Overview
Title
To abolish the Board on Geographic Names and repeal the provisions of the Act of July 25, 1947 establishing such Board.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to get rid of a group of people who name places in the United States. It's like saying we don't need a special team to pick names for mountains, rivers, or cities anymore, but it doesn't say who will do that job instead.
Summary AI
H. R. 7303 aims to dismantle the Board on Geographic Names by repealing the Act of July 25, 1947, that established it. The bill proposes terminating all functions of the board and making necessary amendments to eliminate references to the board's responsibilities in the original act. This move would transfer duties related to geographic names and problems away from the disbanded board, streamlining the process by removing layers of oversight.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 7303, titled the "Preserve Geographic Names Act," proposes to abolish the Board on Geographic Names, a body originally established by an act passed on July 25, 1947. The bill seeks not only to dissolve the Board and terminate its functions but also to amend the original 1947 law to remove all mentions and responsibilities of this Board. Effectively, it nullifies the existing structure and processes related to the Board on Geographic Names.
Summary of Significant Issues
A major issue with this bill is its lack of clarity in terms of rationale for abolishing the Board on Geographic Names. Without clear explanations, the proposed changes could lead to confusion and concern about why such a step is considered necessary and what the underlying motives might be. Additionally, the absence of designated replacements to assume the Board's former responsibilities raises serious concerns about accountability and oversight, potentially resulting in inefficiencies.
The legislative language in the bill refers to various amendments and redesignations, which could easily be misinterpreted by those without a legal background. Such complexity might hinder public understanding and transparency, especially since the bill title itself—"Preserve Geographic Names Act"—misleadingly suggests preservation rather than abolition.
Impact on the Public
The abolishment of the Board on Geographic Names may have broad impacts on how geographic names are standardized and managed in the United States. This could lead to inconsistencies and potential confusion over geographic nomenclature, affecting everything from navigation systems to educational resources and governmental documentation. Such disruption could trickle down to individuals who rely on consistent and authoritative geographic names for various purposes.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For governmental agencies, the bill could introduce inefficiencies by eliminating a centralized authority for geographic names without clearly identifying a successor. This might lead to duplicated efforts across different agencies trying to fill the void left by the abolished Board. Organizations focusing on cartography, geography, and education may similarly experience challenges in maintaining consistency and accuracy in geographical references.
Conversely, some stakeholders might view the dissolution as an opportunity to modernize or decentralize the processes surrounding geographic names. If managed effectively, it could allow for more flexible or innovative approaches to address current limitations in managing geographic names. However, without a clear plan, the potential positive impacts may remain unrealized.
Overall, this bill requires careful consideration and clarity to mitigate potential negative impacts and possibly harness any benefits through a restructured approach to handling geographic names.
Issues
The abolition of the Board on Geographic Names could create gaps in accountability and oversight as the bill does not specify the new responsible entity for the board's functions, potentially leading to inefficiencies (Sec. 2).
The bill lacks a clear rationale or justification for abolishing the Board on Geographic Names, which raises concerns about the impacts and motives underlying this decision (Sec. 2).
The bill contains complex legislative references and amendments without clear explanations, making it difficult for individuals without a legal background to understand the full implications, potentially hindering public transparency and comprehension (Sec. 2).
There are concerns that the abolishment is not accompanied by measures to prevent disruption of ongoing work related to geographic names, which could lead to inefficiencies or duplications (Sec. 2).
The section on the short title is too brief and lacks context, making it unclear what the Act aims to achieve, potentially confusing stakeholders about the bill's purpose and outcomes (Sec. 1).
The title 'Preserve Geographic Names Act' is misleading as the bill aims to abolish the Board on Geographic Names, potentially causing misunderstanding of the bill's true intent (Sec. 1).
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 this act states that it can be officially referred to as the "Preserve Geographic Names Act."
2. Abolition of Board on Geographic Names Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Board on Geographic Names, which was established by a law from 1947, is permanently closed, and its responsibilities are removed. The law is changed to eliminate all mentions of this Board, and the structure of the law is adjusted to reflect the Board's closure.