S-4023-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Todd Young (R-IN)
What it does
This bill would establish the "America's Living Library Project," a 10-year pilot program administered by the U.S. Geological Survey. It would fund the collection, whole-genome sequencing, and long-term storage of biological samples from animals, plants, fungi, and microbes found in up to 25 National Park System units. The resulting genomic data would be stored in a publicly accessible federal database, with physical samples retained in U.S. facilities managed by the Smithsonian Institution and the Department of Agriculture.
Who benefits
Academic and government researchers who would gain free access to a large, standardized genomic dataset. Biomedical and pharmaceutical companies that could use genomic data to develop new drugs or treatments. U.S.-based artificial intelligence and biotechnology companies that would receive expedited, non-public data access for AI model development. Conservation organizations and wildlife managers who could use the data to track species health and biodiversity. National park visitors and the general public who benefit from improved ecological knowledge. Federal agencies (USGS, NPS, USDA, NIH, Smithsonian) that would receive new funding and expanded research capacity. Indian Tribes, who are explicitly included in consultation processes.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who fund the program, which is authorized at up to approximately $182 million over five fiscal years (2027–2031). Foreign biotechnology and AI companies, which are explicitly excluded from expedited data access. Domestic competitors of companies that receive preferential early access to genomic data, potentially creating an uneven commercial playing field. Researchers or institutions that prefer open, immediate data release, who may find certain sensitive location data withheld. Species or ecosystems that could face unintended disturbance from sampling activities, though the bill requires compliance with existing wildlife protection laws.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the U.S. lacks a comprehensive, standardized genomic catalog of its native biodiversity, leaving scientists without baseline data needed to track species decline, respond to emerging diseases, and develop new medicines. They contend that national parks — already protected, well-studied, and geographically diverse — are ideal sampling sites, and that the bill's bipartisan sponsorship (including members from both parties across rural and urban states) reflects broad recognition of the program's scientific and economic value. They further argue that restricting AI data access to U.S.-based entities protects American competitiveness in biotechnology and prevents sensitive biological data from reaching foreign adversaries.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that authorizing up to $182 million for a new pilot program with a 10-year sunset creates a spending commitment that may be difficult to wind down if the program underperforms, and that existing federal genomic databases (such as NCBI's GenBank) already serve many of the same functions. They contend that granting preferential, non-public data access to select U.S. companies for AI development raises fairness and conflict-of-interest concerns, despite the bill's vetting requirements. They also argue that the Secretary's broad discretion to define "high-priority species" and set data standards without specific congressional benchmarks delegates significant policy authority with limited oversight.