Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
This bill amends the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to make the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass available at no cost to law enforcement officers and firefighters, in addition to members of the Armed Forces and their dependents. It requires applicants to provide adequate proof of eligibility as determined by the Secretary and adds statutory definitions for "firefighter" and "law enforcement officer," including employees of federal, state, local, or tribal governments and those who supervise sentenced offenders.
Liberals worry about policing optics and revenue diversion;
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that extends a current no-cost recreational pass benefit to a defined class of public safety personnel by changing 16 U.S.C. 6804(b) and adding definitions.
This bill amends the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to make the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass available at no cost to law enforcement officers and firefighters, in addition to members of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
It requires applicants to provide adequate proof of eligibility as determined by the Secretary and adds statutory definitions for "firefighter" and "law enforcement officer," including employees of federal, state, local, or tribal governments and those who supervise sentenced offenders.
Simple, popular-sounding expansion with small fiscal effects and modest implementation demands, so historically more likely than not to pass.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that extends a current no-cost recreational pass benefit to a defined class of public safety personnel by changing 16 U.S.C. 6804(b) and adding definitions. It integrates directly into the existing legal provision but leaves several implementation and fiscal details to administrative action.
Liberals worry about policing optics and revenue diversion;
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals worry about policing optics and revenue diversion;
Mainstream progressives would view the bill as a narrow, symbolic benefit for public safety workers and firefighters, generally supportive of firefighters but cautious about expanding perks to law enforcement broadly.
Concerns would center on equity, accountability for police, and potential diversion of recreation fee revenue from conservation programs.
They would look for limits or reporting on fiscal impacts.
A pragmatic moderate would treat this as a small, targeted expansion of an existing benefit that honors public servants.
Support would depend on demonstrated low fiscal cost and straightforward implementation.
They would favor clear eligibility rules and minimal administrative burden on land agencies.
Mainstream conservatives would likely view the bill favorably as a modest, appropriate recognition of law enforcement and firefighters.
They would emphasize supporting first responders, minimal government intrusion, and view the cost as negligible relative to the benefit.
They may oppose extra reporting requirements or restrictions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Simple, popular-sounding expansion with small fiscal effects and modest implementation demands, so historically more likely than not to pass.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry about policing optics and revenue diversion;
Simple, popular-sounding expansion with small fiscal effects and modest implementation demands, so historically more likely than not to pas…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that extends a current no-cost recreational pass benefit to a defined class of public safety personnel by changing 16 U.S.C. 6804(b)…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.