Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

house Bill H.R. 4680

🌲 Does the National Park Service Need More Private Donations?

Argument in favor

More private donations to the National Park Service will improve the experience of all park visitors now and ensure that future generations of Americans can continue to enjoy them.

TMFenning's Opinion
···
08/26/2016
This will not impact our taxes much at all. My tax dollars already go to these parks in extremely extremely small percentages. So yes, more funding is good. This is what our taxes are SUPPOSED to be for.... Not for bombing Syria.
Like (64)
Follow
Share
James's Opinion
···
12/04/2016
As long as they remain public land, they should be able to receive as much money as donors want to give. No strings.
Like (13)
Follow
Share
Kevin's Opinion
···
12/04/2016
Public funds is the only way to have a National Parks System. Those that want it the most are least able to pay for it. Matching private donations seems a good plan.
Like (9)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Individual citizens and businesses shouldn’t be called upon to make donations to the National Park Service, as the federal government should be covering all expenses.

TuckerWantsLiberty's Opinion
···
08/25/2016
There's so much backwards about how this is being discussed. First of all, OF COURSE I'm in favor of private donations to the parks. I love the national parks! They should definitely receive private funding. They should probably receive ONLY private funding, which is to say they should be privatized. What has me saying 'nay' is the audacity of the federal matching of donations - those are my tax dollars! Why do you get to say "For every dollar you put towards the parks, we'll put ANOTHER of YOUR dollars towards the parks!" That's not generosity! You don't get to pat yourselves on the back for that! Just give me back my own money so I can give twice as much myself and cut out the middle man! And another thing: the 'Why Vote Yea' and 'Why Vote Nay' on this are TERRIBLE, especially the latter!
Like (93)
Follow
Share
Kyle's Opinion
···
08/25/2016
The national park system should be allowed to look for private donations for sure. But this bill misses the point, we should be investing a budget in the national park system that includes both operations, improvement, and development. If we can barely keep the parks working as is, there is for certain an under investment in our parks. The parks should not be commercialized, they are the responsibility of the nation to care for, we should live up to our responsibilities.
Like (35)
Follow
Share
operaman's Opinion
···
08/25/2016
Did you know that it was the railroads that purchased land and created the park system? The railroads needed passengers to view the beautiful land we call home. In fact, they built the famous Yellowstone Lodge Motel. When our National Park System first ran the Parks, they created a fee system that met costs and maintenance, but slowly the cost were budgeted into the Federal Bureaucracy and the National Park System began to relapse into disrepair. Park Fees were held low for the visitors, but the parks suffered. NOW the Bureaucracy seeks private money. Maybe private money is needed, but do we need "Microsoft Yellowstone Motel?" The Park System should relapse not into disrepair but into the states they reside where they can be leased into private companies. Surely visitor fees will rise, but so will the quality of the parks. Private owned parks will seek more tourists dollars -That's what they do. The National Park Service turned 100 years old Thursday, and the Obama administration has set about promoting the value of national parks to Americans and the history of why the U.S. government has set aside millions of acres. But please keep this in mind while discussing this question regarding the NPS: Exacerbating Corruption’ $12 Billion In The Hole Wasting Millions Of Dollars. READ: At 100 Years, National Parks Plagued By ‘Exacerbating Corruption’ And A $12 Billion Backlog By Michael Bastasch
Like (14)
Follow
Share

bill Progress

  • EnactedDecember 16th, 2016
    The President signed this bill into law
  • The senate Passed December 10th, 2016
    Passed by Voice Vote
  • The house Passed December 6th, 2016
    Passed by Voice Vote
      house Committees
      Committee on Agriculture
      Conservation and Forestry
      National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
      Committee on Education and Labor
      Higher Education and Workforce Investment
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedMarch 3rd, 2016
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to House Natural Resources
  • referral
    Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
  • referral
    Referred to House Agriculture
  • referral
    Referred to House Education and the Workforce
  • referral
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • action
    Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
  • referral
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
  • action
    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-576, Part I.
  • action
    Committee on Agriculture discharged.
  • action
    Committee on Education and the Workforce discharged.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 446.
  • referral
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
  • action
    Mr. Bishop (UT) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
  • action
    Considered under suspension of the rules.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4680.
  • vote
    On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • action
    Received in the Senate, read twice.
  • vote
    Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
  • action
    Message on Senate action sent to the House.
  • topresident
    Presented to President.
  • signed
    Signed by President.
  • enacted
    Became Public Law No: 114-289.

bill Progress

  • EnactedDecember 16th, 2016
    The President signed this bill into law
  • The senate Passed December 10th, 2016
    Passed by Voice Vote
  • The house Passed December 6th, 2016
    Passed by Voice Vote
      house Committees
      Committee on Agriculture
      Conservation and Forestry
      National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
      Committee on Education and Labor
      Higher Education and Workforce Investment
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedMarch 3rd, 2016
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    TMFenning's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    08/26/2016
    This will not impact our taxes much at all. My tax dollars already go to these parks in extremely extremely small percentages. So yes, more funding is good. This is what our taxes are SUPPOSED to be for.... Not for bombing Syria.
    Like (64)
    Follow
    Share
    TuckerWantsLiberty's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/25/2016
    There's so much backwards about how this is being discussed. First of all, OF COURSE I'm in favor of private donations to the parks. I love the national parks! They should definitely receive private funding. They should probably receive ONLY private funding, which is to say they should be privatized. What has me saying 'nay' is the audacity of the federal matching of donations - those are my tax dollars! Why do you get to say "For every dollar you put towards the parks, we'll put ANOTHER of YOUR dollars towards the parks!" That's not generosity! You don't get to pat yourselves on the back for that! Just give me back my own money so I can give twice as much myself and cut out the middle man! And another thing: the 'Why Vote Yea' and 'Why Vote Nay' on this are TERRIBLE, especially the latter!
    Like (93)
    Follow
    Share
    Kyle's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/25/2016
    The national park system should be allowed to look for private donations for sure. But this bill misses the point, we should be investing a budget in the national park system that includes both operations, improvement, and development. If we can barely keep the parks working as is, there is for certain an under investment in our parks. The parks should not be commercialized, they are the responsibility of the nation to care for, we should live up to our responsibilities.
    Like (35)
    Follow
    Share
    Alex's Public Comment
    ···
    12/03/2016
    National Parks protect America's history and natural heritage. They should be preserved and never be privatized, and any steps toward making them dependent upon private donates should be stopped. These parks guard oil, natural gas, forestry products and minerals that private companies want to take and they would care not if they destroy the parks in the process. I am in favor of this bill, and strongly against many of the privatizing sentiments I see in the Nay category.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    operaman's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/25/2016
    Did you know that it was the railroads that purchased land and created the park system? The railroads needed passengers to view the beautiful land we call home. In fact, they built the famous Yellowstone Lodge Motel. When our National Park System first ran the Parks, they created a fee system that met costs and maintenance, but slowly the cost were budgeted into the Federal Bureaucracy and the National Park System began to relapse into disrepair. Park Fees were held low for the visitors, but the parks suffered. NOW the Bureaucracy seeks private money. Maybe private money is needed, but do we need "Microsoft Yellowstone Motel?" The Park System should relapse not into disrepair but into the states they reside where they can be leased into private companies. Surely visitor fees will rise, but so will the quality of the parks. Private owned parks will seek more tourists dollars -That's what they do. The National Park Service turned 100 years old Thursday, and the Obama administration has set about promoting the value of national parks to Americans and the history of why the U.S. government has set aside millions of acres. But please keep this in mind while discussing this question regarding the NPS: Exacerbating Corruption’ $12 Billion In The Hole Wasting Millions Of Dollars. READ: At 100 Years, National Parks Plagued By ‘Exacerbating Corruption’ And A $12 Billion Backlog By Michael Bastasch
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    James's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/04/2016
    As long as they remain public land, they should be able to receive as much money as donors want to give. No strings.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Kevin's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/04/2016
    Public funds is the only way to have a National Parks System. Those that want it the most are least able to pay for it. Matching private donations seems a good plan.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    UnapologeticallyAmerican's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    08/27/2016
    Private philanthropy has played a major role in advancing the national parks and the National Park Service. In the years before Congress routinely appropriated funds for park lands, and later when land acquisition needs exceeded and continue to exceed appropriations, private donations were and are responsible for substantial additions to the national park system. Philanthropy is more than a source of land and money for the parks. It is a means of building and strengthening bonds between the parks and their advocates. While all taxpayers contribute to the parks, those who make additional voluntary contributions will have a special interest in their welfare. The parks and the National Park Service benefit from their devotion as well as their dollars.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Ryan's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/04/2016
    I feel like this description doesn't have enough to make an informed decision. Will this bill increase the annual budget for the purpose of encouraging private support and providing additional funding in honor of the Centennial or will it decrease the NP budget with a heavier reliance on private philanthropy? My understanding is that this bill will increase the budget and encourage philanthropy, which I am for. However, the description leads readers to believe this bill will decrease the budget and responsibility of the federal government to support the NP. Also, in case anyone's curious, the cap on annual matching funds is $100M/year for 3 years. Details like that would help us make a more informed decision, which is why we're all here in the first place.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Mel's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/25/2016
    First, the NPS is unconstitutional ( see article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the US Constitution) therefore the ONLY money that they should receive is private donations and STATE money IF it is owned and operated by the state. The Constitution is quite clear on this if people would just bother to read it. Not even one dollar of federal money should go to any park, or it's employees.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Tristan's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/04/2016
    Yes, the NPS needs more funding. But it should be coming from the federal government through tax increases or redistribution of funds.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Arin's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/03/2016
    The more money we can manage to raise in any way for the NPS does nothing but benefit our country, especially for the generations after us.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Kristine 's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/25/2016
    The Parks are our National Treasure and we should have no problem maintaining them. Priorities! And no one or company or state should be allowed to compromise national parks for their own profit!
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Arian's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/03/2016
    Can't wait to see the sign: "Mount Rushmore, brought to you by Coca-Cola!"
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Shannon's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/03/2016
    The National Parks are a major source of the "America" we value -- vast expanses of nature and land that millions of people enjoy each year. To protect them against the pressures of materialistic gain is essential. They need all the facilitation and aid they can get!
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Druan's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/05/2016
    I have no interest in seeing wealthy donors begin to claim sponsorship of our national parks. The federal government should be providing enough funds to allow the NPS to do their jobs without needing private citizens to step in and pick up the slack for them.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Austin's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/25/2016
    No we need less federally owned land and more state and city owned land. It is better managed that way. Please don't try to get private donations for land the feds have neglected to take care of correctly.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Loraki's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/26/2016
    A BILL WORTHY OF A DEMOCOMMIE LIKE BERNIE SANDERS! Bleed more out of us senior citizens?! Are we not poor enough for you yet?! New fees on lodging?! THIS AMOUNTS TO FORCED PRIVATE "DONATIONS"! THAT SPELLS T-A-X-E-S! The Centennial Challenge Fund would also receive revenue from annual parks passes for senior citizens, and a price increase in the NPS’ lifetime pass for seniors. Senior passes are available to Americans age 62 and up and cost $20 for an annual pass, while a lifetime pass is currently $10 that would be raised to $10, with the additional revenue going to the Fund. A “Second Century Endowment” would be established within the National Park Foundation to accept gifts and bequests from the public. The endowment would also receive revenue from new fees on lodging paid by NPS visitors, although educational groups and NPS employees would be exempted from the fees. All endowment funds would be prohibited from going toward administrative expenses, and must be used on projects and activities that advance the mission of the NPS and are approved by the Dept. of the Interior. The leadership structure of the NPS would be modified to make the Secretary of the Interior and the NPS Director non-voting members of the National Park Foundation Board, which would mirror the structures used by the National Forest Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The NPS’ “Volunteers in the Parks” program would see its funding expanded from $7 million to $10 million to provide the growing numbers of volunteers with the resources they need to improve the parks.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Ryan's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/26/2016
    Private donations will lead to privatization, which will then be the end of our great national parks.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Paul's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/26/2016
    I don't want Verizon to buy the legal right to rename Yellowstone
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE