HR-373-114
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 338.
What it does
This bill would require the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to create a formal, expedited process for approved volunteers and organizations to access federal lands to search for people who are believed to be deceased and missing. It would establish procedures for approving or denying access requests and would direct both agencies to build ongoing partnerships with search-and-recovery organizations to better coordinate these missions.
Who benefits
Families of individuals who go missing on federal lands would benefit from faster, more organized search efforts. Volunteer search-and-recovery organizations would gain a clear, streamlined legal pathway to access federal lands without navigating lengthy bureaucratic approval processes. Federal land management agencies (Interior and USDA/Forest Service) would benefit from a structured coordination framework with experienced volunteer groups.
Who is hurt
Federal land managers at the Department of the Interior and USDA would take on new administrative responsibilities to build and maintain partnership programs and process access requests, potentially straining existing staff and budgets. In rare cases, expedited access for volunteers could raise liability or safety concerns on sensitive federal lands, such as wilderness areas or lands with environmental restrictions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that when a family member goes missing on federal land, every hour matters — even when the search has shifted from rescue to recovery. Current bureaucratic processes can delay volunteer search teams from accessing federal property, prolonging the anguish of grieving families. This bill would create a clear, consistent, and fast-tracked approval process so that experienced, eligible volunteers can get onto federal land quickly and work alongside agencies rather than waiting for slow administrative approvals. Supporters contend that the federal government owns roughly one-third of all U.S. land, and without a dedicated process, families and volunteers are left navigating a patchwork of agency rules. The bill imposes no new costs on families and leverages the expertise of established search-and-recovery organizations at little cost to taxpayers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that while the bill's humanitarian goal is sympathetic, it could create unintended complications on federal lands that carry strict environmental, safety, or legal protections — such as designated wilderness areas, lands with active hazards, or sites with cultural significance. Critics contend that expedited access for volunteer groups, however well-intentioned, may bypass important vetting steps that protect both the volunteers and the land. Some argue that existing agency discretion already allows for case-by-case access approvals, making new statutory mandates unnecessary and potentially adding bureaucratic layers rather than reducing them. Others raise concerns that the bill places unfunded mandates on Interior and USDA to build new partnership programs without providing dedicated resources or staffing to carry them out.
Constitutional context
The bill rests primarily on Congress's authority over federal property under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), which grants Congress broad power to regulate lands owned by the federal government. The bill directs executive agencies to implement specific processes, which implicates the nondelegation doctrine and, in the post-Loper Bright (2024) environment, means courts would independently review whether agency implementation aligns with the statute's text rather than deferring to agency interpretation. Because the bill governs access to federal — not state — land, Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering concerns are minimal. No significant Takings Clause issues arise, as the bill expands rather than restricts access to property.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts a degree of operational authority to the executive branch (Interior and USDA) by directing those agencies to design and administer the approval process and partnership programs. However, Congress retains oversight by setting the statutory framework, eligibility criteria, and procedural requirements. The bill does not grant agencies open-ended rulemaking discretion; it prescribes specific procedural outcomes, which limits agency latitude under the post-Loper Bright standard of independent judicial review.
Historical precedent
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 established broad frameworks for managing access to federal lands, but neither created a dedicated process for volunteer search-and-recovery missions. This bill would be among the first statutes to specifically codify expedited volunteer access for search-and-recovery purposes on federal land.