HR-9250-119
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Sponsored by Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
What it does
This bill would rename the existing National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to the "America's Legacy Restoration Fund" and extend its operation through fiscal year 2030, capping annual deposits at $1.9 billion. It would direct 50% of federal energy development revenues (oil, gas, coal, and renewables) into the fund, allocating money to the National Park Service (70%), Forest Service (15%), Fish and Wildlife Service (5%), Bureau of Land Management (5%), and Bureau of Indian Education (5%) for deferred maintenance projects. It would also establish a minimum $100 per-visit fee and a $250 annual pass fee for foreign tourists (visitor nonimmigrants) at federal recreational lands, with those revenues deposited into the fund.
Who benefits
Visitors to national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and BLM lands who would see improved facilities, roads, trails, and infrastructure. Hunters and anglers who would benefit from dedicated sportsmen's access projects. People with disabilities who would benefit from required accessibility improvements. Tribal communities served by Bureau of Indian Education schools. State and local economies near federal lands that depend on tourism. Construction and maintenance contractors who would receive project awards. Conservation nonprofits and foundations eligible for public-private partnerships. Domestic visitors who would not pay the new foreign visitor surcharge. Rural communities near federal lands that benefit from improved public access.
Who is hurt
Foreign tourists (visitor nonimmigrants) who would pay a minimum $100 per-visit fee or $250 annual pass — a significant increase over current standard entrance fees (typically $35 per vehicle). International tourism businesses, travel agencies, and hospitality industries near federal lands that may see reduced foreign visitation. Taxpayers and energy consumers if energy revenue redirected to the fund reduces amounts available for other federal priorities. Competing federal programs that currently receive miscellaneous energy revenues. Environmental review advocates who may object to the new categorical exclusion that streamlines NEPA review for maintenance projects. Architects and engineers whose fees would be capped at 8% of project costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the deferred maintenance backlog across federal lands has grown to an estimated $23 billion for the National Park Service alone, with crumbling roads, failing water systems, and deteriorating visitor facilities threatening both public safety and the outdoor recreation economy, which generates over $780 billion annually. They contend the bill's bipartisan structure — extending a fund created under the original Great American Outdoors Act of 2020 with broad support — provides a proven, dedicated funding mechanism that reduces reliance on unpredictable annual appropriations. They further argue that charging foreign visitors a higher fee is equitable, since U.S. taxpayers already subsidize these lands and foreign visitors currently pay the same rates as Americans.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a $100 minimum fee for foreign visitors is a dramatic price increase that could deter international tourism, harming gateway communities and businesses that depend on foreign visitors — particularly in states like Utah, Arizona, and California where international tourism is economically significant. They contend that the new categorical exclusion for NEPA review, while framed as streamlining, could allow maintenance projects with meaningful environmental impacts to bypass public scrutiny, weakening a core environmental protection law. They further argue that redirecting 50% of federal energy revenues to a dedicated fund reduces congressional flexibility to address other priorities and may entrench fossil fuel development as a permanent funding mechanism for conservation.
Constitutional context
The bill rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) to manage federal property and regulate fees on federal lands, as well as the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2), which gives Congress broad power over federal lands. The new categorical exclusion streamlining NEPA review does not raise major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) because Congress — not an agency — is directly authorizing the exclusion by statute, providing the clear legislative authorization that doctrine requires.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Interior and Agriculture Secretaries) gains spending authority over up to $1.9 billion annually without further appropriation, but Congress retains oversight through mandatory annual project lists, GAO audits, 30-day congressional notification requirements for cost overruns, and the ability to set alternate allocations through appropriations acts.
Historical precedent
The original Great American Outdoors Act (2020) established the predecessor National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund using the same energy revenue mechanism, passed with broad bipartisan support and has been directing up to $1.9 billion annually to federal land maintenance since fiscal year 2021.