Failure to pass the Build Back Better Act will be costly to the National Park Service, which is in line to receive funds for climate change, maintenance backlog, and personnel needs/Rebecca Latson file
The National Park Service stands to lose more than $1 billion in revenues that could be used to hire rangers and create a Civilian Climate Corps if the Senate cannot appease U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin and pass the administration's Build Back Better plan.
The West Virginia Democrat on Sunday said he would vote against the current version of President Biden's signature plan to attack climate change, provide expanded health coverage, and extend the child tax credit, saying it was too big and expensive.
With a 50-50 Democrat-Republican split in the Senate, Biden cannot afford to lose one member of his party. Now, while Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer still plans to bring the measure to a vote, it appears unlikely Manchin will change course as he and the White House staff have been involved in a bitter back-and-forth over what transpired in their negotiations to find a middle ground.
Not a single Senate Republican has indicated support for the measure.
As passed by the House of Representatives, the legislation provided:
- $1.25 billion for the National Park Service to share with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to carry out projects for the protection and resiliency of lands and resources.
- $750 million (shared with BLM) to carry out ecosystem and habitat restoration projects on lands
- $500 million for a NPS civilian climate corps
- $500 million (shared with BLM) for wildland fire management
- $400 million for priority NPS deferred maintenance projects
- $100 million for urban parks
- $25 million for historic preservation
- $50 million for national heritage areas
- $500 million to hire employees in units of the National Park System.
At the National Parks Conservation Association, John Garder said the parks badly need the money.
“Our national parks critically need the Build Back Better Act. They are on the frontlines of climate change and desperately need the bill’s funding for adaptation," said Garder, NPCA's senior director for budget and appropriations, adding that the measure contains "critically needed funding" for staff additions.
“Our national parks need money, which is what it comes down to," he said Monday evening. "So passage of the Build Back Better Act is critical to help them meet their needs.”
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Write a standalone bill for $1billion to the NPS. Heck, make it $10 bil. It would pass in a jiffy. But, Congress won't do that because they need the eye candy to get through their big government agenda.
"The National Park Service stands to lose more than $1 billion in revenues..."
Uh, you cannot "lose" that which you never had.
For example, when my credit card issuer cancelled my credit card, did I "lose" $5000 because that was the credit limit?
Nonesense!
Come on!
""Our national parks need money, which is what it comes down to," he said Monday evening"
What our parks "need" is up to us, THE PEOPLE, not the NPCA.
i believe the funding is for 10 years so it wouldn't be forever. I would imagine something will pass but in separate chunks but perhaps nothing to benefit NPS directly.
So glad there's one democrat Senator with some sense. That bill is so full of bs. Give the people legislation that would help the nps and it would pass with the majority of both parties. Many parts of bbb would kill rural America. Just the democrats buying votes.
Our Parks need to be self funding with user fees or sold off to private business that can run them at a profit. Government run anything is a loser,. Look how well Elon Musk has done with space vehicles compared to NASA.
William - I am as "small government" as you can get but in this case I have to disagree. The Constitution gives the Federal government the power to manage Federal lands and the purpose of these lands is not to optimize profits. Sure, use private contractors but the management for these public resources should be in Federal hands. That said, I agree, users should bear a large portion of the economic burden.
You can't be serious?
You do understand that the mission of the National Park Service is to preserve and protect our shared national treasures unimpaired for future generations?
The profit motive would quickly subvert preservation and public access for $$$.
It would likely also further lower the abysmal pay and career ladder park rangers already face.
Furthermore, it would be a disaster for historic sites and national memorials.
Do you really want us to charge entrance fees to the national mall? What about small historical sites with low visitation? Wouldn't we be pressured to sacrifice historical preservation to just doing things the cheapest way possible?