A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 642.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Gateway Partnership Act. It allows the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a one-time, five-year agreement with the Gateway Arch Park Foundation. The agreement permits the nonprofit to host private events in specific Gateway Arch National Park buildings like the Arch Visitor Center and the Old Courthouse. The bill requires the Secretary to charge fees and recover costs related to these private events so taxpayers are not left holding the bill. It also protects public access by stating that these private events cannot disrupt regular public use of the park. Finally, the authority for this agreement ends seven years after the bill is enacted.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +3
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Allows high-net-worth individuals to book exclusive events at iconic national landmarks.
- Scored +3
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Allows ultra-high-net-worth individuals to book exclusive events at iconic national landmarks.
- Scored +3
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Allows billionaires to book exclusive events at iconic national landmarks.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Potential for reduced public access due to exclusive private event bookings.
- Scored -1
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Potential for reduced public access due to exclusive private event bookings.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3(d) requires the Secretary to charge fees for wear and tear and recover all costs related to private events, including maintenance, utilities, administrative expenses, security, and personnel. This is a positive outcome for everyday people because it ensures that private groups foot the bill for their own events rather than using taxpayer money.
-
Section 3(c)(3) states that private events cannot take place during times or in locations that prevent or disrupt public use or access to the park or park buildings. This protects regular citizens, ensuring that everyday visitors can still enjoy the public park without being blocked out by private parties.
-
Section 3(h) requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress within four years evaluating how the agreement impacts park operations, visitor access, security, and finances. This holds officials accountable and lets the public know if the arrangement is actually working out well.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 3(a) allows the Secretary to enter into an agreement granting the Gateway Arch Park Foundation the ability to host private events in public park buildings. Some individuals may view the commercialization or private booking of public spaces funded by the public as a negative outcome that restricts equal access to public property.
-
Section 3(b)(4) includes a provision stating that the Federal Government and its employees will not be held liable for claims for damages or suits for injuries or deaths resulting from the Foundation's occupancy and use of park buildings. This could place a burden on individuals who might be injured during such events, as it limits their ability to hold the federal government accountable.
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 billionaires be better off under this? — Allows billionaires to book exclusive events at iconic national landmarks. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Allows high-net-worth individuals to book exclusive events at iconic national landmarks. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Allows ultra-high-net-worth individuals to book exclusive events at iconic national landmarks. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increases availability of high-profile venues for private events. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Potential for reduced public access due to exclusive private event bookings. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Potential for reduced public access due to exclusive private event bookings.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Ensures that private use of public buildings is funded by the users rather than taxpayers. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Cost recovery mechanisms reduce the net government expenditure for park maintenance related to these events. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill allows for full recovery of administrative and personnel costs from private events.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Requires terms to protect the resources and values of the Park. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Provides a structured framework for private use of national park buildings to ensure cost recovery and resource protection.
- 9/17/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Lee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 642.
- 7/29/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- 7/21/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.
- 6/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/16/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/11/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Josh HawleyRepublican · Missouri