Buffalo Tract Protection Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/1464

Last Updated: March 23, 2026

Buffalo Tract Protection Act

S. 1464, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.

The sponsor

Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$124,962 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

62% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 575-577 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.

February 11, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Buffalo Tract Protection Act, S 1464. A quaint attempt at environmental preservation, no doubt championed by sentimentalists and special interest groups. Let's dissect the bill's implications for those who truly matter – the stakeholders with skin in the game.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to withdraw approximately 4,288 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land from mineral development, effectively locking up potential resources and stifling economic growth. The proposed legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to appease environmentalists and local communities at the expense of progress.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill withdraws the specified land from all forms of mineral development, including location, entry, patent, and disposition under various laws. This will undoubtedly create uncertainty for companies with existing interests in the area. Notably, the legislation allows for the conveyance of the surface estate while reserving the mineral estate to the United States – a clever move to maintain federal control.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. Mining and energy companies: This legislation will limit their access to resources and hinder future development. 2. Local communities: While some may benefit from the perceived environmental benefits, others will likely suffer from reduced economic opportunities. 3. Federal agencies: The BLM and Department of the Interior will need to adapt to new regulations and manage the withdrawn land.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The Buffalo Tract Protection Act has far-reaching implications for the extractive industries and the broader economy:

1. **Reduced competitiveness**: By limiting access to resources, this bill will make it more challenging for American companies to compete globally. 2. **Increased regulatory uncertainty**: The withdrawal of land from mineral development creates a precedent that may embolden future attempts to restrict economic activity. 3. **Economic stagnation**: This legislation will likely lead to reduced investment and job creation in the affected areas.

In conclusion, S 1464 is a misguided attempt to prioritize environmental concerns over economic growth. As a visionary leader in the business community, I must emphasize that this bill's passage would be a step backward for American prosperity. It is essential to recognize the importance of responsible resource development and the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes innovation and progress.

Projected impact on my interests: -$500 million (conservative estimate)

Recommendation: Oppose S 1464 and advocate for a more nuanced approach that balances environmental concerns with economic realities.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$124,962

25 donors

PACs

$1,000

Organizations

$123,962

Committees

Individuals

JSTREETPAC

1 transaction

$1,000

SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE

2 transactions

$25,562

CHEROKEE NATION

2 transactions

$10,000

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$6,600

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

2 transactions

$6,600

PUEBLO OF LAGUNA

1 transaction

$5,800

PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO

1 transaction

$5,000

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$5,000

PUEBLO OF TAOS

1 transaction

$3,300

ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE OF TEXAS

1 transaction

$3,300

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

1 transaction

$3,300

POARCH CREEK INDIANS TRIBAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS

1 transaction

$3,300

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

PUEBLO OF POJOAQUE

1 transaction

$3,300

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

1 transaction

$3,300

FORT SILL APACHE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$3,300

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

OHKAY OWINGEH

1 transaction

$3,300

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

PUEBLO OF SANDIA

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]

ID: L000570

Top Contributors

LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

TAOS PUEBLO GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

OrganizationTAOS, NM

$3,300

Dec 2, 2024

OHKAY OWINGEH TRIBE

OrganizationOHKAY OWINGEH, NM

$3,300

Dec 2, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$3,300

Apr 18, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$3,300

May 22, 2024

MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE

OrganizationMESCALERO, NM

$3,300

Sep 25, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

Jun 25, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$2,000

Mar 21, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 78 nodes and 33 connections (85 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $134,862

Top Donors - Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC24 Orgs

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

−Oil & Gasconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a) withdraws land from all forms of location, entry, patent under mining laws and disposition under mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws, which includes oil and gas leasing.
−Coal Miningconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a) withdraws land from mineral leasing laws, which includes coal leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act.
−Renewable Energyconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) includes withdrawal from geothermal leasing laws, affecting geothermal energy development.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Renewable Energy$121,300
from 90 contributions
- GARLAND, MICHAEL$15,000
- ARMISTEAD, HUNTER$9,200
- JURICH, LYNN$5,000
- SABRSULA, JUSTIN$5,000
- ELKORT, DANIEL$2,500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate61.7%

Pages: 575-577

— 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.

Introduction

Moderate61.1%

Pages: 572-574

— 539 — Department of the Interior ENDNOTES 1. See generally William Perry Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today (Regnery, 2013), preface, pp. xvi-xxii. 2. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” 3. In Wyoming, the federal government owns 48 percent of the land; in Wyoming’s Teton County, the federal government owns 97 percent of the land. 4. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel. 5. Keith Schneider, “The 1992 Campaign; Bush on the Environment: A Record of Contradictions,” New York Times, July 4, 1992, https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/04/us/the-1992-campaign-bush-on-the-environment-a- record-of-contradictions.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 6. William Perry Pendley, War on the West: Government Tyranny on America’s Great Frontier (Regnery, 1995). 7. William Perry Pendley, “Bureau of Land Management Yesterday and Today: Energy Independence,” Cowboy State Daily, April 5, 2022, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/04/05/bureau-of-land-management- yesterday-and-today-energy-independence/ (accessed March 15, 2023). 9. Ibid. 9. William Perry Pendley, “Perspective: Biden’s War on Western Energy,” The Gazette, November 6, 2022, https:// gazette.com/opinion/perspective-biden-s-war-on-western-energy/article_3823a584-5bb2-11ed-a598- 235c22e34687.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 10. Ibid. 11. Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, Public Law 86–517. 12. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. 13. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 19 (February 1, 2021), pp. 7619–7633, and White House, “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” January 20, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order- protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 14. National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91–160. 15. Antiquities Act of 1906, Public Law 59–209. 16. “You know what there’s not is a shall for? ‘I shall manage the land to stop climate change,’ or something similar to that,” Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt testified. “You guys come up with the shalls.” Chris D’Angelo, “Interior Secretary Blames Congress for His Inaction on Climate Change,” High Country News, May 9, 2019. 17. Federal Land Policy and Land Management Act of 1976, Public Law 94–579; Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Public Law 95–372; and 30 U.S.C. § 21 et seq. 18. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398: Revocation of Secretary’s Orders Inconsistent with Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” April 16, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 19. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348: Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium,” March 29, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3348_coal_moratorium.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 20. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3349: American Energy Independence,” March 29, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3349_-american_energy_independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 21. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3350: America First Offshore Energy Strategy,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3350-offshore-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 22. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3351-energy- counselor-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 23. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3352: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska,” May 31, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so-3352.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). — 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877.

Introduction

Moderate61.1%

Pages: 572-574

Introduction

Moderate61.0%

Pages: 557-559

— 524 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Rulemaking. The following policy reversals require rulemaking: l Rescind the Biden rules and reinstate the Trump rules regarding: 1. BLM waste prevention; 2. The Endangered Species Act rules defining Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat Exclusions;41 3. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act;42 and 4. CEQ reforms to NEPA.43 l Reinstate President Trump’s plan for opening most of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development. Personnel Changes. The new Administration should be able to draw on the enormous expertise of state agency personnel throughout the country who are capable and knowledgeable about land management and prove it daily. States are better resource managers than the federal government because they must live with the results. President Trump’s Schedule F proposal44 regarding accountability in hiring must be reinstituted to bring success to these reforms. Consistent with the theme of bringing successful state resource management examples to the forefront of federal policy, DOI should also look for opportunities to broaden state–federal and tribal–federal cooperative agreements. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS BLM Headquarters. BLM headquarters belongs in the American West. After all, the overwhelming majority of the 245 million surface acres (10 percent of the nation’s landmass) managed by the agency lies in the 11 western states and Alaska: A mere 50,000 surface acres lie elsewhere. Moreover, 97 percent of BLM employees are located in the American West. Thus, the Trump Administration’s decision to relocate BLM headquarters from Washington, D.C., to the West was the epitome of good governance: That is, it was not only well-informed, but it was also implemented efficiently, effectively, and with an eye toward affected career civil servants. Plus, despite overblown chatter from the inside-the-Beltway media, Congress, with bipartisan support, approved funding the move. Meanwhile, state, tribal, and local officials, the diverse collection of stakehold- ers who use public lands and western neighbors became accustomed to having top BLM decision-makers in Grand Junction, Colorado, rather than up to four — 525 — Department of the Interior time zones away. All of them also appreciated that the BLM’s top subject matter experts were located not in the District of Columbia, but in the western states that most need their knowledge and expertise. Westerners no longer had to travel cross country to address BLM issues. Neither did officials in the West, closest to the resources and people they manage. On July 16, 2019, Secretary of the Interior David L. Bernhardt delivered to Con- gress the proposal for the relocation of nearly 600 BLM headquarters employees. On August 10, 2020, Secretary Bernhardt formally established the Robert F. Burford headquarters—named after the longest-serving BLM director, a Grand Junction native—with a staff of 41 senior officials and assistants. Another 76 positions were assigned to BLM state offices in western communities such as Billings, Montana; Boise, Idaho; Reno, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Cheyenne, Wyoming, to meet critical needs. Scores of other positions were assigned to the states that required BLM expertise. For example, wild horse and burro professionals were relocated to Nevada, home to nearly 60 percent of these western icons. Sixty-one positions were retained in Washington, D.C., to address public, congressional, and regulatory affairs, Freedom of Information Act compliance, and budget development. Despite the dislocating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the BLM success- fully filled hundreds of long-vacant positions, as well as those that opened because of the move West. The BLM saw notable numbers of applicants for these positions— so numerous that the BLM capped the number of eligible applicants to no more than 50. Obviously, reduced commuting times (often from hours to mere minutes), lower cost of living, and opportunity to access vast public lands for recreation made these jobs attractive to potential employees. Many, if not most, applicants stated they would not have applied had the positions been based in Washington, D.C. At the same time, western positions attracted those with the skills needed to meet the BLM’s multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate, disproving the claim that the BLM was suffering a “brain drain.” The Trump Administration recognized that, despite its attractions, not every- one employed by BLM in Washington, D.C., could move West. The Administration applied a hands-on approach, with all-employee briefing and question-and-answer sessions, regular email communications, and a website devoted to frequently asked questions. Two human resources teams aided employees wishing to remain in federal jobs in the D.C. area: All received new opportunities. The BLM’s move West incurred no legal challenges, no formal Equal Employ- ment Opportunity or U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board complaints, and no adverse union activity. It is hard to please everyone, but the Trump Administra- tion’s BLM did just that, putting the lie to assertions, by some, that the BLM was trying to “fire” federal employees. The total cost of $17.9 million for relocation incentives, permanent change-of- station moves, temporary labor, travel, printing, rent, supplies, equipment, and

Introduction

Moderate61.0%

Pages: 557-559

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Heinrich, Martin

Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025

119/s/564

Ohkay Owingeh Rio Chama Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025

119/s/563

Albuquerque Indian School Act of 2025

119/s/3219