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.
America the Beautiful Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 17, 2026
Bottom line
The America the Beautiful Act aims to significantly address the deferred maintenance backlog in national parks and public lands by extending a dedicated restoration fund, diversifying its revenue streams, and accelerating project execution through streamlined administrative processes.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, extending its duration and clarifying its funding sources. It introduces new revenue streams through a surcharge on nonresident international visitors to national parks and by authorizing the Department of the Interior to license its intellectual property. Furthermore, the bill streamlines project implementation processes for deferred maintenance projects on federal lands, including environmental review and contracting procedures.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is critical for preserving the nation's treasured national parks and public lands, ensuring their accessibility and protecting vital natural and cultural resources. They highlight the sustained funding for essential infrastructure repairs and maintenance, alongside innovative new revenue streams and administrative streamlining, as crucial steps to tackle a long-standing and growing maintenance deficit.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that the introduction of a nonresident visitor surcharge could deter international tourism, potentially harming local economies reliant on these visitors. Concerns may also be raised regarding the streamlining of environmental and historic preservation reviews, arguing that such measures could reduce oversight and potentially lead to adverse impacts on sensitive resources. Additionally, the expanded use of noncompetitive contracts could be viewed as reducing transparency and potentially leading to less cost-effective outcomes.
The bill is moderately detailed, requiring careful reading to understand the changes to existing law and the new provisions, especially those related to funding mechanisms and project implementation.
Section 2(a), amending 54 U.S.C. 200401
Expanded Definition of Deferred Maintenance
This provision expands the definition of 'deferred maintenance' to include the reconstruction of assets that were demolished or removed within the last 10 years due to risks to human health, safety, or natural/cultural resources. The reconstructed asset must be comparable in function and capacity to the original and cost less than $5,000,000.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this expansion allows agencies to restore critical infrastructure that had to be removed for safety or resource protection, rather than being limited to only repairing existing structures. This ensures that essential facilities can be brought back into service.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that expanding the definition to include reconstruction could divert funds from strictly 'deferred maintenance' of existing assets, potentially stretching resources further and delaying repairs on currently standing infrastructure.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for restoring lost infrastructure that served a public purpose against the core mission of addressing existing maintenance backlogs.
Section 2(b), amending 54 U.S.C. 200402(b)(1)
Reauthorization of Fund Deposits and Source Clarification
This provision extends the period during which revenues from energy development on federal lands are deposited into the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund. The authorization is extended from fiscal years 2021 through 2025 to fiscal years 2027 through 2031. It also clarifies that these revenues specifically come from 'Federal onshore land' rather than 'Federal land and water'.
Section 2(e), amending 54 U.S.C. 200402(e)
Fund Allocation for Nontransportation and Transportation Projects
This provision modifies how funds from the Legacy Restoration Fund are allocated. It sets minimum percentages for 'nontransportation projects' (e.g., buildings, trails, water systems) within each covered agency: 65% for the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, 32% for the Forest Service, and 15% for the Bureau of Land Management. Any remaining funds after these allocations may be used for transportation projects (e.g., roads, bridges, parking areas).
Section 2(f), amending 54 U.S.C. 200402(f)
Expanded Prohibitions on Fund Use
This provision expands the list of activities for which Legacy Restoration Fund amounts cannot be used. New prohibitions include the acquisition of land or any interest in land, supplanting discretionary funding for annually recurring facility operations, maintenance, or construction needs, providing bonuses for federal employees, or decommissioning roads on National Forest System land or public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
Section 2(j), adding 54 U.S.C. 200402(n)
Noncompetitive Contracting Authority for Deferred Maintenance Projects
This provision authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into noncompetitive contracts for priority deferred maintenance projects with states, local governments, Indian Tribes, congressionally chartered nonprofit organizations, affiliated nonprofits, or existing concessioners. This is permissible if the Secretary determines, in writing, that the entity is 'uniquely positioned' to execute the contract. Certain nonprofits are required to provide matching non-Federal funds.
Section 3, amending 16 U.S.C. 6802(e)
Nonresident Visitor Entrance Fee Surcharge for National Parks
This provision mandates the Secretary of the Interior to establish a surcharge for nonresident international visitors (non-U.S. citizens/nationals or non-permanent residents) entering National Park System units that charge an entrance fee. The surcharge aims to maximize revenue while retaining visitation, with public input on the amount. Proceeds are deposited into the Legacy Restoration Fund, or retained by the park if the fund cap is met. This surcharge expires on September 30, 2031.
Section 4
Department of the Interior Intellectual Property Licensing Authority
This section grants the Secretary of the Interior authority to license intellectual property (including trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets) owned or controlled by the Department to 'qualifying entities.' Licensing fees must cover the costs incurred by the Secretary in processing and issuing the license. Any remaining proceeds are to be deposited into the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, or used for IP management if the fund's maximum cap is reached.
The definition of 'deferred maintenance' is expanded to include the reconstruction of an asset that was demolished or removed during the 10-year period ending on the date of enactment, if the demolition was due to risk to health, safety, or resources, the asset was not temporary, the reconstruction is comparable, and costs less than $5,000,000.
Section 2(a)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for modifying existing definitions in statute, but its specific conditions make it a nuanced change that could easily be missed.
Case for: Supporters argue this provides necessary flexibility, allowing agencies to restore critical infrastructure that had to be removed for safety reasons, ensuring that valuable public assets can be rebuilt and returned to service.
Case against: Critics might argue that this expands the scope of 'deferred maintenance' beyond simple repairs to include new construction, potentially diverting funds from existing, deteriorating assets that are still standing.
Estimated impact: Allows for the reconstruction of specific, previously demolished assets up to $5 million each, potentially restoring key visitor or operational facilities.
Establishes a specific order of priority for depositing amounts into the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund: first from the nonresident visitor surcharge, then from intellectual property licensing fees, and finally from traditional energy development revenues.
Section 2(d), adding 54 U.S.C. 200402(b)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for managing multiple revenue streams into a single fund, ensuring clarity in accounting and fund management.
Case for: Supporters argue this prioritization ensures that the new, potentially more direct and politically palatable revenue streams are fully utilized for the fund before relying on other sources, maximizing their impact.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against the order of deposits itself, but the underlying revenue sources (e.g., energy development) may be contentious.
Estimated impact: Ensures that new revenue streams from surcharges and IP licensing are prioritized for the fund, potentially making the fund less reliant on traditional energy revenues up to its cap.
Directs the Secretary to streamline environmental reviews for projects funded under this section by adopting categorical exclusions from other federal agencies, utilizing existing environmental reviews, and establishing new categorical exclusions under NEPA. It also requires the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to develop a consolidated program comment and exempted categories for historic preservation reviews.
Section 2(j), adding 54 U.S.C. 200402(l)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to accelerate project delivery by modifying administrative processes, often placed in technical sections.
Case for: Supporters argue these measures are crucial for accelerating the completion of deferred maintenance projects, reducing bureaucratic delays, and ensuring that funds are put to use efficiently to address critical infrastructure needs.
Case against: Environmental and historic preservation groups might argue that streamlining these reviews could lead to less thorough assessments of potential impacts, potentially harming natural and cultural resources by bypassing important safeguards.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant reduction in project timelines for deferred maintenance projects, allowing faster deployment of funds.
Caps administrative expenses for amounts deposited in the Fund under subsection (b) at not more than 3 percent for a fiscal year. It explicitly prohibits the use of amounts credited to the Fund from public donations (under subsection (d)(3)) for administrative expenses.
Section 2(j), adding 54 U.S.C. 200402(r)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to control overhead costs, often placed in general provisions rather than highlighted as a main policy point.
Case for: Supporters argue this cap ensures that the vast majority of the fund's resources are directed towards actual deferred maintenance projects, maximizing the impact of the funding and preventing excessive administrative overhead. Prohibiting the use of donations for admin costs ensures donor intent.
Case against: Agencies might argue that a 3% cap is too restrictive for managing complex, multi-year projects across diverse landscapes, potentially impacting their ability to effectively plan, oversee, and execute projects, especially for smaller agencies or those with unique needs.
Estimated impact: Limits administrative spending to a maximum of 3% of the primary fund deposits, ensuring at least 97% of those funds go to projects. Donations are 100% for projects.