What changed between these versions
A complete substitute amendment, v2 fundamentally restructures the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund reauthorization, introducing new definitions, funding mechanisms, project prioritization, and administrative streamlining. It also adds new revenue streams through nonresident visitor surcharges and intellectual property licensing. v2 is effectively a different bill from v1.
Overview
Extensive changes throughout the bill, encompassing numerous modifications to existing provisions and the addition of several entirely new sections. · v2 fundamentally restructures the program, expands its scope by introducing new funding sources and administrative mechanisms, and clarifies numerous operational details.
v2 is a complete substitute amendment, fundamentally overhauling the reauthorization of the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund. Key changes include a new definition of deferred maintenance, revised deposit periods and maximums, and a detailed framework for project selection and fund use. Additionally, v2 introduces entirely new mechanisms for generating revenue through surcharges on nonresident visitors and licensing of intellectual property, significantly broadening the bill's scope and administrative provisions.
Major additions
This new subsection introduces a definition for 'deferred maintenance,' specifying that it includes maintenance or repair not performed when scheduled and put off for a future period. Crucially, it also includes the reconstruction of demolished assets under specific conditions, such as posing a risk to health or resources, not being temporary, being comparable in function, and costing less than $5,000,000.
This addition provides a clear, statutory definition for a core concept of the bill, which was previously undefined. The inclusion of asset reconstruction under specific criteria broadens the types of projects eligible for funding, allowing for the replacement of critical infrastructure that was removed due to safety or resource concerns, rather than just repairing existing assets. This could significantly impact how agencies manage their maintenance backlogs.
This new subsection establishes a specific order of priority for how amounts from different sources are deposited into the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund. It prioritizes amounts from the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, then from Section 4(e)(2)(B) of the America the Beautiful Act (new in v2), and finally from the general deposits under paragraph (1).
This addition creates a structured hierarchy for fund deposits, ensuring that certain revenue streams are allocated before others. This could influence the stability and predictability of funding from various sources, particularly as new revenue streams are introduced, and provides clarity on how the fund's maximum capacity is managed when multiple sources contribute.
This new subsection explicitly prohibits the use of funds from the Legacy Restoration Fund for several purposes: land acquisition, supplanting discretionary funding for recurring operations/maintenance/construction, employee bonuses, or decommissioning roads on National Forest System land or BLM public land.
These prohibitions clarify the intended scope of the fund, preventing its use for activities outside its core mission of deferred maintenance. The ban on supplanting discretionary funding is particularly significant, aiming to ensure the fund is used for additional maintenance efforts rather than replacing existing budget lines. The prohibition on road decommissioning also has specific implications for land management agencies.
This extensive new section adds several administrative and operational provisions. These include (l) Streamlining (categorical exclusions for NEPA, program comment for historic preservation), (m) Timeline (contract award deadlines), (n) State, Local, Tribal, Nonprofit Organization, and Concessioner Noncompetitive Contracts (allowing noncompetitive contracts under specific conditions), (o) Micro-purchase Threshold (setting specific thresholds with adjustments), (p) Disposal of Constructed Assets (similar to v1's (l)), (q) Report to Congress (similar to v1's (m)), (r) Administrative Expenses (limiting administrative costs), and (s) Transparency and Accountability (requiring standardized metrics for deferred maintenance).
These additions introduce a comprehensive framework for improving the efficiency, transparency, and accountability of projects funded by the Legacy Restoration Fund. The streamlining provisions aim to expedite environmental and historic reviews, while the noncompetitive contract authority and micro-purchase thresholds could significantly alter procurement processes. The administrative expense limits and transparency metrics are intended to ensure responsible and effective use of funds. This suite of provisions aims to address operational challenges and enhance the overall effectiveness of the program.
This entirely new section amends the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to establish an entrance fee surcharge for nonresident visitors to units of the National Park System. It defines 'nonresident visitor,' outlines how the surcharge amount is determined (maximizing revenue while retaining visitation, with public participation), specifies collection methods (including third-party vendors), allows for suspension or modification, exempts international peace parks, directs proceeds to the Legacy Restoration Fund (with a limitation), and sets an expiration date of September 30, 2031.
This addition creates a new, dedicated revenue stream for the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund by imposing an additional fee on international visitors. This could significantly increase the financial capacity of the fund, particularly for high-visitation parks. The provisions for public participation and flexibility in setting the surcharge aim to balance revenue generation with visitor experience and local community input. This represents a major policy shift in how national parks generate revenue for maintenance.
This entirely new section grants the Secretary of the Interior authority to license intellectual property (trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets) owned or controlled by the Department. It allows the Secretary to retain and expend fees from these licenses. It specifies that fees must at least cover processing and issuing costs, and licenses cannot be transferred without authorization. Proceeds are prioritized for IP management costs, then deposited into the Legacy Restoration Fund (with a limitation if the maximum is reached).
This addition creates another new, non-traditional revenue stream for the Department of the Interior, with a portion of the proceeds directed to the Legacy Restoration Fund. By leveraging intellectual property, the Department can generate additional funds for its operations and deferred maintenance backlog. This represents an innovative approach to funding and could have a substantial impact on the financial resources available to the Department, particularly for its IP-related activities.
Deletions
This paragraph in v1 specified that amounts required to be deposited in the Fund would be deposited in the following order of priority: first, amounts from the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, then from the America the Beautiful Act, and finally from general deposits.
The specific ordering of deposits in v1 was removed and replaced by a more detailed and expanded 'Order of Deposits' in v2's Section 2(d). While the concept of prioritizing deposits remains, the specific structure and references have been updated to reflect the new funding mechanisms introduced in v2. The deletion of this specific paragraph in v1 is part of a broader restructuring of how funds are prioritized and managed.
This subsection in v1 added two new provisions: (l) Disposal of Assets, requiring the Secretary and Secretary of Agriculture to provide for the disposal of constructed assets that no longer serve the public interest or mission; and (m) Report to Congress, requiring a report on actions taken without Fund amounts to reduce deferred maintenance and a plan to increase preventative maintenance.
The specific structure of v1's Section 2(f) adding subsections (l) and (m) was deleted. However, the substance of these provisions was largely retained and reincorporated into v2's Section 2(j) as new subsections (p) and (q). The deletion reflects a reorganization of the bill's structure rather than a removal of the policy intent, as the core requirements for asset disposal and reporting on maintenance strategies are preserved in v2 within a larger new section of 'Additional Provisions'.
Modifications
The reauthorization period for the Legacy Restoration Fund is shortened by two years (from 2033 to 2031) compared to v1's proposed extension, potentially impacting long-term planning. The inclusion of new funding sources in the maximum amount calculation means that the $2,000,000,000 cap now encompasses more revenue streams, which could affect how much is available from the original source. The change from 'Federal land and water' to 'Federal onshore land' narrows the scope of land types contributing to the fund.
Before
v1 extended the authorization for deposits into the Fund from '2021 through 2025' to '2033' and increased the maximum annual deposit from '$1,900,000,000' to '$2,000,000,000' from 'Federal land and water'.
After
v2 changes the authorization period from '2021 through 2025' to '2027 through 2031' for deposits. It also modifies the maximum amount calculation by inserting 'total' before 'amount' and including new references to 'section 803 of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6802), and section 4(e)(2)(B) of the America the Beautiful Act' as contributing to the maximum. Additionally, it changes 'Federal land and water' to 'Federal onshore land'.
Federal agencies (National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management) are now subject to strict percentage-based allocations for nontransportation projects, ensuring a minimum focus on these types of projects. This provides a clearer framework for how funds must be distributed internally within each agency, potentially shifting priorities from transportation to nontransportation infrastructure. The requirement for consistency with agency plans adds a layer of strategic planning to project selection.
Before
v1 changed 'in the National Wildlife Refuge System' to 'on land administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service' and added a new paragraph (3) requiring prioritization of projects receiving not less than 15 percent of total costs in donations.
After
v2 makes the same change from 'in the National Wildlife Refuge System' to 'on land administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service'. However, it completely replaces paragraph (2) (Limitations) with new, detailed provisions. These new limitations specify that over the term of the Fund, not less than 65% of amounts for the Service and USFWS, 32% for the Forest Service, and 15% for BLM must be allocated for deferred maintenance nontransportation projects. Remaining amounts may be used for transportation projects, and all projects must be consistent with applicable agency plans.
Federal agencies are now subject to much more rigorous and detailed requirements for submitting project lists, including specific data sheets and deadlines, with potential funding delays for non-compliance. States, territories, and Indian Tribes gain a formal mechanism to recommend projects. The detailed prioritization criteria will significantly guide agency decisions on which projects receive funding, ensuring a focus on critical needs, efficiency, and public benefit, while also balancing projects across high and low visitation areas.
Before
v1 amended the existing Section 200402(h) by inserting 'and the subsequent fiscal year' before the period at the end, indicating that the annual list of projects should cover two fiscal years.
After
v2 completely rewrites Section 200402(h). It adds definitions for 'applicable fiscal year' and 'subsequent fiscal year'. It expands the annual list requirements to include detailed project data sheets with specific inclusions. It introduces a 'No list, no allocation' provision, delaying funding if lists are not submitted by April 30 (for FY2028+). It sets specific deadlines for FY2027 and FY2028 list submissions. It mandates soliciting recommendations from Governors, territories, and Indian Tribes. Most significantly, it establishes detailed priority criteria for project selection, focusing on public health/safety threats, preventing deterioration, maximizing backlog reduction, mission-critical assets, timely completion, and balancing visitation levels.
This modification provides a clearer and more comprehensive framework for how funds will be allocated if Congress does not provide specific alternate allocations through appropriations acts. It ensures that funds can still be allocated by the President under various circumstances, reducing potential delays or uncertainties in funding availability for covered agencies. The specific applicability for FY2028 and beyond provides a transition period for these new rules.
Before
v1 amended the existing Section 200402(i) by inserting 'for the applicable fiscal year and subsequent fiscal year' and adding a new subparagraph (C) for allocation by the President if Congress has not enacted full-year appropriations by the end of the previous fiscal year.
After
v2 completely rewrites Section 200402(i). It retains the concept of alternate allocation by appropriations acts. It expands the 'Allocation by President' provisions to cover three scenarios: (A) no alternate allocations by Congress, (B) insufficient alternate allocation by Congress, and (C) no full-year appropriations enacted by the end of the previous fiscal year (with specific applicability for FY2028+).
This modification significantly impacts the treatment of donations. By explicitly excluding cash donations from the Fund's maximum deposit limit, v2 ensures that all donated funds can be utilized for projects without counting against the statutory cap. This could incentivize more public donations, as donors would know their contributions directly add to the fund's capacity beyond the federal allocation. The removal of a specific pass example from solicitation methods offers slightly more flexibility in public awareness campaigns.
Before
v1 struck 'Public' from the subsection heading and paragraph (1), redesignated paragraphs (2) and (3) as (3) and (4), inserted a new paragraph (2) on solicitation of donations (public awareness, physical/digital locations, checkout process including 'America the Beautiful--the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass'), and rewrote paragraph (3) (Credits to fund) to specify crediting to the Fund, allocation to the covered agency, and potential allocation to specific projects.
After
v2 also strikes 'Public' from the heading and paragraph (1), and redesignates paragraph (3) as (4). However, it completely replaces paragraph (2) (Solicitation of donations) and paragraph (3) (Credits to fund). The new paragraph (2) is similar to v1's new (2) but removes the specific example of 'America the Beautiful--the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass'. The new paragraph (3) specifies that 100 percent of cash donations shall be credited to the Fund, allocated to the covered agency, and crucially, 'shall not be considered for purposes of the limitation on amounts deposited under subsection (b)(2)'.
Scope
Complete substitute — Changes are extensive and scattered throughout the bill, with significant new sections added that introduce entirely new policy areas and administrative frameworks. — Yes, v2 represents a meaningful change in policy direction relative to v1. It not only refines the existing Legacy Restoration Fund but also introduces entirely new mechanisms for revenue generation (nonresident visitor surcharges, IP licensing) and comprehensive administrative streamlining provisions, broadening the scope and operational complexity of the bill. — The changes interact significantly with existing provisions of title 54, United States Code, and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, particularly by amending their sections and introducing new funding streams that affect the overall financial structure and operational management of the Legacy Restoration Fund and related agencies.
Impact analysis
Federal Agencies (National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Education)
Procedural change, increased administrative burden, new authorities, new funding sources, increased accountability.
Agencies are now subject to a new statutory definition of 'deferred maintenance' that includes asset reconstruction. They face revised reauthorization periods and maximum deposit calculations for the Fund. Fund use is now subject to specific percentage allocations for nontransportation projects. The project selection process is significantly more rigorous, requiring detailed data sheets, stakeholder recommendations, and adherence to explicit prioritization criteria. New administrative provisions introduce streamlining for environmental reviews, contract award timelines, noncompetitive contracting authorities, revised micro-purchase thresholds, administrative expense limits, and new transparency/accountability metrics. They also gain new potential revenue streams from nonresident visitor surcharges and IP licensing.
Nonresident Visitors to Units of the National Park System
Lose (pay more).
They will be subject to a new, additional surcharge on entrance fees to National Park System units.
States, Local Governments, and Indian Tribes
Gain (increased influence and contracting opportunities).
They will be formally solicited for recommendations on projects to be funded from the Legacy Restoration Fund. They are also eligible to enter into noncompetitive contracts with federal agencies for priority deferred maintenance projects.
Nonprofit Organizations (congressionally chartered or affiliated with a specific unit)
Procedural change, potential new obligation (for congressionally chartered nonprofits), new contracting opportunities.
They are eligible to enter into noncompetitive contracts for priority deferred maintenance projects. However, congressionally chartered nonprofits are required to provide matching contributions from non-Federal sources for these contracts, with potential for waiver under specific circumstances.
Lessees or Concessioners holding valid contracts with a covered agency unit
Gain (new contracting opportunities).
They are eligible to enter into noncompetitive contracts for priority deferred maintenance projects located within their specific unit.
Public Donors to the Legacy Restoration Fund
Gain (donations fully utilized, not constrained by federal cap).
Cash donations accepted by the Secretary are now explicitly excluded from the overall maximum amount that can be deposited into the Fund. This ensures 100% of donated funds are credited and utilized beyond the federal cap.