S-3456-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Tim Sheehy (R-MT)
What it does
This bill would amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide a free annual National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass to law enforcement officers and firefighters. It would define both groups broadly to include federal, state, local, and tribal employees. Eligible individuals would need to provide proof of eligibility as determined by the Secretary of the Interior.
Who benefits
Law enforcement officers and firefighters at all levels of government — federal, state, local, and tribal — who would receive free access to national parks and federal recreational lands. Their families would also benefit indirectly through reduced recreation costs. National park concessionaires and nearby businesses may see increased visitation. Active-duty military members and their dependents, who already receive this benefit under existing law, are preserved under the bill.
Who is hurt
The National Park Service and other federal land management agencies would forgo fee revenue currently collected from these visitors. Taxpayers broadly may bear the cost of any revenue shortfall if it is not offset. Visitors who do not qualify for the pass — such as teachers, nurses, or other public servants — may perceive an inequity in the benefit structure. Private-sector workers in comparable roles (e.g., private security, private firefighting contractors) would not qualify.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that law enforcement officers and firefighters — particularly wildland firefighters — regularly work on or near federal lands and face significant occupational hazards in service to the public, making free recreational access a modest and meaningful form of recognition. They contend that similar benefits are already extended to active-duty military members and their dependents, and that this bill simply closes a gap by extending the same courtesy to first responders who perform comparably dangerous public service.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that singling out law enforcement and firefighters for a federal benefit not available to other public servants — such as emergency medical technicians, public health workers, or teachers — creates an arbitrary distinction with no clear policy rationale. They contend that the broad definitions in the bill, which encompass all state, local, and tribal employees in these categories, could reduce federal land fee revenue by a meaningful amount without a corresponding appropriation to offset the loss, effectively creating an unfunded mandate on park operations.