The Daily Signal - #509: Interior Secretary Bernhardt Shares How He's Promoting Federalism, Opening Up Land for Hunting

Episode Date: July 20, 2019

The Interior Department is relocating the Bureau of Land Management from Washington, D.C. to Colorado. So, why move a federal bureaucracy to the other side of the country? Interior Secretary David Bernhardt discusses that, federalism, opening up 1.4 million acres for hunting and fishing, and more. We also cover these stories:•President Donald Trump's feud with "the squad" continues.•Massive protests calling for the governor to resign occur in Puerto Rico.•Some liberal lawmakers are now announcing their preferred pronouns.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet,iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Snap up Ancestry DNA's lowest price ever in our incredible cyber sale. With 50% off Ancestry DNA kits, it's the perfect time to help a loved one unwrap the past. And with their latest update, they'll discover their family origins like never before. With even more precise regions and new and exclusive features, their best gift, our lowest price. 50% off Ancestry DNA, only until December 2nd. Visit Ancestry.ca for more details. Terms apply. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, July 23rd. I'm Kate Trinko. And I'm Daniel Davis. The Interior Department under President Trump is taking real action to drain the swamp.

The agency is relocating an entire division known as the Bureau of Land Management out west to Colorado. So why move a whole federal bureaucracy to the other side of the country? Today, Kate sits down with Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to hear about that decision and more. Plus, a local lawmaker in Georgia blows up at a man in a grocery store. after he allegedly told her to go back. But it's not quite what you think. We'll discuss. By the way, if you're enjoying this podcast, please consider leaving a review or a five-star

rating on iTunes. Now onto our top news. President Trump's feud with the squad, or representatives, Ilan Omar, Alexandria O'Caseo Cortez, Aana Presley, and Rashida Taleb, all Democrats, continues. Here's the remarks Trump made Monday via the Hill. Congresswomen, what they've said about Israel, what they've said about our country, when they talk about disgusting people, when they talk the way they talk, when the one mentioned that brown people should speak for brown people and Muslim people should speak for Muslim people. And you hear all this. It's not what our country is all about. No, I think they're very bad for our country. I think they're very bad for the Democrat Party. I think you see that. And they're pulling the... the Democrats way left. Nobody knows how to handle them.

I feel they're easy to handle. To me, they're easy to handle because they're just out there. They're very bad for our country, absolutely. No, I don't think, no, no, no racial tension. No, no, there's no racial tension. Trump also tweeted, quote, The Squad is a very racist group of troublemakers who are young, inexperienced, and not very smart.

They are pulling the once great Democrat Party far left and were against humanitarian aid at the border and are now against ICE and homeland security. So bad for our country. Well, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib responded to the president's Twitter remarks with defiance. Here's how she opened her speech on Monday at the NWACP's annual meeting in Detroit. Via CBS's David Begnod, here's the sound of Puerto Rico protests on Monday. Puerto Ricans want Governor Ricardo Racio, a Democrat, to resign.

The protests come after hundreds of pages of private chats between Racio and others were leaked. Quote, the chats revealed, profanity-laced, misogynistic, and homophobic comments, as well as barbed and cynical remarks about different topics, including jokes about deaths following Hurricane Maria in 2017. NBC News reported. President Trump also weighed in. He's a terrible governor. I think you have an even worse mayor of San Juan. She's horrible. I think she's horrible. I watched her. My people did nothing but complain about her when we helped them with their hurricane problem. The mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico is a horror show. She's incompetent, grossly incompetent. At the same time, the governor's not good. So the United States Congress, you won't believe this. Please close your ears because this would be gave Puerto Rico $92 billion.

year for hurricane relief. Now, they haven't gotten the money all of it, but they've got a lot of it, but they're scheduled to get. The Congress of the United States handed them $92 billion, and that $92 billion is in the hands of incompetent people and very corrupt people. But the governor has done a terrible job, and the mayor of San Juan has, she's horrible. I think she's just terrible. She's so bad for her people. Well, President Trump is disputing Iran's claim to have busted up a U.S. spy ring in Iran, calling the claim totally false. Iran recently said it identified and arrested 17 Iranians suspected of spying for the U.S. and that some of them have been given the death

sentence. President Trump says that's a false report. And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo echoed the president on Fox and Friends, saying, quote, the Iranian regime has a long history of lying. I would take with a significant grain of salt any Iranian assertions about actions that they've taken. Well, Britain is taking a harsher stance against Iran after a British flagged ship was seized in the Straits of Hormuz by Iran. Quote, under international law, Iran has no right to obstruct the ship's passage, let alone board her. It was therefore an act of state piracy, British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said, according to Reuters, we will now seek to put together a European-led maritime protection mission to support safe passage of both crew and cargo in this vital region.

Well, Hong Kong police cracked down on protests yet again on Sunday, firing tear gas that thousands of protesters gathered outside of government buildings. One of those buildings was China's official liaison office, where protesters defaced the national emblem and threw eggs at the building before being driven back by riot police. This was the seventh straight weekend of protests that have garnered visible support from well over a million people in Hong Kong. Residents there are protesting what's called the extradition bill in the legislature, a bill that would allow detained people in Hong Kong to be extradited to mainland China

at the request of Beijing. Such a policy would significantly weaken Hong Kong as a haven for the rule of law and due process. Hong Kong's chief executive, Carrie Lamb, has declared the bill to be dead, though she hasn't formally withdrawn it or resigned, as the protesters have demanded. Well, Democrats are continuing to embrace gender identity. Senator Elizabeth Warren has added to her Twitter bio, she hers, indicating that those are her preferred pronouns. New York City mayor Bill de Blasio now has he, him, in his Twitter bio, and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary under President Obama, Julian Castro, now has he, him, L, in his Twitter bio. Well, up next, Kate's exclusive interview with Interior Secretary David Bernhardt.

Tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger government, become a part of the Heritage Foundation. We're fighting the rising tide of homegrown socialism while developing conservative solutions that make families more free and more prosperous. Find out more at heritage.org. Joining us today is Secretary David Bernhardt, head of the Interior Department. Secretary Bernhardt, thanks for joining us. Well, thank you for having me. Okay, so you just announced that you're moving the Bureau of Land Management headquarters to Grand Junction, Colorado. It's currently in Washington, D.C.

What's the reason behind the move? Well, about two years ago, the Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Sinkie, began to develop a plan for reorganization. And that plan is driven by one simple premise. How do we better serve the American people? throughout the Department of the Interior. And so his plan involved some regional restructuring, which we did last year and completed, and that it also involved some concepts of realigning people in the West. Most of Interior's land and our responsibilities are mostly in the Western United States.

We manage one in every five acres of land in the United States, and then about 1.7 billion acres on the Outer Continental Shelf. And most of BLM's land, that's the Bureau of Land Management, most of the land that they manage actually is in the West. And so he was interested in looking for opportunities and a plan that would allow us to highlight an idea that other members of Congress had been thinking of for a while, which was a move west. When I first looked at the plan after I came in as the secretary, I began with a couple of questions. And the first question was we have wonderful people working at BLM here in D.C. And we need to make sure that those jobs that should be done in D.C. are absolutely done in D.C. because they're mission critical. So we evaluated every job in our leadership office.

And we said, is this first a job that is necessary to be done? And then second, if it's necessary, is it best located in Washington, D.C.? And by doing that, we realized that over time, the department had grown in ways that many of the jobs don't need to be in D.C. And on top of that, our leadership, sending our leadership west would give them a perspective of being close to the lands that they manage near the, communities that have the lands surrounding them that they manage and would make them be in a situation where they would have to travel a shorter distance to be within the leadership areas that they lead. And so we began a process of looking, came up with a plan, and we've submitted that plan

to Congress where they'll have a period of time to look at it and see what they want to say to us. and then we'll begin to implement hopefully. Okay. And I mean, I would just say, you know, someone who lives in the D.C. bubble, it might be interesting to see if some bureaucrats are thinking outside the bubble, literally.

But we'll see what happens. Well, we have a lot of great people, and the reality is many folks. Some folks in our organization have not wanted to be promoted because it would require them to move to Washington, D.C. and we have people that will be very excited to leave, and we'll have other people that aren't, and we'll work with them to try and find a good solution for everybody. Okay. So you mentioned respect and be a good neighbor as the words that reflect your view

on what federalism means for the Interior Department during your remarks at the Heritage Foundation earlier today. Can you expound on that? Sure. You know, I believe that at the department in the interior, unlike a number of agencies that federal agencies that have delegated programs where they have an authority that's been then delegated to the state for implementation. We have a few of those. But most of our work is authorizing things to take place on our land or actually carrying out activities on that land, such as fighting fire. And so when we are taking an action, what we need to do is, be mindful that we have neighbors.

We have states, we have private citizens, we have localities, all that are potentially impacted by the decisions we make. I grew up in a very small town in Western Colorado, a community that was virtually surrounded by federal land. And as a result of that, the decisions that the local land managers made carried with them the hopes and dreams of my entire community, at times. They also carried with them the hopes and dreams of individual families. We have grazing permittees that have specific permits to graze cattle on the federal land. And so,

you know, you have something as simple as that. To, hey, a major plant or a wind farm can have tremendous benefits, both positive and negative, to a local community. And so from my perspective, what we need to do is, and it's not rocket science, but we need to act like good neighbors. We need to approach our neighbors, visit with them about what we're doing, get their input, and see if we can come up with solutions that are best for the entire community. Okay. And then you also mentioned on the issue of the sage grouse. You worked with seven States. Can you tell us about that example and how that work? Sure, that's a great example. For really, I guess I would say, for almost 20 years, there's been great attention to the plight

and the potential protection of the greater sage grass, which is a wide-roaming bird in the Western United States that is susceptible to things like fire, drought, encroachment in a variety of ways. And with the sagebrush ecosystem being something that's very important to a whole host of species, a lot of attention has been taken at sage grass over time. And it's driven on one hand by the fact that the Endangered Species Act provides a regulatory mechanism to protect birds and other animals and fauna that are, that merit protection under the Act based on five factors. The sage grass is not a listed entity, but at times it's warranted listing. And the states, really at the beginning of, in the Bush administration, began an effort to work with the Department of the Interior on a whole host of efforts to ensure that we were doing things better for the sage grass collectively.

Secretary Salazar, when he was the secretary of the Department of the Interior, went out throughout these Western states and said, look, I want to work with you and develop a plan that would be helpful. helpful to the sage grouse and also respectful and responsible for you. He did that. He came up with a plan, at least this is what the governors told me, worked together on the plan. And then a different secretary came in and made some decisions that departed from those plans quite significantly. So when Secretary Zinkie became secretary, he heard a lot from the governors about those plans.

And so recognizing the need to be very responsible to the sage grouse, when I first joined the department, he came to me and said, look, I want you to go work on the sage rouse issue and see if we can come to a better resolution. And so what we did is we set out with the various governors and we said to them, look, we need to be very responsible here for the sage rouse and recognize the tremendous investment that the states and local communities. and federal government had put over a period of years into having a successful stage grass program. And we understand that you have problems with your plan, or maybe you don't. And certain governors said to me, I have no problem. I love my plan. And for those governors, we said, okay, well, we'll let you keep your plan. Other governors had concerns, some big concerns, some little. And what I did is worked with each governor and said to them, look, you need to be responsible for the fact that what you asked for, you have to remember that you have neighbors here too

that are all affected by your decision. And these governors were incredible at making requests that were targeted and focused, but at the same time recognize the broader need of everybody to be responsible. And it's a great example of whether you're a red state governor or a blue state governor, you can make a great decision, come to a good place, recognizing that you, too, could impact your neighbors in a particular way. So they came up with some ideas. We tried to work with those ideas, went through a public process to sand those ideas, and then finalized a plan. And when we finalized the plans, the variety of plans, the governors stood there with us, red state and

Blue State in support of the changes for their plans. And I think that that is indicative of a whole host of things that we're working on collaboratively with governors of all stripes. Okay. So you recently opened up, I believe it's 1.4 million acres for hunting and fishing that previously were off limits. Why did the Interior Department decide to do that? And what does that mean? Well, we opened and expanded access. So what that really means is, We did something that's really unprecedented. Our Fish and Wildlife Service, we have 10 hunting fish chiefs, and they went line by line through our regulatory programs and said,

look, we all recognize that wildlife conservation, a critical component to wildlife conservation, is getting folks outdoors conserving wildlife and then engaging in hunting and fishing activity. Well, why is that? That's because most of the funding for wildlife conservation comes from taxes and the sales of licenses and things that – sale of things that facilitate hunting and fishing. And that is what the lion's share of money for wildlife conservation is. And if you ask wildlife recreationists, hunters, anglers, photographers, what would –

what leads them to not go hunting and fishing? Their number one issue is public access. That's number one. The proximity or lack of access to opportunity really leads to folks not wanting to do those activities anymore. The other thing is the complexity of our regulations, which you would think is kind of silly, right? But it's not.

The hunting and fishing regulations of states are often very different than the federal governments. So what we did is we looked at all of our Fish and Wildlife property and said, hey, are there hunting and activities on these properties that we could be expanding or opening all anew? And two, are there regulations where we and the states don't line up, then maybe we ought to try and line them up and make them less complicated? And we did both of those things over this year. And so right now on the street, we have proposed an additional 1.4 million acres that are either were opening,

or expanding access to. And in doing that, we'll have many more hunting and fishing opportunities of different stripes for folks. And at the same time, we've tried to align our regulations so it's less complicated for people to get out. Okay. So forest fires have been devastating the country, especially California, in recent years. How does the Interior Department plan to deal with forest fires?

Well, the president has given incredible direction with, um, with, um, uh, an executive order he signed last year that's very aggressive on active management. The president, obviously, as you know, we had terrible tragedies. And in California last year, the president visited those areas and came back, I think, convinced that he needed to give us clear direction and have us working with the states. So we do a very significant amount of treatment to try and actually. manage our forests better. They've not been actively managed for a really long time. Last year, I think we did 2,500 treatment projects. Over 170,000 acres have been managed for resource purposes.

I just proposed a proposed firebreak plan that has 11,000 miles of fire breaks proposed. And this year we'll be deploying about 4,500 firefighters to obviously continue to fight fires. And that's our focus, both the treatment and active management. and then fighting the fires when we need to. Okay. Well, thank you for joining us today, Secretary. Thanks a lot. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head? If you want to understand what's happening at the court,

subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a Heritage Foundation podcast, breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. So last week, Erica Thomas, a state representative from Georgia, who is black, posted an emotional Facebook live. And just so you know, there is adult language used in this clip. I decided to go live because I'm very upset because people are getting really out of control with this, with this white privilege stuff. I'm at the grocery store and I'm in the 10 out, the aisle that says 10 items or less.

Yes, I have 15 items, but I'm not much pregnant and I can't stand up for. long. And this white man comes up to me and says, you lazy son of a bitch. He says, you lazy son of a bitch, you need to go back when you came, bro. Thomas's story began trending on social media with people on Twitter using the hashtag, I stand with Erica. Then, when Thomas was back at the public, she alleged. this encounter occurred at, the man she accused of telling her to go back, showed up and gave

his side of the story. His name is Eric Sparks, and this audio is via NBC's Atlanta affiliate 11olive.com. Do you feel bad? Be telling you to go back where you came from? Do you feel bad about yesterday? Did I say that? Yes, you were. Are you serious? Or you didn't say? Did I say? Is it on video? What did you say to me? I called you a lazy. Okay. That's the worst thing I said. That's all you said to me. Yes. Okay, because that makes you look better. because everybody's acting now. That makes you look better to say that. I know what I said.

Eric Sparks admits he insulted her for having more than 10 items in the express lane at Publix, but says he never said anything racist. I'm a Democrat. I will vote Democrat the rest of my life. Okay? So to call me what she wants to believe for her political purposes to make it black, white, brown, or whatever. It's so untrue. As recently as July 14th, he posted a derogatory comment on Facebook.

against President Trump and in support of the four Congresswomen after President Trump said they could go back if they didn't like it here in the U.S. But via WS.B. TV in Atlanta, Thomas didn't back down. Here's what she had to say during a press conference on Monday. Today, Representative Thomas came forward and reiterated her claim and says she wants police to file charges against that man. I started to tear up, but I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed and I was scared for my life. So joining us today to discuss is Thalia Rampersad, our multimedia producer who got a little invested in this topic when we were discussing it before the show. So Thalia, thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me on, Kate.

Okay, so Thalia, Daniel, what do you think? I think we need to take this for what it is. And I also want to start with the disclaimer that I'm making no accusations, but I also want to come at this from more of a. skeptical point of view because I think that maybe we won't be hearing that side of things in the discussion. But I want to come at it from that angle because we're looking at it through the lens of social media. Everything that we know of currently is been posted on either Facebook or Twitter. And so we are looking at it through a biased lens, which is social media. My take is that is she maybe using the current political landscape to elevate what she maybe had,

encountered at this grocery store, elevating it to a more serious level, is there a possibility that this might be a Jesse Smollett incident where somebody is crying wolf? We don't know. But that's the dangerous area that we're entering because there's not just two sides of the story anymore. There's multiple sides. And we don't know where to look and who to trust. So looking at it just at face value right now, that's what I would see. Yeah, I think it's impossible to actually know what was said unless there was audio and video taken, you know, the actual incident. I think what is true is that in that first video, she seemed extremely upset and extremely, like, it seems very real for her. I do not think she was faking that.

And I also think it's possible for her to have misinterpreted what he said. So, you know, given that he was admittedly being a jerk, I mean, he pretty much admitted that. He called her an expletive. It was really rude to her. and given the kind of heightened tensions after Trump's comments, which did use the term go back in a way that really affected a lot of people's thinking, I can see her having that on her mind and then misinterpreting the words, go back to mean something racist when he really was just being rude to her saying go back to the different aisle, different line. So it just seems like a very, to me, a very tragic series of events being misinterpreted by people. And that's kind of where we are. But I think it shows the importance of having the other side of the story, you know,

because I can see people totally making up their minds until they see him come into the press conference and say, actually, that's not what I said. I just said, you know, to move. So I certainly hope it would be amazing if Publix has security video or something. or someone randomly hit their cell phone video. I would love to see what actually happened. I am not confident that we ever will. I am very frustrated by her decision to put this on social media.

I am willing to agree that whether, I think Sparks made a good case that he was in no way racist, nor did he intend anything racist. I think it's possible she misinterpreted him and genuinely thought it was racist. But to immediately go on to social media, and I mean, she's a state representative. She's obviously a smart, savvy person. Thomas had to know that there was a chance that this was going to go viral. And I think what really bothers me here is like there's this trend that we have and we saw it with Covington and we're seeing it with other things. We've seen it.

I can't remember off the top of my head, but there's been a lot of racially charged incidents that go viral on social media. And it's sort of hard to know what's true and what's not true because we don't have video or we don't have whatever. But people, that doesn't stop Twitter mobs from going after people. It doesn't stop real life consequences to people potentially. It just makes someone a public figure who didn't necessarily do that. And racism is basically close to the worst thing you can do in American life right now. And it obviously is a horrendous thing to do. At the same time, you know, I'm sure like both of you, I think very carefully before I accuse someone in any public platform.

In fact, I'm not sure I have ever accused a person, not of racism, but like of anything serious. on a public platform. And it strikes me as this was a very ambiguous situation for her to put this, you know, to come as a public official and talk about it publicly. I just think it was very irresponsible. And I am a little bit torn because I know that a lot of blacks in the United States say there is racism they face, but it's not so blatant that they can do anything about it. And that does give me pause.

But I don't know. I think I tend more towards the Leah's skepticism in this case. Yeah, I feel like even if he did say something racist, I feel like there are ways to go about addressing that other than posting a YouTube video. I mean, I, again, don't know all of the facts of the situation, but I feel like the run straight to YouTube is, I don't know, maybe not the best prudent path. And again, Kate, to your skeptic.

about posting it on a social media platform, you have to know that when you post something on a social media platform, you are now inviting all of your followers and even folks who don't follow you who now just know about the story through word of mouth or trending topics on Twitter are now invited into this conversation. Sometimes it becomes an argument. And not knowing that as an official is a little bit harder for me to believe because you should know that you're being held to a higher standard. Yeah, I mean, there's certainly, I mean, this is a very cynical way of looking at it, and I truly have no idea what the intention in her heart was. It's possible she just saw it as a way to, you know, increase how many people knew about her. Like, again, there's a good chance this was going to go viral. I don't know. I have no reason to believe that was the reason. But, you know, I mean, she's assuming this guy had the worst of intentions. And also to be clear, like this guy, and I'm a little confused as to whether he was a clerk or another customer or whatever.

it's annoying when someone in front of you has more than 10 items. I get it. I've had my own interior rage in the grocery stores. But yeah, to call any woman a name like that in anger, especially a woman who whether it was a parent or not to him was nine months pregnant. I mean, that's inexcusable. That is a horrible thing to do. And he didn't even seem to be apologizing for it. Well, yeah. No, he should have apologized. I don't think he's like, I don't think there's a good guy in this. But it's sort of like at the same time, it's like we can't encourage this social media mob. Like we have we have a legal system in this country. I mean, we heard on that local station that she's now reporting this to police.

I'm a little confused as to what law this would violate. But like, I don't know. We have a legal system and some injustices just may not be able to be remedied. I mean. I also don't understand an employee at a store saying that to a customer. Like usually. you're really deferential to customers. Well, that's why I'm saying I realize I'm not entirely sure if he was an employee or not.

I realize he could have been the guy behind her in line or something. But the fact that in that video where she's confronting him on screen, the fact that he's trying to clarify, well, is it on video? Is that what I said? No, I said this, this and this. That, to me, is a little off-putting as well, asking questions like that. See, I was wondering, I saw there are two ways to take it. There's a really cynical way, which I thought about, which is he's like, well, if there's no

tape I can say whatever I want and people will never know the truth. And then there's the other side of it, which was you trying to say like, please have the tape. And I don't know. It sort of made me think. And I mean, it's totally different, you know, but we have these police incidents and I support police wearing body camps. I think that is wise. I think that, you know, we have these incidents, many of them racially charged and it's

helpful to see the actual footage and not just have to guess it. But it almost makes me wonder, like, are we moving into a society? This is a little bit paranoid, but like, should every person be wearing a body cam? Like, I mean, I don't know. It's sort of horrifying to think. We're moving into black mirror territory. I haven't seen it. Sorry, I don't watch prestige TV.

But, yeah, like, are we in a place? That's kind of scary when you mentioned it. Well, yeah, I mean, think about it. Like, I don't think I've ever lost it in a grocery store. It's not totally beyond all. possibility. But like, think about something that you sort of assume is just in this small world, and it suddenly goes online. Right. And your bad action is there. And maybe what you did wasn't nearly as bad as what you're accused of doing. Like, calling a woman a horrible name is horrible,

but it's not as horrible as being a racist. I don't know. It's sort of a scary thought that, like, you might be going to the grocery store and being like, do you have footage? Like, I didn't actually do that. I don't know. I think the end result, though, is this conversation is not making America better. And that is a good place for us to end. Thalia, our special guest and producer, thanks for joining us today. Always a pleasure, guys. And thank you for listening to The Daily Signal podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or rating at iTunes to give us any feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow.

The Daily Signal podcast is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound designed by Lauren Evans and Thalia Ramprasad. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.