Overview
Title
To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1727 wants to make the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission stick around until 2031, so they can keep helping take care of the park for a longer time.
Summary AI
H.R. 1727 aims to amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act by extending the term of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. This extension will now last until October 1, 2031. The bill was introduced by Representative David Trone along with several co-sponsors and was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. It has been reported with an amendment and committed to the Committee of the Whole House for further consideration.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill identified as H. R. 1727, currently under consideration in the United States Congress, proposes to extend the operational lifespan of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. Titled the "Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission Extension Act," this legislative measure seeks to amend an existing statute, allowing the Commission to continue functioning until October 1, 2031.
General Summary of the Bill
H. R. 1727 aims to extend the existence of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. The bill provides a straightforward amendment to the previous expiration framework under the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act. Essentially, it modifies the date in Section 6(g) of that Act, permitting the Commission to operate for an additional period up to 2031.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill raises several key areas of concern. Firstly, there is an apparent lack of context or justification for extending the Commission's expiration date. The text does not elaborate on why an extension is needed or what specific benefits, if any, may result from this prolongation. Additionally, selecting the year 2031 appears arbitrary without accompanying explanation, contributing to uncertainties and potential misunderstandings regarding the legislative intent.
Another issue arises from the amendment's reliance on legal references and sections that may not be easily accessible or understood by the general public. This might pose an accessibility barrier, leading to questions among those unfamiliar with the underlying statute.
Impact on the Public Broadly
For the general public, the bill may impact perceptions of governmental transparency and decision-making. People may question why the Commission's extension is necessary and what outcomes they should expect from continued operations. Moreover, without clear public rationale, there may be skepticism about the efficient use of public funds and potential for waste.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly associated with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, including local communities, historical preservationists, and visitors, the extension could have positive implications. The Commission's continued existence may help ensure ongoing maintenance and enhancement of the park, potentially fostering tourism and local economic benefits. However, stakeholders might also experience frustration due to the lack of detailed reasoning supporting the extension, which could hinder full engagement with the legislation's objectives.
Conversely, for policymakers and government oversight bodies, the bill’s vague justifications present challenges relating to accountability and fiscal responsibility. The absence of a comprehensive rationale might complicate evaluations of success and efficacy in the Commission's future activities.
In sum, while H. R. 1727 reflects a straightforward extension of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission, the absence of detailed context and justification opens the door to broader questions about legislative transparency, resource allocation, and public engagement.
Issues
The lack of context and justification for extending the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission's expiration date to October 1, 2031, raises concerns about the bill's implications on budget, resources, and operations of the commission. This is significant as it limits the ability to assess whether the change is justified or could lead to wasteful spending. (Section 2)
The arbitrary nature of selecting the new expiration date of 2031 without explanation or clear reasoning could lead to misunderstandings and questions about the decision-making process behind this legislative amendment. This issue is particularly relevant from a legal and administrative perspective. (Section 2)
The brevity and ambiguity of the short title section make it difficult for stakeholders to understand the specific actions or extensions involved, leading to potential confusion about the bill's purpose and scope. This impacts the transparency and accountability of the legislation. (Section 1)
The amendment's reference to specific sections and statutes that are not easily accessible or clear to those unfamiliar with legal references could cause misunderstandings among the general public and smaller stakeholders not versed in legal texts. This accessibility issue is important for ensuring comprehensible legislation. (Section 2)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill gives the law its name, which is the “Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission Extension Act”.
2. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section of the bill amends the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act by changing the expiration date of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission to October 1, 2031.