of a civil war leading to humanitarian disaster, the murder of a u.s. resident journalist, the arrest of u.s. residents for women's rights activism, secret transfers of nuclear technology without letting congress know, and then the story that i asked secretary pompeo about today, the buildup of antiballistic missile program based significantly on chinese missiles leads me to ask why would we help saudi arabia in a disastrous war in yemen? why would he turn a blind eye to saudi human rights abuses? why would we transfer nuclear know-how and plan for a nuclear deal with saudi arabia when they haven't agreed to

nonproliferation rules that we expect other nations to agree to in a way that would possibly spark an arms race in the middle east? and my final question is, who in the u.s. is benefiting from this? when i asked the secretary of state this morning again on the dates of the nuclear approvals and did they occur before or after the assassination of jamal khashoggi, i'm sure he knew i was going to ask him that question. i asked secretary perry the question two weeks ago. i submitted that question for the record. he knew i was going to ask him that question, and he said he couldn't give me any information about the approvals. he would have to get back to me about them. congress is not a student government. congress is supposed to as the article 1 branch to exercise oversight over important matters. there's hardly anything more important than the spread of nuclear technologies that can be used to proliferate weapons of

mass destruction anywhere in the world, especially in a region that's as dangerous as the middle east. these are the items that ambassador abizaid will need to deal with in his new role, but we need to exercise proper congressional oversight of this relationship because there are so many problems with it right now that are not being addressed by this administration, and i think only congress can address them. i hope my colleagues will join me in that oversight. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. 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.

and 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's 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 hurdling possibly towards an end, there are four pending requests by a dozen senators including myself for inspector general investigations in the issues involving mr. bernhardt. in the other body, there are a host of requests for investigations as well. now, there's been a lot of speculation about how all of these issues have been aired. this is old news say some. the fact is that's not right. this doesn't go back months. my concerns aren't information that's been sitting out in public view for years. the prospect of an investigation is developing in real time right

now. and i'm 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 interest. oil client, coal client, water client, 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 that with all of these conflicts, mr. ber bernhat would basically have two choices. one, he can comply with the

ethics pledge and pretty much recuse himself from everything. lord knows what he would be doing all day because he'd have to recuse himself. or he'd basically do business in and just violate the ethical principles. now, he seems to have been of late 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 p. wyden, age 11, pictures available on my iphone after my presentation, william would say that bernhardt's statement was one big whopper. now, mr. bernhardt served as deputy secretary to ryan zinke.

and, madam president, all through this parade of environmental horrors that were visited upon us, mr. bernhardt was the key man in that office. there's not one shred of evidence that mr. bernhardt objected to ryan zinke's corruption. no evidence of it. and you just think about it. he's 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. there's no evidence that mr. bernhardt, the self-styled expert on ethics, ever objected to anything.

second, not even two 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 pex pesticide, 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 -- and i want to quote him -- it needed to be read by the lawyers and gave the impression to the energy and natural resources committee in 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 registered as a lobbyist to join the trump transition team before the president's inauguration, but there's evidence he kept right on lobbying nonetheless in violation of the law. there's a whole lot of talk about mislabeled invoices and simple errors that attempted to explain it all away, but the fact is there were multiple cases in which mr. bernhardt was engaged in activities made him the defacto lobbyist carrying on with the same job he'd been doing all along. so you have a pattern of unethical behavior right in front of our eyes, right in front of our eyes. he said he had to do this

lawyering. there hadn't been any lawyering. and then we go back and look at the rules and they say in these situations there's lawyering all the way through the process. so that's why i'm 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 doubled down on its commitment to graph by nominating david bernhardt for this job. as i mentioned, there are pending requests for inspector general investigations. i've also called for an investigation by the u.s. attorney. neither of those has had adequate time to respond. the majority leader has rushed this nomination to the floor. to indicate how fast the nomination is moving, the president officially nominated mr. bernhardt to lead the interior department less than a month ago. less than two 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 shame that you can't easily even track them. now, by most public reporting he triggered at least 17 different federal inquiries before he

officially left office at the start of the year. inappropriate censorship of scientific report, wasting tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on office doors and chartered flights, cutting potentially illegal land deals with oil industry executives. his rap sheet basically goes on and on. it's as long as the columbia river. in his brief tenure, ryan zinke demonstrate he was better at corrupt self-dealing than protecting our treasured public lands. now, i mentioned david bernhardt was mr. zinke's deputy. he was solicitor for the interior department during the bush administration. he knows a lot about how the department works. and i want to say this to my colleague, if this is a guy whose hand -- who is hands on and he really understands the department of interior, i think

you got to wonder why mr. bernhardt never seems to have objected to any of mr. zinke's corrupt activities. unfortunately, the interior department isn't new to scandal and i'm going to take a brief moment to look back at one particular scandal that relates to these matters. julie mcdonald, notoriously corrupt interior official during the george w. bush administration who was forced to resign. in december of 2006 after anonymous complaint sparked an investigation, the inspector general released a report showing that ms. mcdonald 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. mcdonald. the next day after months of 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. mcdonald had been involved in. there was evidence of her meddling directly affecting species in the pacific northwe northwest. the interior inspector general released a report and according to "the new york times" found -- and i quote -- ms. mcdonald's zeal to advance her agenda has caused considerable harm to the integrity of the endangered species act. end quote. the inspector general and the morale and fish and wildlife service as well as potential harm to species. so i bring it up because here's

where david bernhardt figures into the story. a few weeks ago i was surprised that mr. bernhardt requested to come and meet with me in my office. i said i would be glad to do it and, madam president, i pretty much when nominees come by, usually to start with a question. why should i vote for it? why should i be supportive? kind of an easy way for the nominee to -- that's why i do it. and what mr. bernhardt said is he was a big ethics champion. he said, hey, you remember julie macdonald? it's captain ethics. i advised julie macdonald to clean up her act. i didn't ask mr. bernhardt about julie macdonald.

he brings it up. i met with a lot of nominees. i heard of a lot of reasons why they deserve a vote but this meeting was certainly a head scratcher. a nominee who is present for zinke's -- ryan zinke's reign of corruption and conflicts and seemed to do nothing about it had shown up at his request to tout his own ethics. a few hours after the meeting in nigh office with mr. bernhardt, i decided i'd look at his record for myself. interior department documents obtained through an information request showed that he had recently blocked the release of a fish and wildlife report about the effects of dangerous toxic pesticides. so career staff at the fish and wildlife service, 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. this wasn't put together by people who are political appointees. it defined pesticides that are so dangerous and so toxic that they jeopardized the continued existence of more than 1,000 species. this report, if made public, would have profound consequences for pesticide manufacturers and the businesses that use them. the dedicated team at the fish and wildlife who had worked so long on this to make sure they really dug into the science, they took years to be fastidious about it, they wanted to make it public. they were working rapidly to submit harder findings to the environmental protection agency for their review. but 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 e-mails on the pesticide r 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 and these types of assessments. they even include an e-mail where mr. bernhardt edited the letter interior officials used to block the release of the pesticide report. digital fingerprints everywhere. so i got to tell you, i looked at this and i said, this sure round sounds like -- sounds like julie macdonald all over again. the guy said, hey, i was the one that pushed julie macdonald to clean up her act.

looked like he was meddling with the science, just the way julie macdonald was. and ms. mcdonald was found by the inspector general to have meddled with the scientific conclusions and now here's david bernhardt, alleged to have manipulated the process and block the release of an endangered species act report. so mr. bernhardt came to say that his ethics were unimpeachable. he was above approach. but i'll tell you, madam president, for colleagues who are thinking about this, if you read the freedom of information act documents that i read, they make him sound like another julie macdonald. so i worked through all of these documents and it left me with the impression that mr. bernhardt had lied to me about his ethics during our

one-on-one meeting as well. and it left me wondering, why would he 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 was strive to bring a culture of ethical compliance. he hoped to overall haul the ethics of the ryan zinke period and the julie macdonald experience. senators called his qualifications unparalleled and claimed the allegations of ethical misconduct against him are false. i respect those colleagues who have their opinions. i've got my own. and my opinions are going to be based on the documents. the document i entered into the record at his confirmation hearing sowed that the pesticide industry repeatedly asked political appointees at the interior department and the environmental protection agency to intervene in the scientific analysis. it showed that mr. bernhardt

eventually did so. according to the documents made public by the freedom of information act, a pesticide industry attorney wrote to then-secretary zinke, then-administrator scott pruitt on aprilof 2017. so the pesticide industry was asking for changes to the endangered species act they followed it up very shortlloy with a request to meet with then environmental protection agency staff. a pesticide industry executive called around that time to an interior department attorney 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 e-mail dated october 5, 2017, from mr. bernhardt to garry frazer, the fish and wildlife services

assistant director who handles these endangered species. he was the top official overseeing the assessment of the impact, according to the press, looking at the implications of these pesticide. in this e-mail, mr. bernhardt asks mr. frazer for a briefing the following week. additional documents show that mr. bernhardt held a series of meetings with mr. frazer over the next three weeks. on october 30, according to the calendar released by this freedom of information act, mr. bernhardt met with white house officials to discuss endangered species act provisions. it's called section 7. that's a section that pertains to the role that fish and wildlife plays in ensuring other agencies aren't jeopardizing species. an e-mail from november of 2017 showed mr. bernhardt edited a draft of a letter from career fish and wildlife service staff to the e.p.a. it announced the interior

department wouldn't be delivering the fish and wildlife 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 "the new york times" report, the pesticide analysis was blocked in conjunction with a radical shift in how 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 like lay result in fewer new restrictions on pesticide use. crop life and rise, the tax rate associations that represent the pesticide companies, they were very much in favor of this, praising it. based on the documents, i asked mr. bernhardt at the hearing why he would come to my office and

sell me on its ethics when the reports and the documents i just read show otherwise. he had no response. i had asked mr. bernhardt at the hearing specifically why he'd come to the office and make these claims. no response at the hearing. he took a long sip of water and mr. bernhardt made the claim that career fish and wildlife staff, quote, clearly didn't complete any legal review on the pesticide report, which is why he stepped in. during the hearing and under orientation i believe that mr. bernhardt confirmed allegations that he interfered with the release of an endangered species act he didn't, however, acknowledge that his involvement was inappropriate political meddling. following the hearing and the serious questions remaining about whether he lied under oath to the committee, i wrote the interior department inspector general for their help inest going to the bottom of the

matter. here are the facts that 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 analyses. he confirmed to me that he had reviewed the analyses. he claimed he believed it had not been subject to legal review and made the determination to delay the report. second, mr. bernhardt's response -- you're dealing with many soft most consultations on the planet. when i read the document, my iraqis 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 loads and come up with a scheme. and he continued, and so what we decided is the approach needed to be readdressed.

mr. bernhardt's answer is totally off base with respect to the way legal analyses work. under standard procedures, there would be legal analysis through the development of this kind of fish and wildlife r it would involve lawyers at fish and wildlife, at the interior department, or both. so i'm 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. madam chair, -- mr. president, i'm the senior member on the energy and natural resources committee, the former chairman of the committee. i cannot recall ever having this kind of exchange with a nominee. that's why i had to request the office of inspector general to

investigate 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 crop life lobbyist ms. edcoch play in decision making, whether as mr. bernhardt alleged to me under oath object -- on march 2018 that the fish and wildlife draft clearly didn't have any legal review, whether as mr. bernhardt alleged to me, career lawyers at the interior department agreed with miss analysis. these -- with his analysis. these are all questions that haven't been answered.

and 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 just 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, newspaper reports, this time "the washington post," state that mrs 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. here's what i said to the u.s.

attorney, lobbying disclosure act filing show mr. bernhardt registered to lobby on behalf of the westland water district on march 2011. westlands is the largest agricultural water district in the united states and central california. public reporting indicates mr. bernhardt ran his former lobby's firm natural resources department. that lobby firm filed its 2016 fourth quarter report on november 16, 2018, one 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 like he went right on lobbying. lobbying disclosuring act is pretty clear. i'll read from public guidance provided by the house of representatives. a lobbyist can terminate their registration, quote, only when the individual'sing lobbying activities on behalf of that client didn't constitute at the ends of the quarter. 20% of the time that such employees engage in total activities for that client or that individual doesn't reasonably expect to make further lobbying contacts. so what does the law mean by lobbying can tacts?

-- contacts? that's pretty clear. the same guidance, any oral, written or electronic communication to a federal official made on behalf of a client. and with regard to federal legislation, rule making 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 e-mails 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's 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 office of representative deven nunes and representative val odeo to discuss upcoming legislation.

the second and third times are covered in a complaint filed with the u.s. attorney's office in 2017. that complaint included copies of e-mails 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's 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 time frame. another new report shows that mr. bernhardt was also in contact in december 2016 with the senate employee covered by lobbying regulations. on march 8, 2017, his old

lobby firm sent westlands an invoice 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's 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 drainage district among other priorities. it's a money-making opportunity. it was sponsored by then-representative valadao, one of the congressmen mr. bernhardt appears to have been in contact with on november 20, 2016. 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. now according to a media report in july of 2017, a westlands representative claimed bernhardt ceased all lobbying activity the moment he registered 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's 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 members, 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. lobbying disclosure acts isn't that burdensome. the firm and mr. bernhardt could have chosen to keep disclosing his lobbying activity on behalf of westlands. they chose not to do so, and so everybody is going to ask why. the u.s. attorney's office is responsible for enforcement of the lobbying disclosuring act of 1995, so this week i wrote to the u.s. attorney requesting a thorough investigation. i spent this time highlighting some of the major reasons that make me feel strongly 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, none of which have been responded to because it's been a short time and the majority leader is interested in steamrolling this flawed nominee by the american people. so i'm 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, mr. president, 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 assaying we're glad -- quoted as saying, we're glad he's 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, it 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's going to do all day because he's 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, have asked for more information about. so, the damage has been done. the conflicts are clear. he has already taken action, actions that benefit his former clients and former employers. he has taken steps specifically to weaken the endangered species act, work to weaken wildlife 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, westland 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 oil spills bill 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 mining access to millions of acres of sage grout habitats across five western states. the drilling will be conducted by companies again linked to mr. once again the prospect of an endangered species endangering the livelihoods of ranching families. on the rural frontier who are hoping to preserve a tradition day of life. a cnn report found the agency has advanced at least 15 policies supported by his former

clients at the interior department during his stay. everything from the elimination of b.l.m.'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's 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 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 sure 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'm headin -- i'm heading home, mr. president. i'm sure my colleague from north dakota is and other senators. having town meetings, going to listen to people. there isn't going to be anybody who comes to my town meetings starting in the next couple of days who want to see the oregon coastline up for offshore oil drilling. they don't want to see oil darics at -- oil derricks at haystack rock. they don't want to be standing in oil on the beaches. the entire time mr. bernhardt has been in 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, mr. president, 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 it's the job of every member of the senate, every democrat and every republican to work for policy to bring honor and credibility back to the interior department? and i just don't think that's going to be the case if this body confirms david bernhardt. so 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 i don't want to be back on this floor in a matter of months talking about yet another interior leader forced from office as a result of grotesque scandals like ryan zinke. the senate doesn't have to leave the door at interior wide open for more conflicted individuals to waltz into positions of power where they can work against the interests of the american people. i believe that's exactly what america will get from david bernhardt. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this nomination.

and, mr. president, i think we have one parliament request, and i will yield the floor. mr. president, at this time i would ask unanimous consent that the following individuals be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the congress -- elliott aiken, melissa morin, pamela reed, katherine riddell, sara harvey, stephanie bell, roberta degur, mattie wheeler, ebony smith, kristen lendey, briana house, and rachel mindell. mr. president, before i yield the floor, i would just ask unanimous consent that those following individuals be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. wyden: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. udall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. udall: i would ask that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to oppose this rush to confirm david bernhardt to serve as the 53rd secretary of interior. the secretary of 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, someone who will approach these solemn duties with only the interest 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 towards 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 increasing 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'm 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 one analysis. mr. bernhardt's ethics pledge didn't stop him from trying to divert water to his former client, westland's water district in california's central valley, one of the largest structural 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, quote, verbally ruled 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 d.o.i. inspector general requesting 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 westland's after he filed notice that he was no longer lobbying on its behalf. he filed this 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 the work was not technically lobbying, but the fact is mr. bernhardt's

actions are benefiting his former clients. westland's 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, mre career trying to open public lands for development for his clients, and he spent years attacking the foundation of the endangered species act, and the problem is since assuming his role as deputy secretary, he has continued to advocate for

policies that benefit the same special interests. he helped open millions of acres of public lands to oil and gas drilling while looking to limit public input and helped 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 is largely ignoring 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 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 interior

oversees 20% 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 back seat 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 webpage, rescinded orders and policies aimed at addressing the impacts of climate change, gutted the methane emission control rule at the behest of the worst performers in the oil and gas industry, and 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 two 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 3.2 million more acres were put on the auction block. that includes potential lease sales within the striking distance of the chaco culture park, which is sacred to the tribes. that's why i just introduced legislation to performly --

permanently establish a 10-mile buffer so 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 towards selling leases to drill in the coastal plain of the artic wildfire refuge, home to native american tribes and an area that supports a diversity of wildlife in a wild and untame setting unlike any other on this planet. nearly 250 species from caribou to bears and wolves and migratory birds. yet, this administration, under mr. bernhardt, is racing towards an outcome that could decimate this unique land and biologically rich place.

the endangered species act stands as the commitment to protect wildfire from extinction. protecting biodiversity is more important than ever as we see animal and plant species dying off in record rates due to climate change. but mr. bernhardt has had the e.s.a. in his sights for a long time. under his leadership, interior has now proposed allowing economic and considerations to override wildfire protections. extension is becoming -- extinction is becoming just another cost of doing business. as i mentioned on behalf of his former client westlands, mr. bernhardt sought to weaken protections for endangered species so that westlands could pump more water. mr. bernhardt has looked to implement the very same policies

that he lobbied before 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 grass, opening up millions of acres of its habitat to oil and gas drilling without protections. the endangered species act should be classified as in danger under mr. bernhardt's client-friendly interior department. let's talk about another extinction risk, chlorpurafrost is not a household name like d.e.t., but it will be. it is a neurotoxin and linked to brain damage in children and could cause serious harm to

human health and wildlife. in 2016 the e.p.a. recommended a ban on all uses of this toxic pesticide. one of scott pruitt's first actions as e.p.a. administrator was to rescind that proposed ban and one of mr. bernhardt's early actions as deputy secretary was to bury a scientific study concluding that this pesticide and another pesticide could, quote, 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 from 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 chloopurfau ce banded. it is manufactured by a powerful dow dupont company. mr. bernhardt's withdrawal of the scientific study serves big chemical's interest, not the public's. one of the most egregious anticonservation actions of this administration is the unprecedented attacks on the an tecties act -- antiquities act which has stood since president roosevelt. grand staircase -- 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 that traced 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 in tact. 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 artic refuge to the california 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, cease piece -- species are, the air and the water. but mr. bernhardt has not demonstrated he has the necessary independence from his former clients. he has made them very happy. but he shut out scientists, native americans, conservationists, and the american people. he's 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, mr. president, i will vote no on this nomination, but before i conclude, i'd like to offer one final point. i've 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 tribe sovereignty and self-determination and engages in meaningful consultation with tribes. the trump administration's record with tribes and native communities is to -- 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. and for three years running, the administration has proposed budgets that would significantly cut b.i.a. and b.i.e. funding. those are education budgets and budgets that help native

americans on their reservations. congress has historically worked to cross party lines on native issues and congress rejected the administration's proposed cuts for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, i fully expect it to do so again on 2020. if confirmed, i'd like to see mr. bernhardt follow suit and commit to do better on tribal issues, commit to meet with tribal leaders, demonstrate in action that he respects tribal sovereignty and that he commits the agency to consult with tribes whenever their interests are affected. with that, mr. president, i would -- i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: