Great American Outdoors Act 250
- Sponsor
- Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to provide a dedicated, substantial, and streamlined funding mechanism for critical infrastructure and maintenance needs on federal lands and at Bureau of Indian Education schools, primarily financed by new foreign visitor fees and existing energy development revenues.
What it actually does
This bill redesignates and significantly amends the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to the "America's Legacy Restoration Fund," expanding its scope to include the Bureau of Indian Education. It codifies new, substantial fees for foreign visitors to federal recreational lands, dedicating these revenues, along with existing energy development revenues and donations, to the Fund. The legislation establishes detailed criteria for project selection, transparency, and implementation, focusing on addressing deferred maintenance, improving outdoor recreation, and enhancing sportsmen's access across multiple federal agencies.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is a critical investment in America's natural and cultural heritage, addressing a multi-billion dollar deferred maintenance backlog that threatens public access and visitor experience. They contend that by leveraging foreign visitor fees and existing energy revenues, it provides a sustainable, dedicated funding source without burdening American taxpayers. The inclusion of the Bureau of Indian Education and emphasis on accessibility and outdoor recreation are seen as broadening the bill's positive impact and ensuring a more comprehensive approach to federal asset maintenance.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that imposing significant new fees on foreign visitors could deter tourism, negatively impacting local economies reliant on international visitors. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for the fund to supplant, rather than supplement, traditional appropriations, or about the allocation percentages not adequately addressing the needs of all covered agencies. Some may also question the expansion of categorical exclusions for environmental reviews, fearing a reduction in oversight.
The bill is moderately detailed, requiring careful reading to understand the funding mechanisms, project selection criteria, and implementation streamlining provisions.
Section 2(a), amending 54 U.S.C. Subtitle II, Chapter 2004
America's Legacy Restoration Fund Establishment and Scope Expansion
This provision redesignates the existing National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund as the "America's Legacy Restoration Fund." Crucially, it expands the definition of "covered agency" to include the Bureau of Indian Education, alongside the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management. This change broadens the scope of federal assets eligible for maintenance and modernization funding.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this expansion is vital for addressing the long-standing and critical infrastructure needs of Bureau of Indian Education schools, ensuring a more comprehensive approach to maintaining federal assets and supporting Native American communities.
Critics contend
No specific opposition to the name change or inclusion of BIE is typically raised, though some might question the overall funding mechanism or the adequacy of the allocated share.
Tradeoffs
Broadens the beneficiaries of the fund, potentially addressing more diverse needs, but could dilute the per-agency funding if the total fund size does not increase proportionally.
Section 2(a), new 54 U.S.C. 200402(b)
Fund Deposits and Annual Maximum Amount
This section details how the America's Legacy Restoration Fund will be financed. It mandates deposits from 100% of new foreign visitor fees (established in Section 3), 100% of donations, and 50% of energy development revenues from Federal land. However, it caps the total annual deposits from foreign visitor fees and energy revenues at $1.9 billion for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, with any excess funds transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury.
Section 2(a), new 54 U.S.C. 200402(e)(1)
Fixed Allocation of Funds to Covered Agencies
This provision mandates specific annual allocations of the funds deposited into the America's Legacy Restoration Fund. The National Park Service is allocated 70%, the Forest Service 15%, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Education each receive 5%. These funds are designated for priority deferred maintenance projects or the outdoor recreation and sportsmen's access pilot program.
Section 2(a), new 54 U.S.C. 200402(f)
Prohibitions and Limitations on Fund Use
This section sets strict rules on how the funds from the America's Legacy Restoration Fund can be used. It explicitly prohibits using funds for land acquisition, supplanting existing discretionary funding for operations, employee bonuses, or decommissioning roads. It also limits administrative expenses to 3% of deposits, contingency funds to 15% (requiring congressional notification for reallocations over 10%), and project planning and compliance costs to 8%.
Section 2(a), new 54 U.S.C. 200402(g)
Priority Deferred Maintenance Project Selection Criteria
This provision outlines the criteria for selecting priority deferred maintenance projects. Secretaries must prioritize projects that address mission-critical assets, promote public access, enhance visitor experience, improve outdoor recreation, resolve imminent threats to public health/safety, prevent closures, or avoid higher future repair costs. It also mandates publishing clear selection criteria, soliciting recommendations from State Governors, and ensuring transportation projects account for at least 10% visitation growth.
Section 3(b) and (c), amending 16 U.S.C. 6802(e) and 16 U.S.C. 6804(a)
New Entry and Annual Pass Fees for Foreign Visitors
This provision establishes new, higher fees specifically for 'visitor nonimmigrants' (individuals admitted under B visas or the Visa Waiver Program) accessing federal recreational lands and waters. It mandates a minimum $100 entrance or standard amenity recreation fee, in addition to any other applicable fees. Furthermore, it sets a minimum $250 fee for the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass for these foreign visitors.
Section 2(a), new 54 U.S.C. 200402(l)
Transparency and Accountability Measures
This provision mandates several transparency and accountability measures. Within two years, Secretaries must establish standardized metrics for calculating deferred maintenance. Within one year, they must maintain a public, searchable geospatial dashboard to track project details, including location, costs, timelines, environmental review status, donation links, and effectiveness. Additionally, annual reports to Congress are required, detailing maintenance needs, reductions, preventative plans, asset disposal, and the full status of all funds.
Section 2(a), new 54 U.S.C. 200402(m)
Streamlined Implementation and Acquisition Flexibilities
This provision introduces several measures to expedite project implementation. It directs Secretaries to develop a consolidated categorical exclusion for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for deferred maintenance projects within one year. It also mandates awarding construction contracts within 180 days of final design approval, increases the micro-purchase threshold to $25,000, caps architect-engineer service fees at 8%, and authorizes the use of emergency acquisition flexibilities for contracting, even without a Presidential emergency declaration.
This technical provision states that the previous version of 54 U.S.C. 200402(b)(3), which concerns the effect on other revenues, shall continue to apply to this new chapter and any disposition of revenues made under it.
Section 2(a), new 54 U.S.C. 200402(b)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure continuity and avoid unintended repeal or alteration of existing revenue sharing or disposition rules for federal lands, providing legal clarity and stability without needing to restate complex prior law.
Case for: Ensures that the new fund structure does not inadvertently disrupt existing revenue sharing or disposition agreements for federal lands, providing legal clarity and stability for states, local governments, and other entities that receive a share of these revenues.
Case against: No specific case against, as it's a technical continuity provision designed to prevent unintended legal or fiscal disruptions.
Estimated impact: Ensures legal consistency for existing revenue streams, preventing potential legal challenges or fiscal disruptions for various federal, state, and local entities.
This 'special rule' mandates that at least 80% of the revenues collected from the new foreign visitor fees (under section 3(b) of the Act) and deposited into the America's Legacy Restoration Fund must be allocated towards priority deferred maintenance projects specifically within the unit where those revenues were collected.
Section 2(a), new 54 U.S.C. 200402(e)(3)
Why it matters:This provision likely serves to ensure direct local benefit from the new revenue streams, potentially to garner support from specific regions or popular park units that anticipate generating significant foreign visitor fees. It creates a direct incentive for those units.
Case for: Ensures that the units generating the new foreign visitor fee revenue directly benefit from those funds, creating a visible return on investment for those specific sites and potentially incentivizing local support for the fee structure.
Case against: Could limit the flexibility of the Secretaries to allocate funds to the highest priority projects across the entire system, potentially leaving critical needs in units that do not generate significant foreign visitor fees unaddressed, or making system-wide strategic planning more difficult.
Estimated impact: Directs a significant portion of the new foreign visitor fee revenue to specific park units, potentially impacting the overall fund allocation strategy and the ability to address needs in less-visited areas.
This provision allows funds made available or allocated to the covered agencies for transportation projects to be further allocated or reallocated to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for the execution of such transportation projects, in accordance with the bill's overall allocations and limitations.
Section 2(a), new 54 U.S.C. 200402(e)(2)(D)
Why it matters:This is a technical mechanism for inter-agency cooperation on infrastructure projects, common in federal funding. It allows agencies to leverage the specialized expertise and capacity of the FHWA for complex transportation infrastructure work.
Case for: Enables covered agencies to leverage the Federal Highway Administration's expertise and capacity for large-scale transportation infrastructure projects, ensuring efficient and high-quality construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, and tunnels on federal lands.
Case against: No specific case against, as it is an operational flexibility designed to improve efficiency and project delivery through inter-agency collaboration.
Estimated impact: Facilitates the efficient execution of transportation projects on federal lands by allowing collaboration with the Federal Highway Administration, potentially leading to better quality and more timely completion of road and bridge repairs.