S-2104-113
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 638.
What it does
This bill would require the National Park Service (NPS) to reimburse each state for any money that state spent to reopen and temporarily operate a National Park System unit during the October 2013 federal government shutdown. The reimbursement would cover only funds spent during the period when federal appropriations for those park units had lapsed.
Who benefits
State governments that used their own funds to keep National Park units open during the October 2013 shutdown would receive direct financial reimbursement. Indirectly, local economies near those parks — including small businesses, tourism operators, and workers dependent on park visitor traffic — benefited from the original state-funded reopenings and would see their states made financially whole.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers broadly would bear the cost of the reimbursements, as the NPS would need appropriated funds to pay states back. The federal government's general fund would be reduced by whatever amounts states spent. States that did not spend their own funds to reopen parks during the shutdown would receive no benefit, potentially creating an uneven outcome among states.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that states stepped in during a federal funding lapse to protect their residents, local economies, and visitors who depend on national parks — fulfilling a federal responsibility at their own expense. Requiring the federal government to reimburse those costs is a matter of basic fiscal fairness: states should not be left holding the bill for a federal government failure. Proponents also contend that this bill creates a practical incentive structure, encouraging states to act as a backstop during future shutdowns without fear of financial loss, which ultimately serves the public interest by keeping critical public lands accessible.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that states chose voluntarily to reopen federal parks and assumed that financial risk knowingly, without a prior federal commitment to repay them. Requiring mandatory reimbursement sets a precedent that could encourage states to spend freely on federal responsibilities during future shutdowns, expecting automatic federal repayment and potentially expanding federal liability in unpredictable ways. Critics may also contend that the bill addresses a narrow, one-time event from a single shutdown and that directing NPS funds toward reimbursements diverts money from ongoing park operations, maintenance backlogs, and conservation programs that serve a far broader public.
Constitutional context
The bill operates under Congress's Spending Clause authority (Art. I, Sec. 8) and its power to manage federal property under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3). The Appropriations Clause (Art. I, Sec. 9) is relevant because the NPS can only disburse reimbursements if Congress provides the necessary appropriations. The Tenth Amendment is tangentially relevant: the bill does not compel states to act but does create a federal financial obligation tied to past state action. No major active constitutional tension is implicated, as this is a straightforward spending directive rather than a broad agency rulemaking. The post-Loper Bright and West Virginia v. EPA major questions doctrine is not directly at issue here, as the bill involves a specific, narrow congressional mandate rather than expansive agency interpretation.
Checks and balances
The bill directs the Executive Branch (NPS/Department of the Interior) to make specific payments to states, limiting agency discretion — Congress is exercising its power of the purse to mandate a specific spending outcome. The Executive Branch retains no discretion over whether to reimburse; the obligation would be statutory. However, the actual disbursement remains dependent on Congress providing the necessary appropriations, preserving the Appropriations Clause check.
Historical precedent
During the 1995–1996 federal government shutdowns, similar debates arose over state and local costs incurred during federal funding lapses, though no comparable reimbursement statute was enacted. The October 2013 shutdown itself prompted several states — including Utah, Arizona, and Colorado — to negotiate agreements with the federal government to reopen specific parks using state funds, making this bill a direct legislative response to those arrangements.