Overview
Title
To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to amend references of gilsonite to asphaltite.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 7004 is about changing a word in a law from "gilsonite" to "asphaltite." This change is like renaming a special rock to help make things clearer in the law.
Summary AI
H. R. 7004 proposes an amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act by changing the term "gilsonite" to "asphaltite" wherever it appears in the Act. This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Curtis, along with co-sponsors Mr. Moore of Utah, Ms. Maloy, and Mr. Owens, and it has been referred to the Committee on Natural Resources for further consideration.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
House Bill 7004, introduced in the 118th Congress, seeks to amend the Mineral Leasing Act by replacing the term "gilsonite" with "asphaltite" across several sections of the legislation. Essentially, this bill is focused on a terminology change within existing legal documents that govern mineral leasing in the United States.
Significant Issues
The primary issue with this bill is the lack of context or explanation regarding the reason for this terminology change. It is unclear why "asphaltite" is being preferred over "gilsonite," and without such justification, stakeholders may find it challenging to understand the necessity or potential impacts of this legislative proposal.
Another significant concern is the potential implications this change could have on existing contracts or legal interpretations. The Mineral Leasing Act is a critical piece of legislation that affects numerous agreements and practices related to mineral resources, and altering terminology could result in legal ambiguities or disputes.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this bill may seem like a minor administrative adjustment without immediate, visible effects. However, changes in legal terminology within significant legislation can sometimes have broad implications, depending on how such terms are integrated into regulatory frameworks and contracts. Any ambiguity introduced could ultimately lead to complex legal challenges that might affect public access to certain mineral resources or influence environmental policies associated with mining practices.
Impact on Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders who may be positively or negatively affected by this bill include entities involved in mineral extraction and legal experts in the field of natural resources. On one hand, the terminology change could present challenges for companies that must ensure their existing contracts and operations align with the amended language of the Mineral Leasing Act. Legal professionals might face new hurdles when interpreting or litigating contract disputes influenced by this change.
On the other hand, if the change from "gilsonite" to "asphaltite" addresses certain scientific or classification updates that better reflect current understanding, it could clarify and modernize regulatory practices, potentially benefiting scientific and industrial advancements. However, without the bill providing a clear rationale, these potential benefits remain speculative.
In conclusion, while House Bill 7004 might appear straightforward, its lack of detailed rationale and consideration of potential impacts highlights the complexities involved in legislative amendments, especially in matters concerning natural resources. Stakeholders and the public would benefit from further clarification to understand the full scope and implications of this proposed change.
Issues
The terminology change from 'gilsonite' to 'asphaltite' in the Mineral Leasing Act (Section 1) might have broader implications on existing contracts or legal interpretations. The bill does not clarify these potential impacts, which could lead to legal ambiguities or disputes.
The amendment does not provide context or justification for why 'asphaltite' is preferred over 'gilsonite'. This lack of explanation in Section 1 may be important for stakeholders to understand the necessity or impact of this change, which could be politically or economically significant.
There is no specific information about whether this terminology change will affect financial aspects, such as spending or budget allocations. Section 1 does not indicate any potential for wasteful spending or favoritism, making it difficult to assess financial impacts.
The bill lacks detailed information regarding the reasons for the change from 'gilsonite' to 'asphaltite', which could lead to ethical concerns if certain stakeholders believe the change might favor specific groups without clear justification.
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. Mineral amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act changes the term “gilsonite” to “asphaltite” in several parts of the law, specifically within the first section and several other sections of the Act.