Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 250.
The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to designate September 17, 2026, as an entrance-fee free day at National Park Service sites that charge entrance fees. It also directs the Secretary of the Interior to waive standard amenity recreation fees on that date at sites managed by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation that charge such fees, and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to waive standard amenity recreation fees on that date at Forest Service sites.
Supportive intent vs. fiscal/operational impacts: liberals emphasize access and equity; conservatives emphasize lost revenue and precedent.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly scoped administrative directive that identifies responsible officials, the specific date, and the statutory definitions governing covered fees.
The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to designate September 17, 2026, as an entrance-fee free day at National Park Service sites that charge entrance fees.
It also directs the Secretary of the Interior to waive standard amenity recreation fees on that date at sites managed by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation that charge such fees, and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to waive standard amenity recreation fees on that date at Forest Service sites.
The terms “entrance fee” and “standard amenity recreation fee” are defined by reference to the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6801).
On content alone, this is a short, narrowly targeted, commemorative administrative action with precedents (fee-free park days) and limited fiscal impact. Those features historically make enactment highly likely when the bill can be scheduled for floor action; lack of ideological controversy and clear implementability further increase chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly scoped administrative directive that identifies responsible officials, the specific date, and the statutory definitions governing covered fees. It provides sufficient instruction for agencies to implement a one-day fee waiver but omits fiscal acknowledgment, treatment of certain operational edge cases, and any reporting or accountability provisions.
Supportive intent vs. fiscal/operational impacts: liberals emphasize access and equity; conservatives emphasize lost revenue and precedent.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Supportive intent vs. fiscal/operational impacts: liberals emphasize access and equity; conservatives emphasize lost revenue and precedent.
A mainstream liberal would likely view this as a broadly positive, low-cost measure to expand public access to federal lands for a significant national commemoration.
They would see value in removing financial barriers for a day, encouraging outdoor recreation and equitable access, and promoting public engagement with national heritage.
They may register a concern that agencies will lose fee revenue used for maintenance and visitor services unless Congress provides compensating funding.
A centrist would see this as a modest, symbolic, and administratively straightforward measure that broadens access for a single day.
They would generally support the intent but want clarity on fiscal and operational implications, including how lost fee revenue and increased visitor management will be handled.
They would favor limited, pragmatic safeguards to prevent unintended costs or damage and prefer the bill to specify reimbursements or implementation details.
A mainstream conservative would likely be sympathetic to a national commemoration and increasing access for a day, but skeptical about federal fee waivers that reduce agency revenue without offsets.
They may also be concerned about precedent for waiving fees, potential increased federal costs, and management burdens on agencies.
Some conservatives could support it as a limited, symbolic gesture if it does not create ongoing fiscal obligations.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, this is a short, narrowly targeted, commemorative administrative action with precedents (fee-free park days) and limited fiscal impact. Those features historically make enactment highly likely when the bill can be scheduled for floor action; lack of ideological controversy and clear implementability further increase chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Supportive intent vs. fiscal/operational impacts: liberals emphasize access and equity; conservatives emphasize lost revenue and precedent.
On content alone, this is a short, narrowly targeted, commemorative administrative action with precedents (fee-free park days) and limited…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly scoped administrative directive that identifies responsible officials, the specific date, and the statutory definitions governing covered fees. I…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.