Joe Neguse (D-CO)
To amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to modify the cost-sharing requirement for conservation projects carried out by a qualified youth or conservation corps, and for other purposes.
A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Education and 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.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill seeks to amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993. The primary goal is to modify the cost-sharing requirements for conservation projects. These projects are carried out by a qualified youth or conservation corps. The legislation changes specific percentages related to these costs.
Yes· 3 of 14
- Scored +6
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill directly enhances the funding capacity for managing public lands through the Public Lands Corps.
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Increasing the federal share of conservation project costs facilitates more environmental preservation efforts.
- Scored +4
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
The emphasis on youth corps suggests positive opportunities for young adults through conservation work.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill increases federal spending by raising the government's cost-share from 75% to 90%.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill increases the federal government's share of costs for conservation projects.
- Scored -1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Increasing the federal cost-share increases federal obligations.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased federal support for conservation projects: By changing the cost-sharing requirement, the bill increases the percentage the government covers from 75% to 90% as stated in Section 1, which modifies Section 212(a)(1) of the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993.
-
Reduced financial burden on project partners: The bill reduces the required cost-share from 25% to 10% per Section 1, which modifies Section 212(a)(1) of the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill directly enhances the funding capacity for managing public lands through the Public Lands Corps. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Increasing the federal share of conservation project costs facilitates more environmental preservation efforts. Does this invest in rural communities? — Conservation projects often benefit rural areas and the management of public lands. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Increased funding for conservation projects may contribute to long-term carbon sequestration and environmental health.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The emphasis on youth corps suggests positive opportunities for young adults through conservation work. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Enhanced public land management directly benefits rural residents and their local environments. Would students be better off under this? — The bill supports youth-oriented conservation corps, which can provide experiential learning. Would business owners be better off under this? — Reduces the cost-share for project partners, which may include small businesses or organizations. Would farmers be better off under this? — Conservation projects can have positive secondary effects on agricultural land management. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Increased conservation employment opportunities may benefit low-income workers. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased funding for corps may support labor within the conservation sector.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill increases the federal government's financial responsibility and role in conservation projects.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Increasing federal support for conservation projects may stimulate job creation within youth and conservation corps. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Increased investment in conservation projects can provide minor local economic stimulation. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill increases the federal government's share of costs for conservation projects. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill increases federal spending by raising the government's cost-share from 75% to 90%. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increasing the federal cost-share increases federal obligations.
- 9/1/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Education and 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.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.