SB1037, the Protecting Access to Recreation with Cash Act (PARC Act), would amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to require the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that any National Park System unit charging an entrance fee accepts cash as a payment option. The bill is narrowly focused on one issue: preserving cash as an available method of payment for park entrance fees.
Under current law, the Secretary has discretion over how entrance fees are collected at federal recreation sites. This bill would add a specific statutory requirement for National Park System units with entrance fees, limiting the ability of parks to move to cashless or card-only systems for entrance access. It would affect the Department of the Interior and park units that charge entrance fees, as well as visitors who rely on cash for payment.
Impact
The bill would amend 16 U.S.C. 6802(e) of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act by adding a new requirement that National Park System units charging entrance fees must accept cash. This would constrain agency discretion over fee-collection methods and could require parks to maintain cash-handling infrastructure, staffing, or alternative cash-processing arrangements. The practical effect would be to preserve access for visitors without cards, banking access, or digital payment options.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally supportive sentiment, as the bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of senators and referred to committee without recorded opposition or votes in the provided materials. The bill’s title and sponsors indicate a consumer-access framing centered on preserving payment choice and access to public lands. No committee transcript or vote history is available here to show formal debate or division.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be operational and policy-based rather than ideological: whether National Park System units should be required to accept cash even if they are otherwise moving toward cashless payment systems. Supporters would emphasize access, equity, and accommodation for unbanked or underbanked visitors, while opponents may raise concerns about administrative burden, security, accounting costs, and efficiency at park entrances. No specific objections are documented in the provided record.