Interior Secretary David Bernhardt faced a contentious hearing Wednesday with the Senate Appropriations Committee filled with accusations he is working on behalf of the oil industry and ignoring climate science.
“When I look across the landscape, here’s what I see,” panel ranking member Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said.
“In three years, this administration has actively worked to dismantle 50 years worth of protections from bedrock environmental laws, decimated Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante national monuments, ignoring the voices of native communities, weakened protections for endangered species and dismantled migratory bird protections, put an anti-public lands zealot in charge of managing public lands, adopted a drill-at-all-costs approach for managing or public lands and abandon any and all efforts to fight climate change.”
One of those policies, Interior’s efforts to roll back protections for birds, including penalties on industries that kill them during activities like oil drilling, sparked a particularly tense moment.
The rollback has been opposed by conservation groups who say Interior is eliminating any incentive to take action to avoid killing birds.
“At the end of the day we are doing this regulation,” Bernhardt dug in, arguing that court rulings have backed the department’s stance.
But Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said the proposal would remove the legal basis for getting companies to pay up for the damage they do, referring to a massive court settlement from oil giant BP.
“How many companies settle when there’s no legal basis for the argument?” Van Hollen asked.
“Sometimes you are acting like BP’s lawyer, and that is the problem here. Because the reality is that BP was fined, and other folks, $100 million under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act because of the massive loss of bird life,” he said.
Bernhardt was also criticized over his choice to lead the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), William Perry Pendley, and efforts to vastly reduce the bureau’s employees in Washington, relocating them out West.
Pendley, prior to joining Interior, spent his career advocating for selling off public lands and worked for groups that often sued the federal government over land policy.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said Pendley is “not just bad, but horrible on public lands. I think you know it, I know it.”
“Do not deny — do not deny — the fact that he has been front and center on selling our public lands,” Tester said.
Bernhardt defended his decision to hire Pendley.
“Since the day he walked into the department, one of his first acts was to add land to BLM, and he will not support large-scale sales of federal land or transfers. He will not under my watch,” he said.
Udall also asked Bernhardt to supply information on how many BLM employees have accepted reassignment or left the agency in the wake of a decision to relocate the agency, which the secretary agreed to supply later.
The controversial relocation has proceeded despite objections from some lawmakers about its funding and legality, as well as concerns the move is meant to undermine the bureau itself.
“It’s no secret that I oppose the move, and I still have questions and concerns about whether the move will actually improve the agency’s effectiveness, but the reorganization is moving forward and I’m going to do what I can to support the bureau employees during this process,” Udall said.
Members of both parties spoke at length about their support for President Trump’s newfound interest in the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
The fund uses oil and gas revenue to fund a variety of conservation efforts, such as securing land for parks. But Trump had suggested cutting its funding by as much as 97 percent year after year, including in his most recent budget proposal.
He reversed himself on Tuesday, calling for “a Bill that fully and permanently funds the LWCF and restores our National Parks” in a tweet.
“I do think that there were probably a few folks in the old Executive Eisenhower Office Building that had heart palpitations yesterday afternoon,” Bernhardt said, joking about what would be a big change to the president’s budget.
“I think it’s a tremendous opportunity for conservation in America I think it’s unprecedented that a president has asked for mandatory funding for these things, and we should seize the day.”