September 9, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 143 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S5364-S5366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      BLM HEADQUARTERS RELOCATION

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, of course, the Senate is back in session 
after the August work period, where all of us were able to go home--and 
in the case of Colorado, go corner to corner--to visit with 
constituents, to have meetings, to talk about those issues that are 
concerning to the people of Colorado and what we can do to help provide 
solutions to the greatest challenges they see in their lives, their 
businesses, and in their State.
  It really is a remarkable time to go through such an incredible and 
beautiful State. In Colorado and in the West, we are blessed with 
amazing beauty and splendor. Our public lands are one of the smartest 
ideas this government has ever created over the 200-plus years of our 
Nation's history.
  To spend time in Southwestern Colorado, down by Mesa Verde National 
Park, over by Larimer County and Rocky Mountain National Park, to be on 
the Eastern Plains of Colorado, to visit places like the Sand Creek 
Massacre site, to reflect on what that dark chapter in our American 
history

[[Page S5365]]

meant, to look at what we are trying to do to include Amache, the 
Japanese-American internment site, into our National Park Service, it 
really is a chance to reflect on the greatness of our country.
  This is a State that is composed of almost 50 percent public lands, a 
significant number of acres that are controlled, owned, and managed by 
the State of Colorado and, of course, a vast amount of acres controlled 
and operated by the Federal Government--whether that is the U.S. Forest 
Service or the Bureau of Land Management or the National Park Service.
  It is the Bureau of Land Management that brings me to the floor of 
the Senate tonight.
  Prior to our departure for the August work period, an announcement 
was made from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior that the 
headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management would finally be moving 
west and indeed would be moving to Grand Junction, CO.
  The Bureau of Land Management manages roughly 250 million acres of 
surface lands and surface area in our country, and almost all of it--
over 99 percent--is west of the Mississippi River. You can see the land 
that is highlighted in red here. Some of this land is just mineral 
rights and not surface land, but over here the vast amount of acreage 
is all surface land--some 245-some million acres of land, 99 percent of 
which is west of the Mississippi River.
  The idea we have been pursuing is that the public lands are managed 
better when you manage them from within the communities that those 
public lands surround. In the case of Grand Junction, CO, the Bureau of 
Land Management--almost 73 percent of Mesa County, in which Grand 
Junction resides, is public land. Why not make the decisions facing 
these millions of acres of public lands in the West, where the lands 
reside, instead of thousands of miles removed in Washington, DC?
  Moving the Bureau of Land Management headquarters closer in proximity 
to the land it oversees and regulates makes sense. It is common sense--
two things we don't hear very often in Washington.
  Moving the BLM is a priority I have been working on for a number of 
years, going back to an Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing 
with Neil Kornze, then the Director of the Bureau of Land Management 
under President Obama. It was a hearing where almost every county 
commissioner in the West had objected to a regulation that the BLM was 
pursuing, and yet the BLM continued to pursue it.
  I remember being frustrated in this hearing and finally saying to 
Director Kornze: If you were just located in the West, if you just had 
your BLM offices in the West, your headquarters, you would understand 
why this is a bad idea.
  At the time, he kind of laughed and said: Well, we should think about 
that.
  Do you know what? We did, and I am pretty excited to say that in just 
a couple of weeks, we will be signing the lease for new office space in 
Grand Junction to house the headquarters of the Bureau of Land 
Management.
  This is not--and I think this is important because this seems to get 
lost in the day-to-day shuffle of media coverage. This is not a 
partisan issue. This is not a Republican-driven idea or a Democratic-
driven idea. This is a bipartisan approach that has been embraced by 
leaders on both sides of the aisle.
  Democratic Colorado Governor Jared Polis in July said of moving the 
Bureau of Land Management to Grand Junction that ``we are thrilled to 
welcome the Bureau of Land Management and their employees to the great 
state of Colorado. As I stated to Secretary Bernhardt many times, Grand 
Junction is the perfect location for the BLM because of the community 
support, (its) location closer to the land BLM manages and the positive 
impact it will have on our western Colorado economy.''
  That wasn't a Republican who said that. That was the Democratic 
Governor of the State of Colorado embracing the move of the 
headquarters of BLM. In fact, we had both Republicans and Democrats 
cosponsoring legislation I introduced in the Senate and Congressman 
Tipton introduced in the House to legislatively move the headquarters 
of the Bureau of Land Management to the West and now in Colorado.
  Unfortunately, we are starting to hear some partisan debate, though, 
creep into this incredibly important move. What we are seeing in 
Washington, of course, are Washington Democrats trying to stop the 
process. In the news, we read about Washington bureaucrats who are 
opposed to the move, but it is important to realize that this decision 
is not about the bureaucrats; it is about the job we are doing to 
represent our public lands.
  This is an agency that doesn't just work for each other. It is an 
agency that works for the people of this country and to do the best job 
they can representing and managing our public lands, the public lands 
they are charged to manage and to protect. Why wouldn't you do that job 
from where the public lands reside?
  Moving the headquarters to the West will improve support. It will 
improve engagement. It will improve oversight. It will improve 
collaboration with western Governors whose States, in some cases, are 
overwhelmingly dominated by public lands. It will improve relationships 
with State and local elected officials. It will improve relationships 
and management decisions and will work with the Tribes and Tribal 
officials and sports men and women and ranchers and grazers and farmers 
and recreationalists and energy users.
  It will also save States in western communities thousands of dollars 
in travel expenses. Imagine, if you live in Colorado and Western 
Colorado, that you no longer have to fly thousands of miles to 
Washington, DC; that you don't have to buy an expensive round-trip 
airplane ticket, spend the night at an expensive hotel, buy an 
expensive meal at an expensive restaurant. You get to travel, drive, or 
fly--a very short trip--to Western Colorado, with great air service and 
great interstate access. You don't have to pay for a Washington hotel 
or a Washington meal. These are things you can do when the BLM is 
actually located where 99 percent of the land they represent resides.
  Under the Department of the Interior's proposal, every western State 
will get additional staff. Two hundred ninety-six current Washington 
positions will be moved to locations throughout the West. From Alaska 
to Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Nevada, New 
Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Wyoming, all will receive new 
staff out of Washington, DC, and onto the public lands they represent, 
that they oversee.
  For those of us who are routinely in Washington, we will still be 
able to get information immediately and meet with officials from the 
Bureau of Land Management. The Deputy Director of Policy and Programs 
will continue to be located in Washington, along with 60 other 
positions that are responsible for budgetary items, legislative 
affairs, regulatory affairs, and public affairs. They will still be 
here. So it is not like Washington will all of a sudden have no one to 
call or no one answering their calls. It is a little bit absurd. It 
talks a little bit about the lack of hubris that government has, to 
think that only Washington knows best and only Washington can lead, to 
think that you can't manage these lands from where they are.
  This will improve the management of our public lands, and BLM 
employees will see benefits as well. The cost of living for BLM 
employees who move from Washington to a State office will be 
considerably lower. That will result in a significant increase back 
into their pocketbooks.
  Leasing costs are also worth raising when we talk about the BLM 
headquarters. The BLM compared leasing space for 27 staffers in 
Washington versus the leasing space available in Grand Junction, CO. 
The difference is $50 per square foot in Washington versus just over 
$32 per square foot in Grand Junction.
  If you think about what that means, it is a significant savings. You 
think about what it means for travel and the cost to taxpayers of 
travel expenses for BLM employees. According to the Department, in 
fiscal year 2018, BLM employee travel from Washington to the West was 
more than $37.2 million. There is no question that these resources 
could have been better spent on State offices and field offices that 
have been starving for resources for years.

[[Page S5366]]

  In its own analysis, the Department of Interior projects that the 
total cost over 20 years for the Bureau of Land Management's 
headquarters relocation and relocations to other Western States will 
have a net savings--get this--of over $123 million. Not only will we 
have better decision making and not only will the leadership of an 
agency that is the largest holder of public lands and manager of public 
lands in the country be located finally in the lands they oversee, with 
better decisions coming as a result, but we are going to save $123 
million. It is a commonsense move designed to save taxpayer money, and 
management decisions will be better by the fact that these lands are 
now in their front yard, instead of thousands of miles away, bringing 
these decisions closer to the American people.
  The only reason to oppose this move is if you don't care about the 
people of the Western United States or you don't think somehow that the 
people in the Western United States are smart enough to figure out how 
to run public lands or manage public lands or maybe you don't think 
that Colorado is up to the task of being the headquarters of the BLM 
because apparently you don't trust the people in the West. There is no 
other reason to oppose this. This is common sense.
  Colorado is already home to significant portions of the USGS. 
Colorado is already home to NORTHCOM and NORAD. In fact, just today the 
new space command, the United States Space Command, stood up in 
Colorado Springs at Peterson Air Force Base. Yet, somehow, there are 
people--Washington Democrats--who don't think Colorado can handle the 
management of our public lands. It is offensive--it really is--to think 
that there are people in Washington who think that only Washington can 
do this job. It is wrong.
  We should stand up against that kind of, I guess, idea that only 
Washington can do something and fight back against that mentality. 
Colorado is home to significant EPA offices, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, significant resources of the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration, and the Rocky Mountain Regional Office 
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark office. All are in Colorado. With so 
many acres of public lands, yes, we can manage public lands, and, yes, 
Colorado should be the gateway to our public lands in this great 
country and to all of the wonderful access opportunities that means to 
our economy, to recreation, to conservation.
  Ask any one of the thousands of Federal Government employees 
currently living in Colorado if they believe we can do this, and the 
answer is a resounding yes. Only in Washington do they think it is only 
Washington that can do the job.
  Washington bureaucrats and Washington Democrats can oppose Colorado 
all they want, but I believe in Colorado. I believe in our ability to 
manage these public lands better than they have ever been managed 
before. I believe this is the best place in the Nation to manage our 
public lands and to house and headquarter the Bureau of Land 
Management. As a result, we will have a cleaner and better environment, 
more conservation opportunities, and a greater public lands economy as 
a result.
  I am excited about this future. The people of Grand Junction are 
excited about this future. It is far time that we now have a little bit 
less Washington and a lot more Colorado common sense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________