PARKS Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to increase access to national parks and other federal recreational lands for licensed foster families by waiving entrance and standard amenity fees.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to establish a new category of eligibility for free annual passes to federal recreational lands and waters: licensed foster families. It specifies that one pass will be provided per family, with the possibility of additional passes if a family's size exceeds the coverage of a single pass when visiting a site together. Eligibility is tied to the definition of a foster family home as outlined in the Social Security Act.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill provides a meaningful benefit to foster families, who often face significant financial and logistical challenges, by removing cost barriers to outdoor recreation. They contend that access to natural spaces can greatly benefit the well-being and development of children in foster care, promoting family bonding and healthy activities. This initiative would recognize and support the vital role foster families play in their communities.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concern that while well-intentioned, this bill could lead to a minor reduction in fee revenue for federal land management agencies. These agencies rely on recreation fees to fund essential operations, maintenance, and visitor services. Opponents might suggest that a more direct form of financial assistance to foster families or broader funding for public lands could be more effective or fiscally responsible.
The bill is exceptionally short and clearly written, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its provisions quickly and thoroughly.
Section 2, amending Section 805(b)(3) of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6804(b)(3))
Free Annual Passes for Licensed Foster Families
This provision modifies existing federal law to allow licensed foster families to receive free annual passes for federal recreational lands and waters. It explicitly includes families whose home is a foster family home, as defined by the Social Security Act, and requires them to provide adequate proof of eligibility. The bill generally limits families to one pass, but allows for additional passes if the family's size necessitates more coverage when visiting a site together.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision directly supports foster families by making outdoor recreation more accessible and affordable. They emphasize the developmental and health benefits for children in foster care who gain opportunities to experience nature, fostering resilience and positive family experiences. It is seen as a small but meaningful gesture of support for those dedicated to caring for vulnerable youth.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that while the intent is laudable, this provision could lead to a cumulative loss of revenue for federal land agencies that are already facing budget constraints. They may argue that every fee waiver, however small, contributes to the challenge of funding park maintenance and operations, and that alternative funding mechanisms might be preferable.
Tradeoffs
The primary tradeoff involves balancing the social benefit of providing free access to foster families with the potential for minor revenue impacts on federal land management agencies. It highlights the tension between targeted social support and the financial sustainability of public recreational resources.
The bill defines 'foster family home' by referencing 'section 472(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 672(c)), including through the application of section 479B of such Act'.
Section 2(4)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure consistency with existing federal definitions and avoid redundancy, rather than an attempt to obscure information.
Case for: Supporters would argue that referencing an established definition from the Social Security Act ensures that eligibility for the passes aligns with existing federal standards for foster care, promoting consistency across government programs.
Case against: Critics might suggest that relying on external definitions makes the bill less self-contained and potentially more difficult for a casual reader to fully comprehend without additional legal research.
Estimated impact: Ensures that eligibility for the free passes is consistent with established federal criteria for foster family homes, thereby defining the scope of the program nationally.