Analysis: Senate Amendment #3972 and Section 130 Protections
Executive Summary: Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced Amendment #3972 to the 2025 Interior Appropriations bill (S.2431). The amendment seeks to strike Section 130, a recurring legislative rider that currently prohibits the Department of the Interior from using funds to dispose of National Park units.
Legal Analysis: What Section 130 Does
Section 130 is an appropriations “rider”—a temporary provision attached to annual funding bills—rather than a permanent statute. Its specific function is to restrict the Department of the Interior (DOI) from utilizing appropriated funds to sell, transfer, or dispose of specific classes of federal land.
Recent versions of Section 130 have used language substantially similar to the following:
“The Department of the Interior shall maintain all Federal lands designated as, or as a part of, a national park unit, a national scenic or national historic trail, or a wild and scenic river… as Federal land and continue to operate such unit… as an entity of the National Park Service.”
— Representative language based on Section 130 in current Interior appropriations drafts. [Source: Center for Western Priorities / S.2431 Draft]
The Effect of Amendment #3972: By striking this section, the amendment removes the funding prohibition. This does not automatically trigger a sale. Instead, it restores the executive branch’s discretion to consider disposal or transfer under other existing authorities (such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act), provided other statutory conditions are met. However, critics argue this removes a key annual protection that has functioned as a de facto “legislative lock” keeping park units in federal hands .
The Proponent’s View: “Right-Sizing” Federal Holdings
Senator Lee and proponents of the amendment argue that the federal government’s ownership of vast tracts of land (over 600 million acres, mostly in the West) stifles state economic sovereignty. Lee has historically argued that “riders” like Section 130 prevent necessary adjustments to the federal estate and that states are better equipped to manage lands for local needs, including housing and resource development .
Key Arguments for the Amendment:
- Fiscal Responsibility: Reducing the federal maintenance backlog by disposing of “underutilized” or expensive-to-maintain units.
- State Sovereignty: Returning control of land to states to increase local tax bases and development opportunities .
- Flexibility: Preventing “autopilot” retention of land that may no longer serve a national purpose.
The Opposition: A “Greenlight” for Liquidation
Conservation groups, including the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and the Center for Western Priorities, strongly oppose the amendment. They characterize the removal of Section 130 not as a technical adjustment, but as a “greenlight” for the administration to dismantle the National Park System.
Their primary concern is that without the explicit prohibition in Section 130, a sympathetic administration could move to sell off or transfer controversial units—such as national monuments or historic sites—to state or private entities. The Center for Western Priorities stated that the amendment “would pave the way for the… administration to sell off national parks to the highest bidder,” a characterization reflecting their concern over privatization .
Economic Context: Outdoor Recreation vs. Development
The debate frames a choice between potential development revenue (favored by Lee) and the outdoor recreation economy. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the outdoor recreation economy generated $1.2 trillion in current-dollar gross output in 2023, accounting for 2.3% of U.S. GDP . Opponents argue that the long-term recurrent revenue from tourism and recreation in protected parks outweighs the one-time revenue from land sales.
Legislative Context: HOUSES Act vs. Amendment #3972
While Senator Lee championed the HOUSES Act earlier in 2025, Amendment #3972 differs significantly in scope and target.
Table 1: Comparison of Recent Land Transfer Proposals
| Feature | HOUSES Act Proposal (2025 Revision) | Amendment #3972 to S.2431 |
|---|---|---|
| Targeted Land | BLM Land only | National Parks, Wild & Scenic Rivers, Trails |
| Exclusions | National Monuments, Wilderness, Rec Areas | No parcel-level exclusions; removes Section 130 protection for all covered National Park Service units, national historic trails, and wild and scenic rivers |
| Conditions | Must be < 5 miles from population center; housing density reqs. | No usage or siting conditions attached |
| Mechanism | Discounted sale to local gov for housing | Removal of funding prohibition on disposal |
▼ Legislative Tracking Data (JSON)
Use this block to track the amendment status via Congressional APIs.
{
"bill_id": "S.2431",
"congress": "119th",
"amendment_number": "3972",
"sponsor": "Sen. Mike Lee [R-UT]",
"target_section": "130 (Prohibition on Disposal)",
"current_status": "Floor Debate",
"related_agencies": ["Department of the Interior", "National Park Service"],
"api_endpoint": "https://api.congress.gov/v3/bill/119/s/2431/amendment"
}
Frequently Asked Questions
- Does Amendment #3972 immediately sell national parks?
- No. It removes the funding prohibition that currently prevents the Interior Department from selling them. A sale would still require administrative action and adherence to other federal land laws.
- Why is Section 130 called a “rider”?
- It is a provision added to an annual appropriations (funding) bill rather than a permanent standalone law. It must be renewed each year to remain in effect.
