[Senate Hearing 115-269] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 115-269 BERNHARDT NOMINATION ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION To CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF DAVID BERNHARDT TO BE THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR __________ MAY 18, 2017 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 26-073 WASHINGTON : 2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon MIKE LEE, Utah BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JEFF FLAKE, Arizona DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan STEVE DAINES, Montana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota CORY GARDNER, Colorado JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine ROB PORTMAN, Ohio TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada Colin Hayes, Staff Director Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel Kellie Donnelly, Deputy Chief Counsel Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- OPENING STATEMENTS Page Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska.... 1 Gardner, Hon. Cory, a U.S. Senator from Colorado................. 1 Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington..................................................... 4 WITNESS Bernhardt, David, nominated to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior....................................................... 14 ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED Barrasso, Hon. John: Article written by Pamela King and published May 17, 2017, entitled ``Oil and Gas: 3K drilling permit applications await BLM approval''....................................... 26 Bernhardt, David: Opening Statement............................................ 14 Written Testimony............................................ 17 Response to Question from Senator King: Research Paper by John Yoo and Todd Gaziano published March 2017 by the American Enterprise Institute entitled ``Presidential Authority to Revoke or Reduce National Monument Designations''.................................. 42 Accepted Paper by Mark Squillace, Eric Biber, Nicholas S. Bryner, and Sean B. Hecht published May 2017 by the Virginia Law Review Online entitled ``Presidents Lack the Authority to Abolish or Diminish National Monuments''.... 68 Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 152 Boone and Crockett Club: Letter for the Record........................................ 238 Cantwell, Hon. Maria: Opening Statement............................................ 4 Written Statement............................................ 8 Colorado River Water Conservation District: Letter for the Record........................................ 81 Colorado Water Congress: Letter for the Record........................................ 82 Duckworth, Hon. Tammy: Article in Mother Jones dated September 1, 2003, entitled ``The Ungreening of America: Behind the Curtain''.......... 86 Article by Elizabeth Williamson dated May 2, 2007, entitled ``Interior Dept. Official Facing Scrutiny Resigns''........ 96 Article by Stephen Power in The Wall Street Journal dated September 11, 2008, entitled ``Federal Oil Officials Accused In Sex and Drugs Scandal''......................... 98 Investigative Report of MMS Oil Marketing Group - Lakewood (Redacted) dated August 19, 2008........................... 102 U.S. Department of the Interior News Release dated January 17, 2012, ``Interior's ONRR collects $25 million to resolve claims Shell Offshore underpaid royalties''................ 135 Article by Bettina Boxall entitled ``Trump's pick for a top Interior post has sued the agency on behalf of powerful California water interests''............................... 136 David Bernhardt Client List.................................. 140 Gardner, Hon. Cory: Opening Statement............................................ 1 Gila River Indian Community: Letter for the Record........................................ 239 Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: Opening Statement............................................ 1 National Congress of American Indians: Letter for the Record........................................ 240 National Rifle Association: Letter for the Record........................................ 241 Oneida Indian Nation: Letter for the Record........................................ 242 Outdoor Recreation Industry Roundtable: Letter for the Record........................................ 244 Penobscot Nation: Letter for the Record........................................ 246 Public Lands Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association: Letter for the Record........................................ 248 (The) Seneca Nation of Indians: Letter for the Record........................................ 249 Southern Ute Indian Tribe: Letter for the Record........................................ 80 BERNHARDT NOMINATION ---------- THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2017 U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m. in Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will come to order. We are here this morning to consider the nomination of David Bernhardt to be the Deputy Secretary of the Interior. I will give my opening statement and introduction of Mr. Bernhardt, as will Senator Cantwell, but I think I would ask you, Senator Gardner, to go ahead with your opening introduction so you can then join us up here at the dais. We appreciate you taking the lead in the introductions this morning. If you would like to proceed? STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO Senator Gardner. Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Cantwell, for this opportunity and hearing today. It is my honor to introduce fellow Coloradan, Colorado native and my friend, David Bernhardt, as the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources holds this hearing to consider his nomination to be Deputy Secretary for the Department of the Interior. Welcome, David and your family, to the Committee, that has joined us today. Will, David's son, may not remember this but that you spent some time at daycare with our oldest daughter. [Laughter.] So I have a picture of you in a clothes hamper when you were like this tall with Allison. We both grew up in rural Colorado. I am from the Eastern plains. Mr. Bernhardt is from the Western slope of Colorado. While the geography of our two homes is quite different, we share a lot of common interests and the development of the values that shape small towns. We both began our public service only one year apart, both of us interning for Colorado State Representative Russell George, who would later become Speaker of the Colorado House. Mr. Bernhardt worked with my wife, Jamie, at the Department of the Interior. And their offices, at one point, were just around the corner from one another. Mr. Bernhardt's personal background and public and private sector professional experiences prove he is a strong voice for the West and extremely well-qualified for the nomination to be Deputy Secretary. He has extensive insight on Western water policy, natural resources policy and Indian affairs, just to name a few. Those that have worked with Mr. Bernhardt commend him for his integrity and wealth of knowledge on the issues under the Department of Interior's jurisdiction. In 2008, after the Department reached the largest Indian water rights settlement in our nation's history, Secretary Kempthorne personally acknowledged Mr. Bernhardt's work as then Solicitor and stated, ``His effective coordination both within Interior as well as with the local, tribal, state and congressional leaders, was essential to the success we celebrate today.'' The country will benefit from having Mr. Bernhardt serve as Deputy Secretary, a position that is the second ranking official within the Department with statutory responsibilities as the Chief Operating Officer. Along with Mr. Bernhardt's professional career, I believe it is important to fully understand his background and the foundation of his interest in public lands which further qualifies him for this role. Mr. Bernhardt is originally from the outskirts of the small town of Rifle, Colorado. It is located on the Western slope, like I mentioned. Few places more fully embody the spirit and mission of the agency that he has been nominated to lead as Deputy Secretary. Growing up in rural Colorado has instilled in him Western values and interests. To this day, Mr. Bernhardt enjoys hunting, recreation, the outdoors and fishing. Rifle is located in Garfield County, an area where about 60 percent of the lands are federal public lands. Rifle was founded as a ranching community along the Colorado River and retains that heritage today, along with tremendous opportunities for outdoor recreation, including fishing, hiking, skiing, rafting and rock climbing. It also sits at the edge of the Piceance Basin, an area in Colorado that has vast amounts of natural gas. Mr. Bernhardt grew up in the oil shale boom and bust and has said that that boom and bust, ``has made him more sensitive to the potential impacts and benefits, both environmental and social, of our public lands.'' In the 1980's Rifle was hit by the state's oil shale crash, and he personally experienced some of the hard times the nation's rural communities often faced. Much like the Department of the Interior itself, Rifle is a community that is a product of its public lands and Western heritage. Rifle is centrally located within a few miles of the iconic Grand Mesa, which is the world's largest flat-topped mountain, the flat top wilderness and the Roan plateau. It represents a home base among these public lands with virtually unmatched access to world class outdoor experiences, which is why David has such a passion for these issues. His background and outlook on public lands and water issues assisted him in his prior service at the Department, including in the Solicitor's role. David's confirmation as Solicitor was confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate in 2006. There have been other nominees considered by the Committee who practiced private law before and between public service appointments at the Department of the Interior, including during the Obama Administration. David is taking the same steps these nominees did in order for his nomination to move forward today. Mr. Bernhardt's integrity and ability are two of his strongest qualifications for this nomination. Public service requires certain sacrifices, and I appreciate that David and his family's acceptance of this nomination are to be considered by this Committee today. I hope that the confirmation process has not become a broken process that disincentivizes qualified people, such as David, who are held in high professional regard from returning to public service. As the Committee takes up his nomination, I urge my colleagues to hold this nominee to the same practice and to the same process that we hold all nominees that are under consideration from this Committee. I look forward to Mr. Bernhardt's testimony and thank the Committee for considering him today. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner. I appreciate your statement and the introduction of Mr. Bernhardt and his qualifications, as well as a reminder to us all that the nomination process is one that we take quite seriously. We have been waiting anxiously to have this new Administration's nominees come before the Committee. Making sure there is a consistency in application of standards, of course, is something that we would all encourage, support and request. So again, we are here this morning to consider the nomination of David Bernhardt as Deputy Secretary of the Interior. Senator Gardner mentioned this position is akin to being the Chief Operating Officer. The individual who holds this position is responsible for executing strategy and overseeing the initiatives undertaken by thousands of employees as they carry out their statutory duties and the Administration's agenda. I believe that Mr. Bernhardt is an excellent choice for Deputy Secretary. He is a fellow Westerner, as we heard, hailing from a small town in Colorado. He understands the management of federal lands and how it affects those who live near them, the implication of federal policies and the need for balance between conservation and development. He is an avid sportsman. He understands the balance. Mr. Bernhardt is already well known to many of us. He has extensive experience at the Department of the Interior, including several years as its Solicitor, a position, again, as noted by Senator Gardner, for which he was favorably reported from our Committee and confirmed by the Senate by a voice vote. Throughout his time at Interior, Mr. Bernhardt gained significant expertise about a range of Western issues and Alaska issues. After meeting with him last week again and, kind of, renewing our acquaintance there, I remain confident with how he understands the importance of Alaska to the Department and how consequential the Department's decisions are to my state. Now I think we will let Mr. Bernhardt speak further to his biography, and give an opportunity to introduce his family. I, too, welcome the family and thank you for your willingness to serve in this manner because we all recognize that it is not just those who hold the office, but their families that sometimes bear the weight of the office because they don't see their family. I will just further add that Mr. Bernhardt is knowledgeable about the issues that face the Department and the predominantly Western lands it manages. He has a strong reputation as a manager which is critical for a Deputy Secretary, and his nomination is being supported by dozens of groups including sportsmen's groups, Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club, Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. For members who have questions for Mr. Bernhardt, this is the time, this is the place, to ask them. I know that many of us have had an opportunity to visit prior to this hearing, but I intend to be here this morning for as long as it takes members to ask their questions. They will also have the normal opportunity to submit questions for the record and those questions will be due at the close of business today. So again, Mr. Bernhardt, I want to thank you for your willingness to serve, and your family's willingness. I think we all understand how difficult and contentious just the process is that we are dealing with right now, but know that it is my intention to try to move your confirmation as expeditiously as possible. With that, I turn to Senator Cantwell for her opening comments. STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the nominee and to his family for being here today. This is an important hearing and these issues are very important for the entire nation. The Deputy Secretary, in supervising and administrating the Department, performs important functions of the Secretary in the Secretary's absence. In virtually all matters the Deputy has the full authority of the Secretary. That is why it's critical today to have a full review of the nominee and his past positions on important matters that he will be responsible for. I have to say at the outset that I have concerns about Mr. Bernhardt's nomination. Certainly, he is no stranger to the Department of the Interior, and he is no stranger to our Committee. He held a number of senior political positions in the Department during the Bush Administration, including the Department's Solicitor, beginning in 2006. Since leaving the Department in 2009, Mr. Bernhardt has had a very successful private sector law practice. He has represented a wide range of clients, including oil and gas companies, mining companies and water supply interests in California, just to name a few. And he has previously been tasked with helping to oversee these same companies while at the Department of the Interior. Mr. Bernhardt is now seeking to come back through this revolving door and be part of regulating and overseeing the same issues that he was lobbying for in the private sector. I am not suggesting that working for the private sector disqualifies someone from the public sector, but I am reminded of the various nominees before this Committee and the various issues that my colleagues have brought up during the Obama Administration. I don't think they are going to be the ones we are bringing up today. For example, the Committee rejected nominees during the Obama Administration for simply having worked for a national environmental group, having served on the board of an environmental group, and in one case, simply being a vegetarian. Those objections for disqualifying the nominee were patently absurd, and they remain so today. But because of the extensive background Mr. Bernhardt has had in the private sector, these issues of conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest will be the subject of my questions today. His ethics agreements say he will not participate in particular matters involving specific parties in which his firm is a party or represents a party, and I will have questions for him on that. But these ethic rules only require him to recuse himself for one year; or two years, if he adheres to the Trump Administration pledge. Mr. Bernhardt has had considerable experience working with the Department from his service during the Bush Administration, as Counselor to the Secretary, Director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Deputy Chief of Staff, Deputy Solicitor, and Solicitor. And he has a great deal of experience from his law practice, representing energy, mining, and water clients. But his work for those clients also poses a problem. It creates at least an inherent appearance of conflict, and today we are going to talk about some of that. Why is this important? Well, in the Reagan and Bush Administrations, James Watt, Gale Norton, who was investigated for giving preferential treatment to Shell and later taking a job with Shell, and Steven Griles, who was investigated for conflict of interest and went to prison for obstructing a Senate investigation, all came to the Department of the Interior after representing energy and natural resource clients. In their confirmation hearings, they came before the Committee and assured us that they would successfully switch sides and disassociate themselves from these former clients. But their outlook, their frame of reference, the policies they pursued remained the same as those they had advocated for their former clients. These were the policies aimed at monetizing the values of American natural resources and public lands for the benefits of corporation and the expense of taxpayers. These are important issues that we want to address today. It took fewer than 100 days of the Trump Administration for the new Secretary to start rolling back important land conservation measures. To simply say to us, don't worry today, is not going to suffice. Mr. Bernhardt's nomination raises further questions because his prior service at the Department of the Interior came at a time when the agency faced legal scrutiny over its ethics failings. He was the Department's top legal officer at the time the Department's Inspector General described it as ``having a culture of ethical failure.'' In September 2006, just before the Senate confirmed Mr. Bernhardt as the Solicitor but after he had been serving five years in a senior position, including as Deputy Solicitor, the Inspector General testified before a House Committee, ``Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the highest level of the Department of the Interior. Ethics failures on the part of senior department officials--taking the form of appearances of impropriety, favoritism and bias--have been routinely dismissed with a promise of not to do it again.'' Both Secretary Norton and Deputy Secretary Griles were investigated for those conflict of interests. And as I said, Deputy Secretary Griles was ultimately convicted and went to prison for obstructing the Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigation of the Jack Abramoff scandal. Julie McDonald, an Assistant Secretary in the Department, was forced to resign. She was found to have given internal agency documents to industry lobbyists, pressured agency scientists to withhold information, and improperly modified scientific data to further her agenda against the Endangered Species Act. Drug use, misconduct between agency staff and industry, rampant conflicts of interest were prevalent in the Mineral Management Services. I am not saying all of this happened during his watch, but certainly these were the things that occurred. So I have questions about tackling those issues. The lack of enforcement and oversight attitudes ultimately led to the complete restructuring of the Mineral Management Service. Mr. Bernhardt was a senior political leader in the Department during many of these events. He counseled the Secretary and served as the Deputy Chief of Staff or top legal officer during this time. Given this role I hope he will be able to shed light on the extent of his role in some of these matters and what further reforms we need. Specifically, the issue of conflict of interest will be something that I plan to ask about, Madam Chair, during the Q and A because Mr. Bernhardt has represented Cadiz, a company which is seeking to pump groundwater near the Mohave National Preserve in Southern California to sell it elsewhere. His law firm has a unique compensation arrangement. I find it interesting that upon taking office, the Trump Administration quickly reversed the previous Administration's opposition to this project. So we want to understand Mr. Bernhardt's clients, his partners, and what their financial benefits are from this project. We do know that the LA Business Journal reported earlier this month that Cadiz was able to raise $255 million in private equity investment premised on the Trump Administration approval. So again, these issues of clients and past issues at the agency will be the subject of many of our questions. I do have a longer statement that I am going to enter into the record about other issues of concern that we just don't have time at this point to go over. But clearly his work on behalf of the Westland's irrigation district, in addition, serving as the lead attorney for the State of Alaska's lawsuit challenging the Department of the Interior's management of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and litigation, and lobbying on behalf of Taylor Energy which operates a well that has been leaking into the Gulf of Mexico since 2004. I am very interested to have the explanation on this previous tenure at Interior and avoidance of conflict of interest on many of these issues that I have just raised. I think the Department of the Interior should be the guardian of public interest when it comes to stewardship of our public lands and our natural resources. So I look forward to hearing the nominee talk about those issues and being able to ask questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. [The written statement of Senator Cantwell follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, and we look forward to your questions, as well as those from all members of the Committee, questions about Mr. Bernhardt's or any nominees' potential conflicts and the needs for associated recusal are fair and important. For my part, I have asked many of those questions of the nominee, and I have been satisfied with his answers. I take the designated agency ethics official at the Department, in addition to the General Counsel at the Office of Government Ethics, at their word that Mr. Bernhardt meets all of the ethical standards under the law for nominees. They have attested to this in writing and in the paperwork that has been submitted that we all have. So, again, fair and important to ask these questions, but again, I want to make sure that what we are doing here in this Committee is consistent with what we have done previously in terms of the standards that we set. Mr. Bernhardt, if you would like to come forward, please, and we will administer the oath as we do with each nominee before the Committee. The rules of the Committee, which apply to all nominees, require that they be sworn in in connection with their testimony. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Mr. Bernhardt. Yes. The Chairman. Before you begin your statement I will--you can go ahead and sit here. I will ask you three questions addressed to each nominee before this Committee. First, will you be available to appear before this Committee and other Congressional Committees to represent Departmental positions and respond to issues of concern to the Congress? Mr. Bernhardt. Yes. The Chairman. Second, are you aware of any personal holdings, investments or interests that could constitute a conflict or create an appearance of such a conflict, should you be confirmed and assume the office to which you have been nominated by the President? Mr. Bernhardt. No. The Chairman. And are you involved or do you have any assets held in blind trust? Mr. Bernhardt. No. The Chairman. With that, Mr. Bernhardt, you may proceed. We would certainly encourage you to introduce your family to the Committee, but we look forward to your comments here this morning and the opportunity to ask questions. STATEMENT OF DAVID BERNHARDT, NOMINATED TO BE THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Mr. Bernhardt. Well, thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Senator Cantwell, members of the Committee. I request that my written statement be entered into the record, and I will summarize my remarks. The Chairman. It will be included as part of the record. Mr. Bernhardt. I am humbled to appear here today as President Trump's nominee for the position of Deputy Secretary for the Department of the Interior. I deeply appreciate the trust and confidence Secretary Zinke has placed in me by asking me to serve as his Chief Operating Officer of the Department, and I ask for your consent to that nomination. I am joined this morning by members of my family. My wife, Gena; my son, William; my daughter, Katherine; and my mother from Colorado, Carolyn Bernhardt-Jones. Now last week when Will and Katie were told about the hearing and that it would take place this morning, they wanted to attend because it beat the classroom. [Laughter.] That actually was only for a few moments, and then I informed them that they wouldn't be texting during the Committee's proceeding. [Laughter.] But after searching the web they decided their dad could use some backup, and for Will there's an additional bonus because we think his attendance counts toward meeting the requirement for a Citizenship of the Nation merit badge for scouts. It was quite an experience to be introduced by Senator Gardner. Our paths have crossed in interesting ways. He is a great leader for the State of Colorado, and I am deeply grateful for his support and introduction. Senator Gardner mentioned a man named Russell George, who was only one of many individuals who greatly impacted my interest in natural resource and environmental matters as well as my development as a leader. My interest and dedication to working in natural resources was originally driven by family trips to majestic parks, boating in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and hikes and hunts and horseback rides on the public lands that border Rifle, Colorado. But it was also driven by daycare. I didn't realize it would be a theme for today's hearing, but it was driven by daycare. And here's why. My parents both worked, and as a result they took an unconventional approach to daycare. My dad would take my brother and I everywhere. And when I say everywhere, I mean everywhere. As a result, my earliest memories are of attending local water district, fair board meetings, soil conservation meetings within the County of Garfield County. The discussion of many of those meetings centered around two things: water and what was taking place on public lands. That's what people talk about in Western Colorado. Now I thought the farmers, ranchers and other folks who volunteered their time to participate in these meetings were doing very important work. I also saw that they actually got things done. Needed facilities were actually built. Where there were disagreements, they took place with civil discussion. At times they thought their federal neighbors were helpful and at others, far less so. Their actions toward working to a common purpose improving things in Garfield County were, in my mind at the time as a child, the embodiment of the 4H pledge where it contains the phrase, ``I pledge my hands for a larger service to my club, my community and my world.'' Now, not everything was sunshine in Rifle, as Senator Gardner mentioned. It suffered a dramatic economic downturn in the mid-80's that was driven partially or significantly by changing economic dynamics but it was also driven by changing federal policies. The Federal Government eliminated the so- called synfuels program which had created an incentive for oil shale. One consequence of that downturn, at least for me, was a sense of economic hopelessness and I left high school a year early to get out of Rifle. When I left I carried with me a commitment to that 4H pledge that we should strive to serve our community, our state and our country in some capacity. I carry that with me today as I sit here with you, and I've carried it with me every day of my life. For me, there are few missions as important as those of the Department of the Interior. It is obvious to anyone watching their kids take in the Statue of Liberty for the first time why we protect our cultural icons for generations. It's also obvious to my kids, every time we open the freezer and they say, please, not elk again. [Laughter.] Why we treasure access to our public lands and are guided by the North American model of wildlife conservation. During my career I have worked on complex issues affecting each of the Department's bureaus. I understand each bureau's mission. I know the dedication of the people there, and I respect the legal and policy choices facing decisionmakers. If I am confirmed here is the approach that I will take when addressing the Department's challenges: I will approach them with an open mind; I will actively seek input and listen to varied views and perspectives; the recommendations I make to the Secretary or those I personally draw will be informed; the decisions I make will be within the confines of the discretion you, as Congress, have given the Secretary in the law; and, the decisions I make will be made with integrity. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bernhardt follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bernhardt. We now will turn to five-minute rounds of questions from members. Mr. Bernhardt, my first round here will be, perhaps, more parochial than my colleagues here, but I want to speak to some of the Alaska-specific issues. If you are confirmed, we have had the discussion about the extent of the role that Alaska plays within Department of the Interior. We oftentimes refer to the Department as our landlord, given the scope and reach into our internal affairs. It is no secret around here that with the last Administration I did not have a particularly close or productive relationship with the Department of the Interior which was unfortunate. So, a general question to you this morning, is how will you approach the dealings with the State of Alaska? How will that be different from what we saw with the previous Administration? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, first let me say that I love the State of Alaska. The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Bernhardt. My wife and I have been at Katmai National Park which I think is one of the most incredible parks on the planet. I've hunted in Yukon Charlie Preserve and been to Denali. In terms of a changed perspective, I think Secretary Zinke has already set that tone by saying that this would be an Administration that restores trust. And I believe that when he says that, he means that we will cooperate and collaborate with states and be respectful of their appropriate role in management and stewardship and with tribes. And from my own perspective I would tell you this, that I'm a student of history and I know and appreciate the agreements that the people in the State of Alaska believe were made by this Congress for them and the balance that those statutes were designed to create and to the extent that we decide that that balance is out of kilter, we'll work with you to restore the balance and the trust. The Chairman. Well, we appreciate that because we feel that there have been many promises made, whether at statehood or following statehood, as it related to our lands and to the promises made to our native people. Mr. Bernhardt. Right. The Chairman. In that vein, you mentioned the commitment to work with our tribes, and I am pleased that you are emphasizing that because the obligation to uphold the Federal Government's trust responsibility to our first peoples is a significant one and throughout the country. But recognizing that we have had issues relating to consultation with our native people, whether in the State of Alaska, I know, again, many of the commitments that were made under ANSCA, many believe have not been kept. There are groups, like the Bering Sea Elders, who believe the Federal Government has not done a good job of consultation in the past. So I am asking for your commitment to, not only conduct consultation, I don't want check the box consultation. We need to have meaningful and consistent consultation with our tribes, with our native organizations, not only in Alaska, but around the country and really to involve them appropriately in the decisions being made that are relevant to them. Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I certainly will give you that commitment. I am fortunate in that yesterday I received a letter from the Southern Ute Tribe which is a tribe in Colorado that used to be led by a gentleman named Leonard Birch. And I had the good fortune of working with Chairman Leonard Birch and others to learn just how meaningful good tribal leadership can be to communities and they supported my nomination, expressed that I have a history of listening and working with them. And of all the things that I've received, other than Senator Gardner's introduction, that really hit home for me. I mentioned it in my testimony and it's something that I believe in. I spent years working on Indian water right settlements, resolving conflicts whether they were in Colorado, New Mexico or Arizona, and I'm committed to hearing people out and trying to find real solutions and to the extent that we can solve things doing it. At the end of the day that's what we're going to be judged on, what we did. Did we adopt practical solutions? Did we move the ball forward? Because I think at times we're paralyzed in the Federal Government and we just need to step forward and make things happen. The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cantwell. Senator Cantwell. Madam Chair, I was wondering if I could defer to my colleague, Senator Heinrich, because I need to run and vote in the Finance Committee and come back, if I could do that? The Chairman. Certainly. Senator Heinrich is next. Senator Cantwell. Is that imposing on you too much, Senator Heinrich? Senator Heinrich. Not at all. Senator Cantwell. Thank you. The Chairman. Okay. Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bernhardt, I wanted to start out and ask you a question about the recent action by President Trump that he took with regard to the signing statement when he signed and enacted the FY2017 Omnibus Appropriations bill. There was the implication that some programs and services for American Indians and for tribes may not comply with equal protection clause of the Constitution. Do you hold the view that tribal programs are somehow in conflict with the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Mr. Bernhardt. Well Senator, first off I must say I have no knowledge of the signing statement and if you want to provide it to me, I'd be happy to look at it. Senator Heinrich. We would be happy to do that, but I think generally as a matter you not need be familiar with the---- Mr. Bernhardt. Sure. As a general matter there is a long history of Federal Courts upholding perspectives related to your plenary authority and the relationship with tribes, so I'm really at a loss to speak to that particular matter. But I'd say that the courts have sustained a variety of programs that have been lawfully enacted here and so, I just apologize for not being able to respond more deeply. Senator Heinrich. So you know, let me give you an example of one of the list of different programs that were called out with respect to the signing statement. One of them was Native American housing block grants, for example. I am not sure what the logic was, but I just want to get a sense for that you do not have an inherent concern about an inherent conflict and that you are comfortable with where the courts have ruled over the years on that matter. Mr. Bernhardt. Well, what I would say is I have no knowledge of that particular item. For example, some of those programs, or that particular program, it's my understanding, has been in place for quite a while. So, I can't really speak to the challenge. Senator Heinrich. During your previous tenure at the Department there was a multiple years long, what I would call a, sort of, a de facto moratorium on land-into-trust applications. More recently in the last Administration I think we saw them take approximately, yes, half a million acres into trust on behalf of tribes. One of the things that we have heard more recently is that there are concerns that there are plans in the works at the Department of the Interior, again, to change the land-into- trust process and potentially to do so without first consulting with tribes. Are you comfortable committing to conducting a full tribal consultation before making any major changes to the land-into-trust process? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, fortunately we had a little bit of an opportunity to speak yesterday, and I think in that meeting I explained to you that from my perspective one of the great opportunities of the Trump Administration and its relationship with tribes is that Congress has resolved some of the long- standing Indian trust issues related to Cobell and other things. And I think that anything that happened during the Bush Administration regarding land-into-trust and trust responsibility, I don't think you can look at those things without sharing a perspective of that particular litigation and the burdens that were imposed on the Department of the Interior because of it. So I'm excited about having a new slate to start with, if you will, not covered by the legacy of hundreds of years, or a hundred years. I can't speak to what the Department has suggested because I'm not aware of any changes. What I would say is to the extent that it would be a regulatory change, there would absolutely be public comment opportunity. And I would think that if it's anything that's meaningful, we would absolutely participate in some form of engagement. Senator Heinrich. Great. Madam Chair, I am going to hold the rest of my questions for the second round and let you get to some other members. Thank you. Mr. Bernhardt. Thank you, Senator. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. Senator Barrasso. Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. Congratulations again on your nomination. It is clear to me that you are keenly aware that this Administration does not want to continue the old business as usual at the Department of the Interior. In fact, it must not be business as usual. You know, across the West communities are struggling with real, dramatic, over regulation that we have been living with the last eight years. Federal agencies have repeatedly failed to recognize on the ground realities that were caused by broad, over-reaching federal policies. Over regulations, particularly harmful, in my home state of Wyoming, where nearly half of our state is public land managed by the Department of the Interior. We live and we work and we play on these public lands, so it is critical to states like Wyoming, that the Department find a balance between protecting the environment and developing our nation's energy resources in a responsible way. I think that the Obama Administration failed to find that balance. They pursued a burdensome regulatory agenda that resulted in far more harm to the economy than benefit to the environment. But Congress and the Trump Administration have taken decisive steps to reverse the trend, such as the Executive Order promoting energy independence and economic growth. The Executive Order gives federal agencies the opportunity to review and, if appropriate, suspend, revise or rescind harmful regulations that burden the energy sector of the American economy. So my question is what steps do you intend to take to remove some of these regulatory burdens to the safe and efficient production of energy resources? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, thank you for that question, Senator. From my perspective, environmental standards need to be maintained. But anyone who goes to the CEQ regulations today would see that they say things such as a complex, environmental impact statement should be 300 pages. If you look at the reality in today's permitting processes, what you would see are environmental impact statements that are hundreds or thousands of pages more than what is suggested. And I believe that we need to ensure that there's public participation and input. I believe that we need to think about alternatives in terms of specific projects. And we need to ultimately make very informed decisions which include the information regarding our required statutes. But I don't believe we need to do it in the way that we do it because we are a country that is suffering from paralysis of analysis, if you will. And part of it's driven by ultimate litigation factors, but I could show you proposed projects that just the documentation for a project is costing $250 million and taking a decade. There's no reason for that to happen. If it's a bad project, we should say it's a bad project and move on. But we need to streamline our systems, and we're prepared to do that. And then we're prepared to manage aggressively as it relates to multiple use. Senator Barrasso. You talked about some of the costs and some of the delays, you know, excessive permitting delays at the Bureau of Land Management really do present additional challenges for our rural communities. In fact, on April 30th this year the BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, had 3,000 pending applications for permits to drill oil and gas on federal land. There is an article, Madam Chairman, I would like to put into the record. The Chairman. It will be included. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Barrasso. It is just oil and gas, 3,000 drilling permit applications await BLM approval. These permitting delays directly threaten our energy security. They threaten jobs. They threaten economic stability for a lot of small communities. The delays exist across all sectors. NEPA delays prevent active forest management. They slow our reactions to invasive species issues. And so, can you talk a little bit about what steps you can take to reduce these permitting backlogs across the Department? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I think the Secretary has made, as a commitment to you in his confirmation, that we're going to focus on giving the front lines the tools that they need to do their job. And I believe that when you look at backlogs in field offices what you find are a few things. Number one, the resources can very well be an issue and often are. The other thing is that at times the field offices are focused on things that are not necessarily within the parameters of the specific mission that the Department has. So, I think we need to start by asking ourself, what are we doing in these offices as it relates to our specific statutory direction? And then two, making sure that we give our folks on the front line the tools to do their job and the flexibility to make their decisions. Senator Barrasso. Thank you. I appreciate Senator Heinrich's comments and questions regarding Indian affairs. As a former Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I have a number of questions in that area as well, but I will submit those in writing. So thank you and thank you for the question. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Senator Manchin. Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Sir, for your willingness to serve again. In West Virginia we have over 17,000 acres of land in the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. I think we spoke about this. And we have a headquarters, it is the headquarters of the refuge, and it is 7,000 square feet and dilapidated and it is really a situation that we need help with. I think we have talked, and my staff has, to an extent with you on this. The other thing, Mr. Bernhardt, is that that is something that, I think, we are going to do in infrastructure. It is a shovel-ready project. It is ready to go. We have been requesting and requesting and requesting. First of all, we would love for you to come out and visit. It's not that far. It is only a three-and-a-half-hour drive. Next of all, we would hope that you would give us the support that we would need, sir, because it is going to take a push from yourself to make something like this a high priority to be done. There are an awful lot of people, a lot of youth, that use this program, and they are out there continuously for educational purposes. So if you could put that on your radar screen, I would appreciate it very much. Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely, sir. First off, we'll take you up on the visit. My family regularly goes up to Harper's Ferry, and we love it. Senator Manchin. Oh, you are not that far. Mr. Bernhardt. Yes. That said, we did talk about that issue a little bit. I really appreciate you giving me time to visit with you and I will look into it in more content once I'm---- Senator Manchin. I thank you for that. The other one I have affects a lot of our states, but in the East, you know, we don't have many public lands, most of ours is private. But what we do have, we have Payment in Lieu of Taxes on those that we do have, and that has been a real tough situation and is really with a lot of our counties that they have had the flexibility to use payments for government purposes as they determine by the state awarded the funds. But we are in jeopardy of those funds subsiding or going away. This Committee recently held a hearing on the Payment in Lieu of Taxes and Secure Rural Schools. Olivia Ferriter, the DOI Deputy Assistant Secretary of Budget, Finance, Performance and Acquisition, testified on the importance of these programs. Specifically, in her written testimony she said that, ``The Trump Administration is interested in ensuring that the Federal Government can fulfill its role of being a good neighbor to local communities.'' West Virginia's larger rural state and expiration of these programs will have greater impact than more populated urban states. Specifically, West Virginia has 1.2 million acres of eligible Payment in Lieu of Tax lands and in 2016 we received $3,113,365 under the program. That was in '16. In 2017 the Omnibus authorities went down to $465,000. You can see where we stand on this. So I would ask, in your previous roles in the Department, what, if any, prior work experience have you had working with the Payment in Lieu of Taxes? Has that been part of your purview? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I had the luxury of serving as the Head of Congressional Affairs for a while at the Department of the Interior. And the most significant role I had in the PILT situation was getting yelled at by members of this Committee and the House Resources Committee for the---- Senator Manchin. No, not these exact members---- Mr. Bernhardt. No, not these exact---- [Laughter.] Getting yelled at because we didn't hit the target right. So I can tell you I will be a strong internal advocate for making sure we get PILT payments right, and we'll see how that plays out in the budget situation. Senator Manchin. I know there is going to have to be push back, probably, sometimes with some of the Administration because of the cuts and things of this sort and you need to prioritize, but how would you prioritize this PILT program? You can imagine the counties where there is no private money coming in. Land taxes are how we pay for our schools. Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I'll tell you, I know how important PILT payments are to local communities. So, I'll tell you that. And I know that we'll be---- Senator Manchin. I hope that you can commit to basically putting it as a high priority. Mr. Bernhardt. I can---- Senator Manchin. Because of education, it is all tied to education. That is what it is all about. Mr. Bernhardt. I'll commit that I'm the only Deputy Secretary that's going to have a Navy Seal for a boss and we'll push internally as hard as we can. Senator Manchin. Thank you, sir, I appreciate it. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Manchin. Senator Gardner is gone, so Senator Daines, you are next. Senator Daines. Alright. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bernhardt, welcome to the Committee, congratulations. Your breadth of experience at the DOI will serve the Secretary and the President very well. Mr. Bernhardt. Thank you. Senator Daines. However, what I think is equally as important as your Western heritage, I was very clear with the Trump Administration when it came time to pick a Secretary of the Interior, it needed to be a Westerner. With all due respect to the Senator from West Virginia, West Virginia, to me, is not West enough. [Laughter.] And to me, West---- Senator Manchin. It is still wild and wonderful. Senator Daines. It is wild and wonderful. I do not disagree. Wild and wonderful, but I guess it is all relative. To me, West starts at about the North Dakota/Montana border and angles West. As you look right here across this Committee, I think you have got Senators starting with the Chairman, all the way over to here that fit that criteria. I was thrilled to see then- Congressman Zinke become the new Secretary, a friend of mine for 38 years. The Department of the Interior, as you know, is charged with managing our wildlife, our public lands, including national parks and refuges, our nation's rich mineral resources, which are key to American energy independence and the sacred responsibility of protecting the Federal Government's trust responsibilities to Indian tribes. I know stewarding the Department's assets is an incredibly challenging balancing act. This came to bear most directly with you in your Deputy Secretary role in charge of resolving the interagency conflicts. In Montana and out West we also have learned to strike that important balance in our daily lives. I like to call it finding that balance between John Denver and Merle Haggard. That melody is so important to capture and get it right. I know you have similar roots in Western Colorado which have, no doubt, informed your world view. Having your family and your mother here, as well, says a lot. You have mastered that melody well, much like Secretary Ryan Zinke. For these reasons you have earned the support of nearly 30 different sportsmen groups. It is an impressive list, Mr. Bernhardt. The Boone and Crocket Club, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Mueller Foundation, the National Wild Turkey Federation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, headquartered in my home state, the Wild Sheep Foundation, headquartered in my home town. This is an impressive list, and I congratulate you on seeing that kind of widespread support from these important sportsmen groups. These groups and others are important at what we like to call our outdoor economy in Montana and out West. But frankly, it is about our state's and our country's heritage. I understand you are an avid hunter. In fact, Senator Gardner, thanks to technology, and I know you haven't allowed your children to tweet today, but Senator Gardner showed me a picture as you were testifying and it was a photo of a beautiful bull moose that you had taken somewhere in Alaska. Mr. Bernhardt. From Alaska. Senator Daines. From Alaska. So I know you are an avid hunter. I liked your anecdote about the elk in the freezer. The Daines Family harvested three elk last season. Our freezer runneth over with elk. You know you are in Montana when the text message you get from your daughter is Dad, she is in college at Montana State University, I just swung by and picked up, and showed, identified which cuts she took from the freezer as she took it home to cook with her roommates. Conservation, like the LWCF, is important to increasing access to our public lands for hunting, fishing and protecting and restoring wildlife habitat. Can you expand on how you will help balance the needs of outdoor recreation access to public lands and conservation, both key roles of the Department's importance to hunting and fishing and other uses of public lands? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, thank you very much for that question. Look, access to public lands means that everyone can have an opportunity to hunt or recreate and this isn't just the domain of a select few. Where I grew up in Rifle, hunting season was a huge, important activity for our town's economy. Senator Daines. I think the namesake of the town, kind of, illustrates that. Just saying. [Laughter.] Mr. Bernhardt. And the truth of the matter is, you know, it impacts you personally in so many ways. The most prized possession I've carried in my wallet since I was in fourth grade is my hunter safety card. The ability to spend time with my kids out there has been phenomenal. And we also have to look at new challenges. I was on the state Fish and Game Board in Virginia and I pushed for an online hunter education program because kids today don't have the time to spend two days in a program and our numbers went up. I'm committed to not only focusing on access but ensuring that we get the next generation of hunters committed to the same thing. Senator Daines. Yes. I am out of time, but in closing it is very important, I think, to many of us out West to preserve and protect that for the average, hard-working American. Mr. Bernhardt. That's right. Senator Daines. Those who still buy their elk tags at Walmart. Mr. Bernhardt. That's right. Senator Daines. Those are the folks you have to look out for. Mr. Bernhardt. Agree. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines. Senator Stabenow. Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And welcome, Mr. Bernhardt, to you and your family. I also grew up in a family of hunters and fishermen and wanted to talk to you about the Great Lakes because the Great Lakes are critical to Michigan's economy and way of life. It is not only about our boating and fishing industry and our hunting, but it is over 1.5 million jobs in Michigan and we provide drinking water for over 30 million people. So this is a big deal for us in protecting our water, 20 percent of the world's fresh water. States in the region work hard to protect the lakes, but we also depend on federal support and partnership. The work by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Services are critical to combating Asian Carp which continue to be a threat of entering our waters, destroying our fish population and ability to have tourism, other aquatic invasive species which frankly would decimate the Great Lakes. So here is my concern. When I first came in 2001, I authored the ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. We cannot afford a spill in the Great Lakes. I am looking at your long history of lobbying for oil and gas stakeholders and the fact that you have even litigated against the Interior Department on behalf of private interests. In 2001, as the Director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs at Interior, you reportedly modified scientific data from the Fish and Wildlife Service to obscure findings that oil drilling could negatively impact wildlife. So I am very concerned. We count on scientific information to protect the lakes, to know what we ought to be doing to protect the lakes, as well as our land and air. How do we trust you to preserve scientific integrity and manage public resources for Americans given your history? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, thank you for that question. I did not modify scientific data, but I appreciate the question. And before I enter into it, I'd like to tell you I have a 2520 Parker pilot house boat that sits on the Chesapeake and, if I'm not at work, I'm out there on it. So I love water and fishing too. But that said, I think that it's important for me to convey two things to you. First, I wasn't involved. I was not the person that modified any data, but I want to tell you how I go about making decisions with science. Perhaps the best example, and it may not make everyone on the Committee happy, but perhaps the best example is the process that Dirk Kempthorne and I went through to ultimately make the determination of whether or not to list the polar bear. And the reality is that when a listing decision was about to be made, at least proposed in a proposed regulation, I looked at the record as a lawyer. And I said, this record is pretty weak. We might be able to go left or right, whatever the Secretary wants to do. And the Secretary made a decision at that moment to ask the U.S. Geological Survey to do more research. They spent a year doing research, and they brought that research back to the Department. So, we get to the next year and that obviously meant as a lawyer, you know, there's more information to analyze. Secretary Kempthorne went through that information incredibly carefully. He reached his own conclusions on that information which may not be the same conclusions that all of you would reach. But I spent days working with the people who developed the data. And once he made the decision to list the bear as a threatened species, then I looked at the law and said, okay, if that law is the Endangered Species Act, we've used science. He's made his decision. How can we line up things in the law in a harmonious way to reduce conflict? And he did that as a matter of law. So, we look at the science, then we apply the law. And we have to learn the science. We have to understand it. We don't manipulate it. If we're going to use data, we should say why it's one person's versus another. But we look at the law with the science as an informational base, and then we make a legal determination. And as long as we connect the dots that we've looked at, that we've evaluated it and we've dotted our ``I''s and crossed the ``T''s, those decisions are going to be upheld and they're going to be upheld legally. And that is the process. Senator Stabenow. So if I might just because, I apologize, because I am running out of time. Mr. Bernhardt. Sure. Senator Stabenow. I just want to follow up and say, so you are indicating you will honor the agency's professional scientists, regardless of political agenda. I mean, we are in, as you know, a whole different world where we never thought we would have to have a march for science. Let's march for facts. I mean, it is kind of strange world that we are in right now. Mr. Bernhardt. So---- Senator Stabenow. But the reality is that scientists and science are under attack throughout the Administration. And so, are you saying that you will honor the professional scientists and what they recommend based on scientific facts? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I would say first, that I'm certain that the scientists at the Department of the Interior are not under attack, number one. Number two, I will take the science. I will look at the science. And you take the science with all its significance and its warts. And you look at that, you evaluate it, and then you look at the legal decision you need to make. In some instances the legal decision may allow you to consider other factors, such as jobs. In other instances, it might not. But you've given us whatever that standard is, and we're going to look at it and apply the law and be honest to the science. Dale Hall, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service while I was there, said to this Committee, in a letter, my scientific, you know, I've never, my integrity on science is unquestionable. And that is the fact. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Thank you. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Stabenow. Senator Flake. Senator Flake. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the testimony so far, and I appreciated the meeting we had in my office. The decisions made by the Department of the Interior have an outsized impact on Arizona. The Department of the Interior manages about a quarter of the land directly in Arizona and holds in trust another quarter. So we are looking at half of the land mass in Arizona that is under some jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. I was pleased to see Secretary Zinke confirmed and under his leadership, I think, the Department is already starting to listen to those in Arizona who are affected by the Department's decisions. For example, I commend the Department for looking to all sides of the Navajo generating station lease issue hearings that have been held or listening sessions this week in Arizona with the stakeholders have been helpful. I think people are pleased to see that the Department is listening. I hope that the Secretary will soon make a trip out to Arizona. Now members of this Committee have heard me talk repeatedly about water, and we talk a lot about it in Arizona. We talk about it more than we have it. That is the problem. The basin states are very close to coming up, hopefully, with a drought contingency plan. That will be a needed update to the 1944 treaty with Mexico regarding the Colorado River. I believe that we will be well served by your long history dealing with the Colorado River. Can you talk about some of that, talk about your experience and some of the issues that we have going forward? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, candidly, my history with the Colorado River begins probably in first grade. The Colorado River was about 150 feet from my house growing up, and it was an awesome place to be. But the reality is for my entire career I've understood very well how special the approach taken on the Colorado River is. The seven basin states have worked cooperatively, sometimes encouraged or nudged by the Department, but there is a legacy, there is a legacy of them coming together since the Hoover Commission to reach consensus on very tough issues. When I was first at the Department we worked on a variety of things. I was involved in the Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act and, you know, I know full well what power the Secretary has as it relates to the Colorado River and the legacy of cooperation that has been shared with the Department and the seven basin states. And I cannot imagine that changing under our watch. Senator Flake. Okay. Talk a little bit about that role. What is the Department's role? Is it to convene the basin states, to nudge them into an agreement, to work with them after they have reached the agreement? What is the optimal approach? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I think optimally, the Department should be involved, I mean, you know, if push came to shove on the lower Colorado, the Secretary is the water master of the Colorado, lower Colorado, under the law. But the reality is that it's through encouragement, you know, there's constant meetings between the Department and the various states, as well as some collectively. And it's my belief that we should be engaged and not take a back seat, but at the end of the day, to the extent that the states can agree on an approach that works for us, we should adopt it. Senator Flake. Great. Thank you. One area that will require continued cooperation between Arizona and the Department is the tribal water rights settlements. You mentioned that you've been involved in this area. There are several settlements that are in need of legislative action this year alone, many more in the negotiation phase. How can your previous experience in this area be of help to Arizona? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I think first off I've resolved a number of Indian water rights settlements and other federal reserved water rights settlements. And so, I know, not only the importance to the community of getting it resolved, but the energy and effort that it takes to get to a resolution. And from that standpoint, you know, Secretary Zinke, while he was a Member of Congress, enacted legislation related to a water rights settlement. And so, I believe that he's committed to that. And you know, we, to the extent that we can be helpful, we will. Senator Flake. Right. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Flake. Senator Cantwell. Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sorry I had to leave to run to vote, and thank you for my colleagues letting me weigh in here. I wanted to ask you, I mentioned in my statement about previous times that you were at the Department of the Interior and some of the challenges that the agency faced, particularly Deputy Secretary Griles and his conviction for obstructing the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and Julie McDonald for disclosing internal documents and pressuring agency scientists to withhold information improperly. I am assuming you agree with the decision for both of those individuals to be dismissed and prosecuted on those issues? Mr. Bernhardt. To be prosecuted? Senator Cantwell. I think they were accused of obstructing. I don't know where it went after that. Do you agree with their firings? How about that? Mr. Bernhardt. Sure. Senator Cantwell. Okay. And what do you think was wrong with what they were doing at the agency? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, if you've looked at and I assume you have reviewed the Inspector General reports? Senator Cantwell. Yes. Mr. Bernhardt. So, if you look at those reports, what you'll see is that there's two issues. One is the conduct of an employee. But there were also very significant structural issues of how lawyers were advising clients whether that information was moving through the decision-making process. So what I personally did is I ensured that we put in new legal review processes so that we could always manage to have the clients talking to lawyers in a way that would allow them to freely communicate their views and move their views up the chain so that things were modified. Senator Cantwell. I guess I am trying to get a reading on how egregious you think it was that Julie McDonald tried to pressure the scientists to withhold information or modify scientific data to further the agenda. Mr. Bernhardt. So---- Senator Cantwell. How egregious do you think that is? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I think it was, it was very serious. There are two very serious problems. One is the manner in which Julie went about a discussion with folks and that was clearly abrasive when you read the report, you see that. The other fundamental problem was that legal questions and legal information that was provided to the Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the listing packages, was not in and incorporated in the Department and it was the result of that that if you look at that report you'll see that I put a surname, legal review process in place that ensured that legal conflicts, legal conflicts, would rise to me, if necessary, to resolve. And if I couldn't resolve an issue with Julie, I would go to the Deputy Secretary. So I personally put in place a means to correct, not only correct but proactively eliminate, the problem of a disconnect between what Julie McDonald wanted to do and what the lawyers wanted to do. When it came to me, it was either resolved my way or I went to the Deputy Secretary and I said to him, we need to fix it. In addition, once these issues came out through Earl Devaney, I went to the Deputy Secretary and I said the following. Senator Cantwell. Okay. Mr. Bernhardt. I said, I said---- Senator Cantwell. I have a lot of questions. Mr. Bernhardt. I must at least be able to complete my sentence. I said, Deputy Secretary, we need to revise and evaluate these decisions, and she requested that the Fish and Wildlife Service begin a review process of all decisions so that none of them were tainted. Senator Cantwell. You can extend your remarks as long as you want on this. It was just a simple question to get this issue registered to you as how egregious you thought these actions were and how aggressive you might be in the future--it was not pushing you on what you did to rectify that, although that is a different line of questioning. I have questions about both Cadiz and Westlands, and as you can see, my colleagues are asking these questions because they do not want--we do not want--to have a culture at Interior where people decide to prosecute these things on their own. Have you received any compensation for your work, including additional shares of stocks on the Cadiz question in compensation since you have exited the firm? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I would exit the firm if I were to be confirmed. And if I did, my ethics agreement is clear that I would not have any continuing interest in the firm and therefore, I would have no interest in anything of value that the firm might have. Senator Cantwell. Including shares of stock? Mr. Bernhardt. I would have no interest in any shares or theoretical potential for shares, not---- Senator Cantwell. Do you believe that you or your firm worked on behalf of Cadiz in any way to influence the Trump Administration's decision to reverse the BLM decision either directly or indirectly? Mr. Bernhardt. Well I know that I had no involvement with the Trump Administration. I had, either directly or indirectly, I had no involvement on the Cadiz matter with the transition, none with the Department, none with the Hill during that period of time. Senator Cantwell. Did you discuss the project with anybody as part of the Trump transition team or any member of Congress? Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely--during that period of time? Senator Cantwell. Yes. Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely not. Senator Cantwell. Okay. What about in the last six months in general? Prior to the transition team? Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely not. Senator Cantwell. Okay. As a lawyer do you believe the transition team's non- disclosure agreement authorizes the withholding of information from Congress or is it legally enforceable under the Whistleblower Protection Act? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I hate to give you a lawyer's answer to a legal question in a hearing, but I think the first question would be whether or not the Whistleblower Act will even apply to the transition because it's my understanding that Trump for America is a non-profit entity. And so, I'm not sure that the legal rubric that falls for government would even apply to that. I just don't--simply don't--know the answer to that right now. Senator Cantwell. I see I'm over my time. We will come back on a second round, Madam Chair. The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you. The Chairman. Senator Risch. Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Senator Risch. Very deep questions, Senator. Senator Cantwell. Very important issues. Senator Risch. Mr. Bernhardt, thank you so much. Madam Chairman, I really do not have any questions for Mr. Bernhardt. He was very gracious to come and spend quite a bit of time with me. I find him uniquely qualified for the job. I am an enthusiastic supporter. The bad news for him is we confirm a lot of people for a lot of positions. This is a really tough position. There is nothing easy that is going to come across your desk. And I want to thank you for your willingness to take this on. Thank you to the family that is going to sacrifice also. My first year in law school I remember one of the professors saying, ah, the law is a jealous mistress. And we all, kind of, laughed. And he was right. It takes a lot of time, and there is a lot of sacrifice involved. Again, thank you for your willingness to do that, and I look forward to working with you. As you know, my state, the Western states, have huge issues because of our interface with the Federal Government and the Federal Government's ownership of the amount of, the percentage of, land that they have in each of the states. It causes considerable conflict and it is always best if these things can be resolved. I know that you are committed to do that and look forward to working with you. So, with that, thank you, Madam Chair. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch. Senator Franken. Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to see you again, Mr. Bernhardt. You talked already--we talked about science. He talked about it here thus far. In the polar bear being listed under the Endangered Species Act, the listing decision stated most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in the anthropogenic, man-made, greenhouse gas concentrations. Do you agree with that opinion? Mr. Bernhardt. That was in the rule? Senator Franken. That was in the decision. Mr. Bernhardt. Yup. I would absolutely agree with that. Senator Franken. Okay. So, you believe that climate change is a serious threat that requires aggressive action? Mr. Bernhardt. I believe that we need to take the science as it comes, whatever that is. And we need to---- Senator Franken. I think the science is pretty decided on this. Mr. Bernhardt. I know and we talked about that in your office. Senator Franken. And in my office you seemed to agree. Mr. Bernhardt. I certainly agree that we take the science as we find it, whatever it is. Senator Franken. That's not---- Mr. Bernhardt. And I personally believe that the contribution is significant, very significant. Now, that's different, that's different than what we do with it. And here's where people disagree. My task will be to take the science as we find it, put it in the paradigm of the Administration's policy perspective which is we are not going to sacrifice jobs for this and then look at the legal rubric and say, how do we, how do we apply the law there? So, for example---- Senator Franken. Okay, here is the question though. When you say sacrifice jobs, we know there are jobs and probably a lot more jobs in clean energy, and we have seen a lot more jobs in solar, and we have seen a lot more jobs in wind than, you know, Senator Manchin sits to my right. I know he likes coal jobs, but they are not coming back and that is partly due to natural gas. But if you are going to argue--what about the jobs that we are going to have dealing with climate dislocation and refugees? What about the jobs we are going to have when the East Coast is flooded? What about those jobs? If we don't, you know, I think it is very shortsighted to talk about the extra jobs that you get by drilling for fossil fuels when the science is telling us that by the end of the century and God willing, your kids, who are beautiful, by the way, whether they will make it to the end of the century. The scientists tell us that we are going to have about four degrees Centigrade increase in temperature and the military, and we talked about this, the Defense Department, it knows very well that this is a threat, the greatest national security threat to us. So, this calculus of, well, how many jobs is-- yes, but it is incredibly shortsighted, I think, to look at it that way. So my question to you is climate change an existential threat to you because I would suggest that the science is in and to say we are going to take the science as we take it? The science is in. Mr. Bernhardt. Would you like me to respond? Senator Franken. That's what the long pause was for? [Laughter.] Mr. Bernhardt. Wasn't sure. Here is the reality. We are going to look at the science, whatever it is, but policy decisions, policy decisions are made. This President ran. He won on a particular policy perspective. That perspective is not going to change to the extent that we have the discretion under the law to follow it. In some instances, we might now, but those that we do, we are absolutely going to follow the policy perspective of the President. And here's why. That's what--the way our republic works and he is the President. Senator Franken. Okay, you also talked about some ethics problems during your eight years in Interior that were brought up. I will save that for the second round because I see I am losing my time. So I will be here for a second round. Mr. Bernhardt. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Franken. Let's go to Senator King. Senator King. Thank you. First I want to address my comments to your daughter. As I came in I looked on the TV screen, and you are in every picture of your dad. So you have to look very attentive and don't even think about touching your phone. [Laughter.] Mr. Bernhardt, I want to say, you are the first person in the history of the human race to ever use the words, ``luxury to serve as Director of Congressional Affairs.'' [Laughter.] I will let that one go. Your credibility diminished though. I understand from our discussion that you grew up in a small town in Colorado near a national monument. Is that correct? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I grew up near public lands. There's a national monument about 60 miles away. So---- Senator King. Does that national monument contribute to the economy of the region? Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely. Senator King. It is a positive? Mr. Bernhardt. It is. Senator King. Well, I want to ask you a few questions. As you know the President signed an Executive Order which led to the review of a series of national monuments. The cutoff was 100,000 acres for the list. Then there was one monument added under 100,000 acres which happens to be in the State of Maine, and it said that the question there was adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders. Would you give me your views on what that means? What would you consider adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I certainly can't speak to the specifics of the---- Senator King. No, no. I am asking in general. What would adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders look like? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, my expectation would be that public meetings were held, the views of the state representatives, the views of congressional representatives, were all part of---- Senator King. Local businesses. Mr. Bernhardt. Making an informed decision. Senator King. Local businesses? Mr. Bernhardt. Of course, local businesses, the public at large in open meetings. Senator King. Open meetings involving the Department of the Interior? Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely, sir. Senator King. So that would look like adequate---- Mr. Bernhardt. Well, it would certainly look like a darn good start. Senator King. Thank you. As Solicitor one of the legal questions about the Antiquities Act is the authority of the President. It is clear the President has the authority to create national monuments. There is no expressed authority to undo a national monument. Do you believe under the Antiquities Act the President has the authority to eliminate a national monument that was duly promulgated during a prior Administration? Mr. Bernhardt. So, I could show you legal opinions going both ways and---- Senator King. I wish you would because I have only seen legal opinions that say that the President can't do it. If there are---- Mr. Bernhardt. I would be happy to provide some to you. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Bernhardt. At the end of the day, that's not been tested. And here's my view of where that ultimately comes out. The first question, and this is the biggest question, is this isn't a decision that's made by the Department of the Interior. It's not even made by the Department of Justice. It's a decision that will be made at the White House because you're talking about the exercise of Presidential power. And---- Senator King. Presidential power, as all Presidential powers, are somewhat circumscribed by statute and in the Constitution. Mr. Bernhardt. Well, absolutely, but this is specific authority given to the President. So, I can at least tell you that when these discussions take place, they will take place in the White House Counsel's office with a view from the Department of Justice, potentially a view from the Office of Interior's Solicitor and many other views. And I cannot predict at this moment in time where that-- where the White House Counsel will end up. Obviously people are familiar with the 1938 opinion. They're also familiar with other legal arguments and some folks have even criticized the '38 opinion. So I don't know where the government will come out, but I know that it won't be a decision made at Interior. Senator King. Thank you. You have been criticized, and I am sure you are aware of it, for having been in the Department, in the private sector, represented groups and organizations, now you are going back into the Department. One way to characterize that is you have broad experience with these issues. Another way to characterize it is potential conflicts of interest. Talk to me about that issue. Mr. Bernhardt. Well, first off I'd say, on a personal level, I take ethics incredibly seriously. Senator Cantwell raised a statement made in 2005 by Earl Devaney in a hearing. If she scrolls through that hearing a little farther she's going to see another statement by Earl Devaney where he says I've been talking to the Acting Solicitor and I think he gets it, meaning he gets---- Senator King. That was you. Mr. Bernhardt. I was the Acting Solicitor. And what he meant is I think he gets that Bernhardt understands that these decisions made, legal decisions, legal advice that needs to be given, that legal advice needs to be given in a way that says it's in the interest of the public and the interest of the American public and that's the way I conducted myself. I looked at---- Senator King. Is it your commitment here today to make all your decisions in the interest of the people of the United States of America? Mr. Bernhardt. Unequivocally, and I have signed the exact same agreements my predecessors have. And I will stand by that. Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator King. Senator Gardner. Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, thanks to you and Ranking Member Cantwell for this hearing today. Again, welcome to the Bernhardt Family. I have a couple of letters of support for Mr. Bernhardt that I would ask unanimous consent to be submitted into the record, a letter from the---- The Chairman. It will be submitted. Senator Gardner. Thank you. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Gardner. A letter from the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in Southwestern Colorado supporting the nomination, a letter from the Colorado River District supporting David Bernhardt's nomination and a letter from the Colorado Water Congress supporting Mr. Bernhardt's nomination. I think it is important to point out, an organization like the Colorado Water Congress which has environmentalist members, it has engineering members, it has lawyer/attorney members. This comment from Colorado Water Congress' letter of support for the nomination says, ``Mr. Bernhardt believes in and practices straight talk, is inclusive in consideration of issues brought before, explores all available options on the path to finding workable solutions in the real world where government actions impact real people.'' I think that speaks very highly of your work, but also from the people who have known your work in the past, not just as a member of the Interior Department but as a Coloradan, having worked in Colorado Congressional Offices and beyond, the importance of finding those solutions that impact a lot of people. Mr. Bernhardt, you and I have had a number of conversations about how we can help better promote our public lands, how we can better manage our public lands, what we can do to make sure that we continue to protect and highlight our public lands. There is a bipartisan support growing for moving an agency like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the West, where 99 percent of the land the BLM holds is West of the Mississippi River. We have talked about placing it in Grand Junction which is, of course, the Western Slope in Mesa County, right next door to Rifle, Colorado. That is where the Colorado National Monument is home to, so it would be right there in Mesa County. Seventy-four percent of the acreage is federal land managed primarily by the BLM. Do you think we ought to explore whether putting the federal workforce that specializes in these public land initiatives closer to lands and the people they affect? Do you think that is a good idea? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, not only do I think it's a good idea, Senator, I think it might already be happening. [Laughter.] Senator Gardner. I appreciate that, Mr. Bernhardt. I have introduced legislation that to do just that. In a number of other conversations that you and I will be having over the years, if you are confirmed, of course, is water issues. I learned from, I think, Speaker George that ``damn bureau'' was one word to a lot of people in the Western Slope of Colorado. [Laughter.] But they have gone on to do some very great things and we have to make sure that those great things can continue. We have numerous proposed water projects in Colorado, including projects like the Northern Integrated Supply Project, others in the Western Slope as well, things like the Arkansas Valley Conduit, the Arkansas Valley Conduit was authorized to be built, a pipeline, from Pueblo, Colorado to Lamar, Colorado, a 200-mile journey, to provide clean water to economically, low, depressed, economically depressed areas, affordable, abundant, clean water. That was authorized, as you know, by President John F. Kennedy, and yet it still has not been built. Will you commit to working with me and the Colorado delegation to improve our federal regulatory permitting process, members of this Committee, as well, in order to assist in getting the critical water projects approved in a more timely fashion? Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely. I think this is one of the most significant things that, maybe, I can help the Committee understand is many of these projects are not seeking federal money, but what they need is some regulatory certainty in terms of getting them developed. And ideas like Senator Gardner's could fundamentally help develop these projects in a reasonable way. And I look forward to working with you on that because I believe that the era of financing these projects in many instances, not all, is gone. But the regulatory certainty needs to be there or the projects are just not going to get built. And you know, many of the projects we use to today were built in the 60's. And you look back and you say wow, you know, that's really not that long. And we need to be thinking about the next 100 years, as Mr. Franken said, at least for water. Senator Gardner. And as you have, many times, gone into the Great Rotunda at the capital in Denver, you will see that mural written on the wall that says, ``Here is a land where history is written in water.'' Mr. Bernhardt. That's right. Senator Gardner. Will you commit to continuing the tradition of allowing states to take the lead in negotiating interstate water compacts? Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely. Senator Gardner. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner. The last person in this first round is Senator Duckworth. Senator Duckworth. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I would like to submit the following articles for the record. There's several so I'm just going to describe them all first. The first one is an article that ran in Mother Jones in 2003. It documents that the nominee was the Bush Administration's point person, pushing oil drilling in the Arctic to Wyoming and that the nominee altered the scientific findings from the Fish and Wildlife Service so that they would fit his political and policy priorities. These findings came from a report funded by BP exploration and were shared in congressional testimony. The second item is an article that ran in the Washington Post in 2007. It details that senior political appointees in the Bush Administration resigned over ethical violations while the nominee was the Solicitor of DOI. Those appointees revised scientific reports in an effort to minimize the protections of endangered species. And as you know, the Office of Solicitor performs the legal work for DOI which includes overseeing the Ethics Office. The third item is an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal in 2008. It details how when the nominee was at DOI the Minerals Management Service allowed oil companies to avoid paying royalties for offshore drilling rights which will cost taxpayers as much as $10.5 billion over about 25 years. The fourth item is an investigative report that was written by the Interior's Inspector General. This report details how employees at the Minerals Management Service created a culture of ethical failure by consuming alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana and had sexual relations with oil and gas company representatives. These events occurred on the nominees watch as Solicitor and other leadership roles at Interior. The article further observes that employees had escaped punishment by leaving the Department. The fifth item is a press release from DOI which was published in 2012. It indicates that Shell Oil had $25 million in underpaid royalties for federal offshore oil and gas drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico during the nominees' time at the agency. That money should have gone to states like Louisiana and was settled under the Obama Administration. The sixth item is an article that ran this week in the LA Times. It states that as a partner at one of the nation's top grossing lobbying firms, the nominee represented major players in oil, mining and western water. These are all areas that fall under the purview of DOI that the nominee would regulate, if confirmed as the Department's Deputy Secretary. Finally, I would like to submit the nominee's client list while at Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck. This list includes the who's who of oil companies that the nominee would regulate as Deputy Secretary. Those are the seven items. The Chairman. The items that you have requested be included as part of the record will be included, although I would probably disagree with many of the summations that you have made there. So I will look forward to reading them. Senator Duckworth. Yes, of course. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Duckworth. Clearly no candidate is perfect; however, what is so shocking about your candidacy, Mr. Bernhardt, is that the scandal and controversies associated with your career stretch over such a long period of time. President Trump promised the American people that he would drain the swamp when he was elected, his words, not mine. Yet he weakened the laws that actually prevent the very type of conflict of interest your candidacy is plagued with. Mr. Bernhardt, a simple yes or no. Are you aware that under the Obama Administration's lobby rules you would not have qualified for this appointment? Mr. Bernhardt. Yes. Senator Duckworth. Okay, thank you. I would like to yield the rest of my time, Madam Chair, to the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Franken. The Chairman. The Senator has one minute. Senator Franken. Okay, well I will do a 1 minute and 16 second thing. I got a call today from a friend in Indian Country, and she expressed a lot of concern from tribal leaders that even though Secretary Zinke assured me that he took tribal consultation sovereignty very seriously that they feel that is not happening. They feel that they are being blocked by James Cason. Do you know who he is? Mr. Bernhardt. I do. Senator Franken. I do want your commitment that you will observe the government relationships with the tribes and undertake meaningful consultation regarding policy and regulatory changes and that you will make that commitment and that you will continue to check in with us to make sure that that is happening? Mr. Bernhardt. So, I will unequivocally commit. I will commit to consult. I will unequivocally commit to keeping you updated. And you don't need to take my word for it, the Southern Ute Tribe of Colorado as well as other tribes, have sent in letters discussing my activities and their experience with them. I take the trust responsibility seriously. I take the consultation responsibilities seriously that I'm going to consult with tribes and I'm also going to consult with states and local entities. Senator Franken. I understand that answer, but I just want to respond very quickly to it. That is not what I am hearing from my friends in Indian Country at all in terms of, not you personally, but of, for example, when it comes to the DOI's status review of Bears Ears National Monument, that there has not been consultation. And this is very concerning to me. Thank you. The Chairman. We will now begin a second round, although I do understand that we are supposed to have two votes at noon. I have not seen them noticed up yet, but we will just be aware of that. Mr. Bernhardt, we have had an opportunity to discuss the situation in Alaska. As you know, our state's economy has been very reliant over the past several decades on the oil that comes to us through the North Slope. The Trans Alaska Pipeline is about three-quarters empty. It carries about 500,000 barrels a day, not due to lack of resource up there, but really more to almost a blanket lack of permission to access our federal lands. If you are confirmed as Deputy Secretary, and again, I am certainly going to be helping to make that happen, but can you give your commitment to me that you will make it a priority to work with me, with the other members of the Alaska delegation, with our Governor, to develop a plan to figure out how we refill our Trans Alaska Pipeline? Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely. I was--I hadn't looked at the volume in TAPS for a while, and I was very surprised by the significance of the decline. I will absolutely make it a priority to work with you on that specifically. The Chairman. Well, we look forward to that. Let me ask about some of the reports that have come out of the Interior's Inspector General over the last few years regarding the Park Service and other DOI agencies. These have included not only the agencies, but also the previous Park Service Director himself, on topics ranging from sexual misconduct to major ethical violations. What do you think needs to be done? What do we need to do to improve, not only within the Park Service but the Department of the Interior as a whole to avoid this kind of conduct by employees in the future and ensure a more positive work environment by not only the employees, but to ensure that our visitors to our public lands have the most positive experience possible? Mr. Bernhardt. Well Senator, on a personal level, as Katie sits behind me, I can't fathom her being subjected to a work environment where she's treated hostilely, just because of her gender. And I will do everything I can on the personnel side to deal with that. But I think that we need to look at where the cultural priorities of the Department are. The Secretary has said from the top we are going to have a cultural accountability. And the reality is that when I went into the Department as Solicitor in 2006, what I did is I went and pulled a number of the reports and investigations that people have talked about today. I went line by line through them doing things like finding ethics experts who were experienced, expanding the ethics program within the Department significantly, locating ethics officials where there were a high degree, where there were many personnel, for example, in Denver. And I created a very robust plan that I implemented after hearing what the Inspector General had to say. What was interesting to me when I went back recently to go through the pre-clearance process here, is that those same folks are there. I think we really need to ask ourselves is there more needed, because obviously there are serious issues at Interior and agencies like the Park Service and we need to beef up and that may require us asking you for additional help. But we need to create a culture of accountability and then we have to send a message, very clearly, that the culture we have is one of employee safety and ethical conduct. The Chairman. I appreciate that. I think we all recognize that matters of ethics and integrity are ones where there can be no compromise, no give, that they need to be to the highest standard. Mr. Bernhardt. Sure. The Chairman. And I appreciated the depth of the discussion that we had in my office about just this and you outlining what you had done within the Department during your tenure there to focus specifically on it. I also further noted with some interest that you happened to be married to an individual who devotes her daytime job to a focus on ethics as well. So I think that that cannot hurt you in your analysis as well. Mr. Bernhardt. That's true. I have an ethics expert nearby. [Laughter.] The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cantwell? I note that Senator Cortez Masto has just come in and has not yet had a first round, but your deference here. Senator Cantwell. Are you going to continue through the vote, Madam Chair? The Chairman. Well, we have to. Senator Cantwell. I will just go, thank you, Madam Chair. Our last question was on this issue of the transition team. Regardless of whether the Whistleblower Enhancement Act applies to the transition team, do you believe the transition team's non-disclosure agreement authorizes the withholding of information from Congress? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I certainly believe that I've signed a non-disclosure agreement and to the extent that that non- disclosure agreement exists, I have to ensure that I've done everything I can to comply with that. Senator Cantwell. Do you think it is a good policy that the President's transition team actually requires the transition team to withhold information from Congress? Do you think it is a good idea? Mr. Bernhardt. I don't know if they've made that assertion or not. Senator Cantwell. Do you think it is a good idea? Do you think it is a good idea, in general, for the transition team to withhold information from Congress? Mr. Bernhardt. At the end of the day I felt that it was acceptable for me to sign a non-disclosure agreement and I did, and I'm obviously bound by that agreement. Senator Cantwell. Okay, I will take that on its face, what you have said. Your firm, I know, has an agreement on this Cadiz issue in the value of stock. Has your firm benefited recently from the announced Trump policy on Cadiz or has it benefited to date in the context of this, since the time of the policy? Mr. Bernhardt. In terms of? Senator Cantwell. Increased payment, benefited financially. Mr. Bernhardt. Not that I'm aware of. Senator Cantwell. Okay. Was the compensation reflected in any--you had a personal financial disclosure statement that is about stock and equity and is there any updated financial disclosure on that that we haven't seen since? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I think the way the process worked is I had to submit a letter to you. I believe, maybe even yesterday or Tuesday that it contained any updates as they related to my interests. And that has been submitted to you and obviously, it does not include anything related to the Cadiz matter or anything like that. I specifically have no interest in those, I think, items. Senator Cantwell. Okay, so nothing reflects in that statement any kind of payment or increase in payment through the firm to you prior to this filing? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, it would, I believe the letter includes what would be the, my draws, for one or maybe two months as it related to the, whatever the time horizon of the letter is. Senator Cantwell. On the issues of both Westlands and Cadiz, I think what you have testified to is that you would adhere to whatever recusals are required, for a one-year period, and then whatever the Administration requires, so maybe a two-year period. Don't you think the general public would wonder, have concerns about, a recusal period for a longer period of time on something where the investment and performance of your firm will be resulting in decisions on Cadiz in the future? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I've signed exactly the same agreements that folks that were reported out of the Committee with your support included. On top of that, whatever my firm's interests may or not be, the minute I walk out of that firm, I have no interest in their interest. And that is the way the law operates. That's the way the law is set up, and that is the way I will follow the law. Senator Cantwell. You don't find it a conflict that you have worked for this firm and you have been part of the Department of the Interior, you could go back to this firm. Clearly during the transition period this firm's payment as it relates to stock value has gone up just because of the decisions of the Administration. So, yes, I have a question about whether you had any discussions with anybody during that time period to influence the decision by the Administration. You have said that you haven't. I personally think that Westlands and Cadiz represent such large public policy issues with financial interests that it would be better if you recused yourself for the entire time that you were at the Department, not just one or two years. Do you have a comment about that idea? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I appreciate that you have that perspective. I can sit here and walk through numerous nominees that you've supported that you didn't ask that of and the reality is I will follow all of the recusals I have and on top of that, if I get a whiff of something coming my way that involves a client or a former client or my firm, I'm going to make that item run straight to the Ethics Office. And when it gets there, they'll make whatever decisions they're going to make and that will be it for me. Senator Cantwell. I would ask you to think about a longer term than one or two years. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Chairman. Let's turn to Senator Gardner. The vote has started so my hope is that we can power through this last round pretty quickly. Senator Gardner. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I think it is important to this conversation that we are reminded of the Hayes/Schneider standard which was a standard put forward when David Hayes and Janice Schneider were confirmed. I think one worked for the Clinton Administration, was confirmed by the Senate, went into the private sector, worked at a law firm, represented clients, then came back and was confirmed into the Obama Administration. The Schneider nomination, the same thing. I believe she worked in the Clinton Administration, was a partner at Latham and Watkins, the law firm, represented a variety of clients, came back and was confirmed in the Obama Administration. All of them, including the Hayes/Schneider contingency, were cleared by the Department of Government Ethics. They had the same agreements put in place. And so, the Hayes/Schneider standard that they were confirmed with is the same standard that, I hope, we continue to look at nominees who have gone into the private sector and gained that valuable experience that would be nice to be able to apply to their public service, to understand what happens in the private sector and how that impacts, the real-world impacts, and how that can be utilized when it comes to better government service. I also want to talk a little bit about the Southern Ute Indian tribe letter. I did not get a chance to read it. I read one of the letters of support, the Colorado Water Congress. I am going to read the last paragraph of the Southern Ute Indian tribe. And I will just add this about the Southern Ute Indian tribe. They are a tribe that supports the Bears Ears National Monument designation. So here is a tribe that is part of the coalition that supports Bears Ears designation. And it says this, ``A native of Colorado, Mr. Bernhardt, is aware of our tribe's unique history, particularly the role that meaningful, self-determination has played in our achieving economic prosperity for our tribe.'' I am paraphrasing the sentence. It goes on to say, ``We believe that Mr. Bernhardt is well positioned to help lead the Department of the Interior in a manner that respects the federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes and empowers tribal communities to exercise greater self-determination.'' I think if there is any question or concern that related to prior questions, I think this Southern Ute Indian tribe letter explains that and the work that you do, in fact, the tribe that supports the Bears Ears National Monument designation. I think that if we are going to continue to treat nominees as we have others and I know there can be particular politics at the time that demand different tactics and techniques, but again, I appreciate your willingness to come out of the private sector and to provide that valuable public service to the government. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bernhardt. Thank you, Senator. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner, I appreciate a little bit of that background, because I think it is an important part of the record. Let's go to Senator Cortez Masto, if we may. Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Bernhardt, it is good to see you again. I am juggling three committees at the same time, so I so appreciate you coming in and having the opportunity to sit and talk with you. Thank you. As you well know, as we discussed, in my state we have the greatest amount of public lands, more than any other state in the nation. Not only do I believe that we must protect our lands with federal oversight, but I am a firm believer in the benefits of national monuments to our economy and our communities. As I have seen in my own state of Nevada, Gold Butte and Basin and Range provide incredible opportunities for outdoor recreation, not only for the enjoyment of Nevadans, but for a resilient economy for neighboring rural communities. Nevada supports its monuments. In fact, the Pew Charitable Trust in 2015 study that a national monument designation for Gold Butte could contribute nearly $2.7 million per year in economic activity and increase the number of jobs by 60 percent. In Nevada alone, the outdoor recreation economy generates 148,000 jobs and $14.9 billion, according to the Outdoor Industry Association, and at least 57 percent of Nevada residents participate in outdoor recreation each year. I look forward to working with you. I do know, if appointed as the Deputy Secretary, you will oversee the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. We have also seen an Executive Order from the Administration looking at the impact of the Antiquities Act and particularly Gold Butte Basin and Range are impacted. I am curious what your approach would be with respect to those monuments and would you consider, as you look at those, and if you are considering those, would you consider widespread support from the state as important, as well as the outdoor recreation it provides to the state as well, in your consideration? Mr. Bernhardt. Yes, obviously, I'm not involved in that review yet because I'm not there. But to the extent that I were to be involved in that, undoubtedly, strong support from the state, impacts to the economy have to be factors that are considered. Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. Again, I invite you to come out as well. The invitation is open. We would love to have you back in Nevada. Also, along that route, Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) are a crucial way for DOI to get diverse community input on public land management and RACs have helped inform decisions on issues related to recreation, land use planning, wildfire planning, wildfire management issues. I will tell you I am concerned that these meetings are being postponed right now in Nevada until September 2017 due to the full-scale review. Do you believe community input is essential and will you continue to postpone these meetings once you are there as Deputy? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I certainly believe that community input and involvement is essential. I can't speak to the specifics of that because I've read about it and that it occurred. My sense would be that when I was at the Department of the Interior before RACs were a useful and important thing and that wasn't a cessation of them. Senator Cortez Masto. Can I ask that once you are appointed, or if you are appointed, that you will continue to look at allowing these meetings to move forward because obviously, as you go through your review and if you are reviewing our national monuments, you would want input from our community members. Mr. Bernhardt. I certainly would commit to looking into it and coming back and talking with you about it once I have a more informed perspective. Senator Cortez Masto. Then we talked about this in the office, but just want to have it on the record. How would you approach wild horse management? Mr. Bernhardt. Well, as we discussed, that's a--I recognize that that's a very challenging item and I know that we need to get resolutions. So I have to learn a lot about it, but the minute I do, I'm going to sit down with you and other members of the delegation or other members of the Committee that have challenges with it. We have to find a solution and it has to be something that, you know, that recognizes the impact that is occurring in the environment and has to be workable long-term in terms of the budget. So it's just something I have to get up to speed on a little bit more, but I know it's become a huge challenge for BLM administratively and we've got to find a way to fix it. Senator Cortez Masto. Great. And will you commit to working with us to find a solution? Mr. Bernhardt. Sure. Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you very much, and welcome to your family. Thank you. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Bernhardt, again for being so patient and sticking around for all of these questions. I don't want to belabor my last question, but I just want to make sure we are actually on the same page. I asked about a tribal consultation with respect to any potential changes to the land and trust process. I think you used the phrase, meaningful engagement. I used the phrase, full tribal consultation. Can you just put a point on that? Mr. Bernhardt. Can I commit to you that that's a distinction without a difference? Senator Heinrich. Okay. That is exactly what I was asking. I want to go back to something that was raised by Senator Cortez Masto as well as Senator King. Senator Udall of New Mexico and myself have worked for many, many years, hand in hand with local elected officials, mayors, county commissioners, city counselors and many others, as well as resource users and small businesses, recreationists, permittees, you name it, to create the Rio Grande del Norte and Organ Mountains Desert Peaks National Monuments. In my view, I think these two monuments are really the gold standard for locally driven, public lands conservation that really grew from the grass roots up that did not come from Washington and were imposed on New Mexico, but communities in New Mexico came together and came to us and said, this is how we want to protect our backyards. The results of these designations have not only been overwhelmingly popular in the respected counties, in Dona Ana County and Taos County, in particular, but we have also seen visitation go up in these monuments. We have seen local tax receipts go up after their creation. These two monuments currently fall under the Secretary's review process and our process that we went through included many years and included direct engagement with, as I mentioned, local elected leaders, local land owners, permittees, sportsmen groups, recreational groups, conservation groups, tribes and local businesses. That engagement was in addition to what the Department of the Interior did in terms of public meetings when they came out. Does that sound to you like the kind of adequate public outreach with relevant stakeholders' approach that was referenced in the President's Executive Order? Mr. Bernhardt. Well it sounds pretty substantial to me. Senator Heinrich. I want to ask one last thing while I have a couple minutes before I go to a vote. There was a case when you were in the Solicitor's Office where the Department reversed itself on a couple of tribal recognition decisions, and I know that it was noted by many at the time that the reversal occurred after some fairly intense pressure from local, not tribal, elected officials. Basically it begs the question, how do you think Interior should conduct that formal tribal recognition process and what is the right way to go about that so that you don't end up in a position where there is a reversal? Mr. Bernhardt. So it's been a long time since I've been involved with a recognition issue and it's possible that the Department has changed things significantly. But for me personally, my view of the recognition process is it's a process of looking at history, genealogy. It's an extensive, it should be an extensive process to make a determination of whether a potential group has the political significance and the other factors that apply. And it's really, it really should just be a fact-based decision. Now it's possible some of those reversals that the folks in the Bureau didn't exactly dot their ``I''s and cross their ``T''s or maybe there were facts that they got wrong. But the truth of the matter it should be devoid of---- Senator Heinrich. Political consideration. Mr. Bernhardt. Politics. That's not the threshold, so that's my view and it's been my view. I was very supportive of the branch of acknowledgement when I was there because, and this is not to be negative about gaming, but there's so much outside pressure and interest in these recognition decisions because of the consequences that they bring that I really felt that the Bureau of Reclamation should be as insulated from those types of activities as possible so that they could do the review that they need to do. Senator Heinrich. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bernhardt. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for that. Mr. Bernhardt, I appreciate your responses this morning. We do have to get to a vote immediately here. But I do want to acknowledge the comments that Senator Gardner made with reference to previous individuals within the Department of the Interior, most notably, Mr. Hayes and Ms. Schneider. It is the backgrounds, the similarities there. There are certainly parallels to you and the position that you are being considered for this morning. I would just remind colleagues that both were confirmed with strong support of members who might otherwise be interested in raising accusations against you here this morning. So, I just remind us that we do not want to be in a situation where we have two different standards here. I think it is important that if you have policy disagreements with the nominee, this is the place to be bringing them up, but it is my hope that you are not going to be held to a different standard than past nominees and not held to a different standard than what exists under law. I appreciate the time that you have given us. I appreciate the responses. I appreciate your willingness to serve, and I look forward to moving your name quickly through the confirmation process. I think Secretary Zinke has a big job in front of him, and he needs a team. And I think that you can be a valuable asset to that team. So with that, we stand adjourned and we thank you. [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED ---------- [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]