Markup of H.R. 9250 (Rep. Westerman), “Great American Outdoors Act 250”
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Natural Resources U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsJared Huffman
They make our parks safer. They help protect our treasured public lands for the next generation. Today's markup is an important milestone for reauthorizing this fund. The legislation is a work in progress, but we are close to a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on a final bill. Even so, it's important to remember that the Legacy Restoration Fund has always just been one step towards Congress's work to fully invest in our national parks.
It's not the only step. It is not the final step. And Congress has to follow up passage of today's bill with measures that increase annual appropriations for maintenance and construction, which over decades have taken cut after cut in appropriations bills, even as our parks continue to see record-breaking visitation. We also can't make these investments matter the way they should without remembering the people that make our parks function and carry out the work that we're talking about here. Our park rangers and other public servants over the past 18 months, every land management agency has experienced a devastating loss of staff at parks and public lands all over the country.
We must address agency staffing if we're going to truly keep faith with America's best idea. We must also ensure that our national parks and our public lands tell the whole story of American history, including our complicated past and our shared future, and especially doing that on the eve of our nation's 250th anniversary. Fixing our parks is a debt that we owe to the next generation. Reauthorizing the Legacy Restoration Fund is a very good first step to doing that, but it certainly is not enough. So I do look forward to working across the aisle on addressing the rest of the work that remains before us.
And I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, as well as the committee staff on both sides of the aisle for working so hard to get us to this point. I yield back.
Bruce Westerman
Gentleman yields back. Pursuant to the markup notice, it is now in order to consider H.R. 9250, the Great American Outdoors Act 250. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for purposes of debate on the bill? Ms. Hageman, you're recognized.
Harriet Hageman
Thank you, Chairman Westerman. Today I speak in support of the Great American Outdoors Act 250. It is appropriate as America turns 250 years old that Congress make progress on the preservation of our most treasured public lands. American exceptionalism shines across our national parks, forests, and refuges. A commitment to conservation is embedded in our American character and culture, forged in both taming the wilderness and preserving the wild nature of our homeland.
Wyoming is home to many firsts: the first national park at Yellowstone, the first national forest at Shoshone, and the first national monument at Devils Tower. Wyoming pioneered the creation of our public land system, and today I am proud to continue the tradition of caring for our most sacred landscapes by co-sponsoring and supporting the Great American Outdoors Act 250. The first GAOA made significant progress reducing the maintenance backlog plaguing our national parks as they host millions of visitors from home and around the world. The Legacy Restoration Fund established by a bipartisan legislative group delivered almost $2 billion on an annual basis to address the deferred maintenance across our public lands. But there is still more work to be done.
Speaker 4
GAOA 2.0 builds on the historic progress of the first law to extend restoration resources across all public lands in desperate need of resources. Our public land continue public lands continue to suffer under a more than $46 billion backlog in deferred maintenance. GAOA 2.0 will keep half the funding stream from sustained energy development while raising new funds to tackle the colossal backlog with higher fees from foreign visitors. GAOA 2.0 will open new avenues for public-private collaboration, authorize additional flexibility for agency spending, and enhance transparency with a new publicly searchable deferred maintenance database to be made available online. As chair of the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee, I am pleased that this legislation will additionally enhance recreation and sportsman access on lands maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Service, thereby expanding the ability for all Americans to enjoy our open spaces.
And finally, this bill will prohibit conservation funds from being used for new land acquisition that would inflate a federal footprint that has already proven almost too large to manage. America's 250th anniversary represents a generational opportunity to rally around what unites us as we celebrate our common history, ideas, and faith. Preserving our most sacred public lands have always been at the center of our shared values, bridging divides with a universal inspiration found in the beauty of our homeland. Millions of Americans' best memories are made on our shared lands every year. The preservation of these landscapes has been indispensable to the story of our first 250 years, and it is fundamental to the prosperity of our next 250.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. With that, I yield back.
Bruce Westerman
Gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Ms. Randall, you're recognized.
Marie Randall
Thank you. Sorry. Thank you so much, Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman, for your leadership and hard work on bringing forward a bipartisan, bicameral Great American Outdoors Act of 250. The Legacy Restoration Fund established in the Great American Outdoors Act of 2020 provided, as we know, much-needed funding to address decades of deferred maintenance, repair critical infrastructure, and improve visitor access and safety in national parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands. I just, I think last time we were here, had a picture of a bridge that was failing in a national park in my community.
During the five-year authorization, the Great American Outdoors Act was the largest single investment in US public lands history. And this bill today extends the legacy by providing those important dedicated maintenance funding monies, expanding opportunities for public-private partnerships, and supporting outdoor recreation access. This is the work that the American people sent us here to do, and I'm so proud of this bipartisan effort. While it is such an important step forward, we know that there is more work to do in our public lands and in our districts all across the state. In my district, the Olympic National Park welcomed more than 3.5 million visitors in 2025.
And I have, I don't know if you can see it right here, but a picture of all of the pins from folks from all around the world who came to Forks, Washington, tiny, tiny Forks, Washington, home of Twilight, but also the gateway to the Olympic National Park.
That you can't even fit more pins in this map right now because we have so many international visitors. That generated over 25 billion dollars annually to the state of Washington because of these international visitors. This is 24 miles from the Olympic National Park and it's a place folks come to visit when they travel to the Olympic Peninsula. People came here from almost every country in the world. And folks have been contacting my office with concerns about the impact that the steep international fees might have on local economies surrounding Olympic National Park.
We're already seeing the impact of reduced Canadian tourism on the Olympic Peninsula because of our relationship with Canada under this administration and reduced tourism dollars from a steep park entry fee will strain business communities that are already trying to stay afloat in an economy that is suffering not just from a lack of Canadian visitors but from the increased tariffs that are impacting businesses and from the skyrocketing fuel prices because of Trump's war with Iran. It's not just Democratic businesses I'm talking about. I went to visit a hardware store owner who was very eager to meet me wearing a Hawaiian shirt with flamingos and AK-47s on it so that I knew where he stood on gun rights. We've got a mixed bag of neighbors in Forks. It's a real purple rural community and that community will suffer if we see a decline in tourism.
So I am excited at the funding that this bill is investing in deferred maintenance and in preservation and I also think we have to keep working so that our neighbors from around the world can bring their economic investments to communities like Forks and rural communities near national parks all across the country. Thank you so much.
Jeff Hurd
Gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hurd.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 9250, the Great American Outdoors Act, I am proud to support this legislation. My district in western and southern Colorado is home to some of the most extraordinary public lands in our country. We have three national parks, three national monuments, six national forests, and millions of acres of publicly managed land.
These places belong to all Americans. But stewardship requires more than designation. It requires maintenance. Across Colorado, the deferred maintenance backlog exceeds 890 million dollars and only continues to grow. Over the last year and a half, I've seen firsthand the consequences of that backlog, from aging infrastructure and deteriorating facilities to the challenges of recovering from wildfire damage at Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.
As we approach America's 250th anniversary, we have an obligation not only to preserve these places but to pass them on in a better condition than we found them. That is what this legislation helps accomplish. It provides resources to address longstanding maintenance needs, improve visitor experiences, support park employees, and ensure that future generations can enjoy these places as we have. At the same time, supporting conservation and insisting on accountability are not competing priorities. We owe taxpayers both.
As these funds are invested, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that they are spent responsibly and in accordance with the public trust. This legislation advances both stewardship and accountability and I'm proud to support it. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 7
Gentleman yields back. Mr. Grijalva, you're recognized. Mr. Grijalva, you're recognized for five.
Adelita Grijalva
I heard Holly. I'm like, who is that? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the role my father, Congressman Raúl Grijalva, played in advancing the Great American Outdoors Act. Congressman Grijalva understood that our public lands are one of America's greatest treasures and that protecting them requires more than words. It requires sustained investment and stewardship. He fought to ensure that the future generations could enjoy healthy parks, public lands, outdoor spaces, regardless of where they lived or how much money they made. As his daughter and the representative for Arizona's 7th Congressional District, I'm proud to carry that forward.
The responsibility to protect our public lands does not belong to one person or one generation. It belongs to all of us. I remain committed to building on that legacy and continuing the work of protecting our public lands, cultural resources, and the natural heritage for generations to come. That commitment is especially important in Arizona, where public lands are woven into the identity of our economy. My state is home to some of the most iconic public lands in the country, including the Grand Canyon, Saguaro National Park, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and Ironwood Forest National Monument, along with countless other parks, wildlife refuges, forests, wilderness areas, and culturally significant landscapes.
These places are more than a destination on a map. They are sacred places for tribal nations. They support local businesses and outdoor recreation economies. They provide critical wildlife habitat and connect millions of Americans to the outdoors. That's why continued investment in maintaining and protecting our public lands is so important, not just for Arizona, but for the future generations across the country.
Thank you so much, I yield back.
Bruce Westerman
Ms. Grijalva, and I will say it was an honor to work with your father on the original Great American Outdoors Act as well as other bills like the EXPLORE Act. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.
Pete Stauber
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Ms. Grijalva, I will echo what the Chairman just said. It was a privilege to serve with your father, and it's also a privilege to serve with you, and I thank you for your passion and your comments. I rise in strong support of H.R. 9250, the Great American Outdoors Act 250, and want to begin by thanking the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their work in developing a good, bipartisan bill that reauthorizes the Legacy Restoration Fund for another five years. Our national parks, national forests, and other public lands belong, as stated, to the American people.
These public lands should be accessible and they should be well-maintained. We owe this to the American people. The Legacy Restoration Fund is key to making this all possible. Just as I was proud to support its initial authorization five years ago, I'm proud to reauthorize and strengthen the program in the bills in the bill before us today. In addition to providing important funding for our national parks, national forests, and other public lands, this legislation will streamline the permitting the permitting and completion of maintenance projects, help identify and prioritize the most important projects for completion, and finally, make a dent in our deferred maintenance backlog.
It also creates sustaining new revenue funding streams by codifying and expanding foreign visitor fees that bring our foreign visitor fees in line with other countries around the world. Simply put, this legislation is a win for the American people. I also want to recognize one thing about the bulk of the revenue funding for the Legacy Restoration Fund: royalties from energy production on federal lands, notably traditional energy sources like natural gas, oil, and coal. The $1.9 billion in funding for our public lands that this bill authorizes over the next five years would not be possible if we did not have robust energy production on our public lands. I am glad that this bill will garner strong bipartisan support from members of this committee, and I hope the underlying funding mechanism in this bill, domestic energy production, will receive that same bipartisan support.
Speaker 5
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 9250. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Bruce Westerman
Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Mr. Bentz, you're recognized.
Cliff Bentz
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this bill, which I strongly support. I just want to mention one thing about, maybe two things, about language in the bill talking about the nature of an asset. And it says the term asset means any real property and then goes on to say including. And the reason I find that important is because in my district back in Oregon, there are 15.7 million acres of BLM land.
And that land is included in the definition of asset. The improvement to the land or the maintenance of the land includes invasive species. Much of this land has been, unfortunately, invaded by different types of weeds and it would be my hope that some of the 5% of this funding goes to helping address that incredibly important issue. I also want to mention that the bill contains a prohibition against acquisition of land or any interest in land. And that's extremely important to me and I'm very happy for its inclusion in this bill.
Mr. Chair, I think this is, as I mentioned when I was joining you and other members of the committee down in Arkansas a week or so ago, the importance of our national parks and other federal lands for the rejuvenation of visitors and their mental attitudes and the education of the importance of the beauty of these places. Why? Because the source of the funding is a diminishing resource, that is the royalties from oil and gas, and we should be investing as we are in the types of things that this bill focuses upon. I strongly support this bill and urge everyone else to support it also. Yield back.
Bruce Westerman
Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Hearing none, it is now in order to consider amendments to H.R. 9250. We will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9250 offered by the chair, designated Westerman 81 ANS. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point.
I now recognize myself. I rise in support of my bipartisan ANS to H.R. 9250. The ANS represents the results of careful bipartisan and bicameral negotiations that reflect shared priorities to modernize, maintain, and improve our national parks, public lands, and Bureau of Indian Education facilities. The ANS brings the House legislation into alignment with bipartisan language that passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week by voice vote. This ANS also reflects feedback and technical assistance offered from the Trump administration.
The ANS includes several improvements to the original bill, including an additional offset on licensing of DOI intellectual property and additional streamlining provisions that will help expedite project consultations under the National Historic Preservation Act. The ANS also advances several priorities from the original House legislation. This includes enhancing transparency and reporting requirements, streamlining environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, allowing for the disposal of assets on the deferred maintenance list, and new prohibitions on acquiring interest in land or decommissioning Forest Service and BLM roads. Since passing out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, we've been engaged in productive negotiations with our Senate counterparts to ensure the House's bipartisan priorities are reflected in the legislation.
As a result, the ANS now includes important provisions that prioritize funding for visitor-facing recreation improvements and sportsmen's access within the Fish and Wildlife Service. This ANS also includes improvements to the existing breakdown of transportation and non-transportation funding between the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management. These new caps more accurately reflect the existing deferred maintenance backlog at each agency and will more effectively target funds toward the highest priority projects. In total, this ANS builds on the success of the first iteration of GAOA while implementing key reforms that will strengthen this important program. This legislation will help federal land managers get projects done more quickly and efficiently while reducing deferred maintenance and restoring access.
I once again thank Ranking Member Huffman for his partnership on this legislation and the ANS. I'd also like to thank our colleagues in the Senate for engaging in productive negotiations. We look forward to working with them to send this bill to President Trump's desk in time for America's 250th birthday celebration. I urge everyone to support the ANS and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time and recognize Ranking Member Huffman.
Jared Huffman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've already touched on some of the great work that we've been able to do so far on our bill. Together, we agreed to keep fixing our parks by extending the Legacy Restoration Fund, continue to address deferred maintenance, increase access, ensure that these treasures are protected for generations to come. The bipartisan bill includes some important adjustments to the Legacy Restoration Fund, such as increasing funding transparency, establishing clear project selection criteria, and making it easier to get these critical dollars out the door. You mentioned this, Mr. Chairman, I think it's very important the House is not acting alone here.
Last week, our colleagues in the Senate marked up the America the Beautiful Act, the sister bill to this one we're considering here today. Both chambers of Congress agree that the Legacy Restoration Fund has been wildly successful and that some updates will make it even better. Since the Senate's markup, a bipartisan, bicameral group has come together to work toward a final bill that we can send to the President's desk, and I'm happy to say that we are getting very close to agreement. The ANS contains some key differences and updates, including changing the name of the bill and some other things. But these updates are more than just a name change.
The ANS includes important transparency and accountability measures, improving congressional oversight and allaying concerns that an administration might decide to use some of the funding for vanity projects or for other misaligned priorities. For example, new language adopted by the Appropriations Committee requires project lists and detailed data sheets to be submitted to Congress two fiscal years in advance. This ensures these investments are being used in the right way and toward the right types of projects envisioned under this bill. Congress is an equal branch of government, after all. The ANS also includes a provision permitting the Interior Department to license and monetize certain intellectual property, such as the NPS arrowhead logo, with proceeds going into the Legacy Restoration Fund.
I remain skeptical that this authority will generate much revenue. I'm not completely sold that it's a great idea, but I understand this is a priority for the department, and this is a negotiated bill that has required some compromises. Finally, there are significant improvements to the international visitors fee proposal. The new language applies only to National Park Service sites and gives the Department of Interior flexibility to tailor these fees to individual sites, much like other fees are set under existing law.
This language also encourages local stakeholder engagement in setting the fees, ensuring that tourism-dependent communities have a seat at the table in the decision-making process. Perhaps most important, the proposal makes sure that our park rangers focus on their actual jobs, and it prevents turning them into immigration enforcement agents. We specifically allow tourists to self-identify at the gates rather than mandating ID checks in this legislation. There are also critical changes that reflect the bipartisan nature of this bill, something that the committee and the whole country needs as we get ready to celebrate our 250th birthday. I'm glad Chairman Westerman and I could work together not only on the underlying proposal and the idea of continuing to care for our parks and public lands, but also to work with our Senate counterparts to do the same.
This has been a complicated journey, but our parks will be better off for these efforts, and I yield back.
Bruce Westerman
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the ANS? If there's no further discussion, the amendment is now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to HR 9250. We will now consider the amendment designated Magaziner number one, offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Magaziner. Without objection, the amendment is considered read.
Mr. Magaziner, you're now recognized.
Seth Magaziner
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Huffman, and all the members of the committee for this good product that's in front of us. It's a good bipartisan bill that I look forward to supporting for final passage. I do plan to vote for it. America's national parks are our best idea.
They are among our most important national treasures, and this bill, I recognize, is the product of good faith bipartisan negotiation to ensure that that legacy of our national parks continue for generations to come. My amendment, however, will strike the unnecessary and arbitrary fee on international visitors to national park sites. National parks are among our greatest treasures, and they are also tremendous economic engines for our country that create countless public and private sector jobs. But last year, the Trump administration announced significant new fees on international visitors at national parks. Non-citizens without an annual pass now must pay an additional $100 per person to enter the most popular national parks.
So for a family of four, that's an additional $400 just to visit one park, and an additional $680 if they want annual passes. These are significant increases. And understand, when the administration introduced these new fees on foreign tourists, they did not use that revenue to lower fees for Americans. The fees for Americans stayed the same. Nor is this about funding maintenance.
Certainly, when we as a Congress have found trillions of dollars for tax cuts for the very rich, tens of billions of dollars for war in the Middle East, hundreds of millions of dollars for the president's ballroom, we can find other ways to fund deferred maintenance than an arbitrary fee increase. I'm introducing this amendment, though, just to raise the larger point that these visitor fees are introduced in a context where the administration is working actively to dissuade tourism from other countries. They increased visa fees significantly. They increased bond requirements as much as $10,000 or $15,000 for dozens of countries, making it virtually impossible for people to come here to visit even for short tourist stays. And this is a massive loss for the American tourism and hospitality industry.
This isn't just about trying to do right by foreign visitors. This is about supporting American jobs and supporting American businesses. Visitors don't just go to the parks. They stay in hotels, they eat at restaurants, they visit small businesses, they enjoy the towns around them. There are countless tour companies and bus operators that help tourists access national parks.
In 2024, more than 300 million park visitors spent an estimated $29 billion supporting more than 300,000 jobs. These foreign tourist fees that the administration has unilaterally imposed are bad for American businesses, bad for American workers whose livelihoods depend on the tourism and hospitality industry. Colleagues, this month the United States is hosting the World Cup, reminding us that foreign tourism is good. Good for business, good for American jobs, good to promote the American brand to the world. And while some in the administration are dead set on making it as hard as possible for foreign tourists to come to the United States, they are only hurting American businesses and American workers.
We don't need the arbitrary and unnecessary fees nor should we encourage it. So my amendment simply would strike the language having to do with the foreign visitor fee. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and I look forward to supporting the overall bill later today. With that, I yield back.
Tom McClintock
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. As Mr. Magaziner said, the foreign fees are considerable. It's $400 for a family of four, which can often make the difference between their choosing to spend their tourism dollars in the United States as opposed to all of the other countries competing for their dollar. When you tax something, you get less of it. When you tax foreign tourism, you get less foreign tourism.
It's true, foreign tourists don't pay American taxes, but their tourism supports all of the gateway community businesses that do pay those taxes and provide the jobs for everyone working in the hotel industry, the restaurants, all of the other tourist activities that foreign tourism supports. This is simply economic self-sabotage. And Mr. Magaziner's amendment is absolutely correct and I strongly support it.
The gentleman yields back. Ms. Dexter, you're recognized.
Maxine Dexter
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Congressman Magaziner, for offering this amendment today. I want to start by saying first that I am incredibly supportive of the work that you all have done in the bipartisan nature of this bill. The Legacy Restoration Fund is something Oregonians have benefited from enormously. We've seen iconic projects like the Trillium Lake Boardwalk, which has already received Legacy Restoration Fund dollars. It's visible proof that this program delivers.
But there's more to be done and communities surrounding Mount Hood are continuing or counting on reauthorizing this work. The economic benefits are documented and measurable. In 2024, Oregon's recreational sites generated $131 million in economic output, including through visitor spending at hotels, restaurants, small businesses in gateway communities, and that directly supports Oregon jobs. Which is exactly why I support the amendment to strike section three of this bill, which would implement a new surcharge on foreign tourists visiting our national parks. At a time when Oregon's tourism industry is already facing headwinds, I'm concerned about the signal that this sends to foreign tourists who bolster our local economies and our gateway communities.
I'm also frankly concerned about something else.
At a time when families in my district are living with real and considerable fear about being detained, I worry that this provision gives the administration yet another window into people's citizenship status. One of the things that I am concerned about, I know the language has been softened, but that people will be racially profiled as they're coming in. Our Canadian tourists are less likely than our Mexican tourists to be asked about their citizenship status and that absolutely is counter to everything that I believe about America and our ability to welcome everyone into our borders to visit, to stay, and to have a promise of a new future. So I will deter, I will defer to the group on this. I absolutely will support the underlying bill.
I'm very grateful for the work that's been done, but I think this is a mistake. I want to make, you know, a flag for our members who are not sitting on this committee and paying close attention to the discussions here that there are concerns about what we're doing here despite the bipartisan and excellent work that's happened. Our national parks are a true treasure. And in this committee, we all believe I think it's the best idea that our country has had. So if we truly believe that, we should save our safe spaces for everyone to visit without fear.
And thank you again to Congressman Magaziner for offering this amendment and I yield back.
Gentlelady yields back. Mr. Huffman, you're recognized.
Jared Huffman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their comments on this amendment. And I do believe the gentleman from Rhode Island is raising some important issues and is coming from a very legitimate place of concern. Foreign visitors are an important revenue stream in park communities all over the country. I represent some of those communities.
They're not something we want to disparage. This is not something we want to punish or penalize. And there are competing equities that have to be weighed when we talk about the subject of a foreign visitor fee. The reason I cannot support this amendment with all due respect is that I think that we have worked things out in the ANS in a way that allows us to weigh those equities and to strike the right balance and make sure that we do get it right. And I also want to make the point that international visitor or foreign tourist fees are common practice in other countries.
This is not a radical concept. This is consistent with what happens around the world. The revenues are used to help protect treasured public places for future generations as they should be. So doing the same here, if we get it right, is a way to invest in the future of our national parks for both future generations of Americans and visitors from around the world who we want to continue to enjoy these places. But like most things associated with the Trump administration, the rollout of foreign tourist fees at select sites earlier this year did not come without controversy.
We're touching on some of that in this discussion. The decision-making process behind the fee structure was opaque. Implementation has been uneven and we still haven't even seen any data on how these new fees have impacted visitation. So these are real concerns. This clearly needs improvement.
I even signed a letter earlier this year asking for the program to be paused until we had that information. And that's why I am really glad that the language in the ANS helps us to move things forward in the right direction. The ANS first retains an important definition that limits the fee to people visiting the United States on a tourist visa, excluding permanent residents and other non-citizens who are in the country for longer periods. Language also provides more leeway to tailor the surcharge amount to individual sites and gives DOI the flexibility to suspend it or modify it. And unlike the underlying bill, there is no set price in this legislation for the fee.
This is left to the agency's discretion based on feedback and outreach to gateway communities and other important stakeholders. And then finally, the ANS includes language on self-attestation. This is important so that we can avoid ID checks or anything that looks like immigration enforcement at our national parks.
Again, important changes. I absolutely will not support doing anything to turn our parks into immigration enforcement zones, and we shouldn't discourage people from around the world from visiting our parks here in the United States. They are one of the best advertisements that our country has around the world for what we stand for. I also understand my colleague's concerns as I've mentioned, but I think the negotiated language does strike the right balance and moves us in the right direction. It's a practice that many other countries already use, and we've now added some guardrails and standards that were missing from the administration's rollout over the past year.
So I feel comfortable with the way we've struck this balance. I intend to oppose the amendment with all due respect to my colleagues and to support the ANS. Yield back.
Bruce Westerman
Gentleman yields back. I recognize myself and also want to thank Representative Magaziner for his constructive work and being an original cosponsor. I do oppose this amendment because I think it's a matter of fairness when you look at the big picture. If you look at the revenue streams that go to take care of our parks and public lands on the national parks, there's two streams. Americans pay their taxes, Congress appropriates money to the Department of Interior, and that's one revenue stream.
The other revenue stream are visitor fees to the park. And right now there's no difference in, well, except for the pilot program this administration's running, there's been no difference in foreign visitors' fees and American citizen visitor fees. As Ranking Member Huffman described so well, this is a practice that's done in many other countries to charge higher fees for foreign visitors. This is also something that we worked hard on to get to a bipartisan agreement that we think gives an opportunity to implement this program in a fair way and it takes local communities' interest into account as well. You know, up until this year when the administration initiated a pilot program, a busload of foreign visitors could visit one of our national parks for a week for less than an American family could visit the parks.
So again, this is a matter of fairness. We're committing a lot of funding to these parks over a five-year period, and this will help offset some of the funding stream that we're working on to make sure that we can maintain and take care of these parks. Oppose the amendment, I encourage my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Magaziner designated Magaziner number one.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Those opposed, no.
Bruce Westerman
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9250 offered by the chair designated Westerman 81 ANS.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting H.R. 9250 as amended to the House with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported. The bill as amended is ordered reported to the House with the recommendation that it be favorably approved. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Mr. Huffman, do you have an announcement?
Jared Huffman
Mr. Chair, I give notice of my intention to file supplemental, additional, dissenting, or minority views on the measure just considered under House Rule 11, Clause 2L. This notice extends to all members.
Bruce Westerman
Without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the staff be allowed to make any technical and conforming changes to the documents the committee just adopted, subject to the approval of the minority. Without objection, so ordered. If there's no further business, the committee stands adjourned.