Gregory Murphy (R-NC)
National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate.
Passed one chamber, waiting for the other to take it up
Passed one chamber, and the other has not yet sent it to a committee or put it on its calendar.
The other chamber will hand it to a committee, place it on its calendar, or leave it where it is. Nothing has been decided, and a bill can sit here indefinitely.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- Awaiting Senate
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act. It allows the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the National Park Service, to extend certain existing leases within National Park System units without taking bids or proposals. To do this, the Director must make a written determination that the lessee has had the lease for at least five years, follows all lease terms, and that the extension fits the park's purposes. The Director is limited to granting only one such extension without opening the lease to bids or proposals. Additionally, the Secretary of the Interior must update the relevant federal regulations within 90 days of the bill's enactment.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
Provides significant stability and security for existing business leaseholders in national parks.
- Scored +3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Allows existing park leaseholders to extend their operations without the cost and risk of a new bidding process.
- Scored +2
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Many national park leases are in rural areas, supporting local business stability.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Allows lease extensions without a competitive bidding process, potentially reducing transparency in public land allocation.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Section 2(a): This provision allows certain current leaseholders to extend their leases without going through a competitive bidding process, provided they have held the lease for at least five years, followed all the rules, and fit the park's goals. This could benefit current business operators by giving them stability without the hassle of competing for the same lease again.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(a) and Section 2(b): By allowing lease extensions without opening the process to requests for bids or proposals, this bill prevents other interested individuals, groups, or competing businesses from having a chance to bid on these park leases.
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides significant stability and security for existing business leaseholders in national parks. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Many national park leases are in rural areas, supporting local business stability.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Allows existing park leaseholders to extend their operations without the cost and risk of a new bidding process. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Provides stability for businesses operating in national parks, encouraging long-term investment.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Allows lease extensions without a competitive bidding process, potentially reducing transparency in public land allocation.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Streamlines administrative processes for existing lease management in National Parks.
- 9/15/2026
- Received in the Senate.
- 9/14/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5562)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4931.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5562-5563)
- Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 9/10/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-810.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 709.
- 7/22/2026
- Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
- 12/2/2025
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 11/25/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
- 8/8/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 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.