April 10, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 62 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S2352-S2353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of David Bernhardt

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, later this week the Senate will vote on 
the confirmation of David Bernhardt, a longtime lobbyist, to the 
position of Interior Secretary. An oil and gas lobbyist will be 
entrusted with our sacred--sacred--inheritance, the great lands of 
America.
  I urge Senators to oppose this nomination.
  The Department of the Interior is the Agency entrusted with 
protecting our Nation's public lands, our water supplies, our wildlife, 
and our energy resources. It grapples directly with some of the biggest 
questions our country faces: how to respond to climate change, how to 
protect endangered species, and how to care for our precious natural 
resources. Yet to lead our Interior Department, President Trump has 
nominated Mr. Bernhardt, an oil and gas lobbyist who has made a career 
harming the environment, subverting environmental protections, and 
helping polluters sidestep Federal regulation.
  As former Secretary Zinke's deputy, he has paved the way for even 
more polluters to run rampant without accountability. Under his watch, 
the Department of the Interior has already opened a colossal 17 million 
acres of Federal land for oil and gas leases, generating millions in 
revenue for energy companies, all while Bernhardt recklessly managed 
our national parks during the government shutdown.
  I am especially troubled this morning because POLITICO reported that 
under Mr. Bernhardt's watch, the Department of the Interior might even 
greenlight offshore drilling off the coasts of Florida--a prospect both 
parties in the State say they oppose. This should be a wake-up call to 
my colleagues all up and down the coast--Atlantic, Pacific, and the 
gulf. If they can't find a reason to oppose this nominee based on the 
other serious and troubling issues that have been raised, maybe this is 
reason enough for them.
  It is hard to imagine someone whose background is so at odds with the 
Department's mission as Bernhardt's. For all his talk of draining the 
swamp, President Trump wants to add yet another Washington swamp 
creature lobbyist to his Cabinet.
  By the way, our resources--our oil and gas resources--are large. The 
motivation here to spoil public lands for oil and gas drilling--it is 
the power of the oil companies. It has nothing to do with the plan for 
natural resources. Bernhardt is an exemplary example of the power of 
these oil companies.
  Gravely troubling is the long list of conflicting interests that 
Bernhardt brings to Trump's Cabinet. Up to 20 of his former clients 
have lobbied the Department of the Interior since his arrival, and the 
New York Times reported last week that he very likely has been less 
than forthcoming about when he stopped lobbying. No other Cabinet-level 
nominee in the Trump era has so many conflicts of interest, and that is 
a low bar. It is a distinction no one should be proud to hold.
  Worst of all, Bernhardt is a hardened enemy of climate science. If 
you are a lobbyist for oil and gas companies, you would say that 
climate change isn't real too. The Washington Post reported he attended 
a session of administration officials that ``debated how best to 
establish a group of researchers that could scrutinize recent federal 
climate reports.'' Translation: Bernhardt is actively working to set up 
the White House's fake panel to deny basic science.
  I have already introduced legislation to prohibit any funding from 
going to this fake climate panel, but knowing Mr. Bernhardt's role in 
setting it up should send shivers down the spines of every American who 
is worried about the impact of our changing climate on their families, 
their farms, and future generations.
  We cannot entrust our public lands to someone known to wage a 
campaign of censorship against facts and reason. Now, later today, I am 
going to be able to meet with Mr. Bernhardt to discuss his 
qualifications. I am letting him know now that I will ask him the same 
three questions I have asked my Republican colleagues in this Chamber. 
One, does Mr. Bernhardt agree that climate change is real; two, does he 
agree it is a product of human action; and three, should the Federal 
Government have a role in combating its effects? His record suggests 
his answer to all these questions is no, but let's see what he says 
today.
  Caring for our planet and being good stewards of our natural 
resources are the most important responsibilities we owe to future 
generations, so I am gravely concerned about Bernhardt's nomination to 
the Department of the Interior, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
his confirmation.
  One final point. It still amazes me that Donald Trump campaigns on 
cleaning up the swamp, and he does exactly the opposite when in office. 
An oil and gas lobbyist is head of the Department of the Interior? My 
God, that is an example of the swampiness of Washington, if there ever 
was one. When are Donald Trump's supporters going to understand this; 
that what he promised them, in so many different instances, he is not 
delivering. It is befuddling. It is a sign of the weakness of our 
democracy that someone can walk into the Presidency promising so many 
things and then just immediately do the opposite and still a large 
chunk of Americans say they support him. It is amazing to me.


                                H.R. 268

  Mr. President, for months, American citizens have been reeling from 
natural disasters and are in desperate need of Federal aid. 
Parenthetically, I remind Mr. Bernhardt that a lot of these disasters, 
scientists believe, are because the climate is warmer, and the weather 
is changing, but rather than work with us to provide the much needed 
aid to large chunks of America, our Republican colleagues have once 
again decided to follow President Trump and refuse to compromise. They 
are so afraid of him that even when he proposes something they know is 
wrong and irrational, they do a 180-degree hairpin turn and support 
what he is doing.
  Now, that would be just politics, except millions are awaiting aid 
and need help. Their homes, their farms, their offices, and their 
factories are underwater, literally, in a lot of places still.
  Just yesterday, House Democrats offered a solution. We said: Let's 
provide disaster relief not to some Americans but to all Americans 
struggling to recover and rebuild from natural disasters.
  Their new proposal that the House offered includes an additional $3 
billion--this is House Democrats, not Senate Democrats, by the way. 
Their new proposal includes an additional $3 billion to address urgent 
needs following the floods in the Midwest and the tornadoes in the 
South. This plus-up includes $1.5 billion for the Army Corps of 
Engineers to support flood risk reduction so crucial in the Missouri 
River Valley, $1 billion in CDBG for long-term recovery needs, and $500 
million in agriculture funding to help

[[Page S2353]]

the farmers and ranchers rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural 
disasters and replace some of the farm animals that have been lost.
  Yesterday's House bill comes in addition to the proposals Senator 
Leahy and I offered last week--and it is similar to them--and in 
addition to the work Senator Leahy did last month. So, again and again, 
Democrats presented option after option for disaster funding that helps 
the Midwest, helps the coasts, helps the South, and helps Puerto Rico 
and other territories. None of our offers are either-or, help this but 
not that.
  Enough excuses from our Republican colleagues. We have had enough of 
the slow playing, but, more important, the people who need this help 
have had enough. The bottom line is very simple. The aid we seek is 
what Americans have always done. When there is a disaster, we all come 
together and aid those areas in a disaster because we know when a huge 
natural disaster hits from God, an area can't deal with it on their 
own. They don't have the resources or the ability, and they are, many 
times, in trouble because of the disaster itself.
  We say: Come to the aid, but all of a sudden Donald Trump goes into 
the Republican lunch a week and a half ago and says: I don't want any 
aid for Puerto Rico. He falsely claims they have gotten $91 billion--
not true--and then all our Republican friends go along.
  Well, we are not. The House will not. Senate Democrats will not. 
Plain and simple, we don't believe you should pick and choose. Why did 
President Trump single out Puerto Rico, which are American citizens 
like everybody else? A lot of theories, but regardless of what your 
theory is, that is not the way to govern as President, and, frankly, it 
is not the way we should govern as Senators. It is bewildering that our 
Republican colleagues have caved to President Trump's--what can we call 
it--temper tantrum, even though they are well aware of the problems and 
were ready to help Puerto Rico before he threw that temper tantrum.
  Some say: Well, Puerto Rico is getting a little money. They are 
getting food stamp aid.
  Well, great. Then let's just give food stamp aid to everybody else. 
Let's give it to everyone else. Now, what about all the farms that are 
underwater? What about all the homes that are flooded and needing help? 
If you give food stamp aid, that doesn't help them.
  So let's be fair. Let's treat each area the same. Let's do what we 
have done in the American tradition: Come together, when there is a 
disaster, to help Americans. Let's not be so afraid of Donald Trump 
that when you know he is wrong, you just go along.
  The idea that Puerto Rico should be treated differently from the rest 
of America is insulting. It is against our American values and a 
betrayal of the promise to look after all American citizens, not 
because of their politics and not because of what their last names 
might sound like; as American citizens, we come together during times 
of need.
  Democrats will not yield in our responsibility to all American 
citizens, and I tell that to all my friends from the farm States, even 
those who voted against aid to New York when we had our hurricane. I 
never even considered not voting for aid to any other place in the 
country. I always have.
  I say to my friends: Let's treat everyone fairly, and we can get the 
much needed disaster aid out there quickly.