Overview
Title
To amend Public Law 87–788 (commonly known as the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act; 16 U.S.C. 582a–7) to provide for equal treatment of the District of Columbia with respect to funds made available under that Act.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 7421 wants to change a law so that Washington, D.C. can get the same money as the states do for taking care of forests. This way, D.C. can have the same chances to look after its trees and parks.
Summary AI
H.R. 7421 aims to ensure that the District of Columbia receives equal treatment regarding funding under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act. The bill specifically amends Section 8 of Public Law 87–788 by adding the District of Columbia to the list of entities eligible for funds provided by the Act. This change is intended to provide the District with the same opportunities for forestry funding as other states and territories.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 7421 is a legislative proposal introduced in the House of Representatives with the aim of amending a specific piece of forest legislation, the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act. This bill seeks to ensure that the District of Columbia receives the same consideration as other regions in the United States when it comes to the allocation of funds provided under this Act. Introduced by Ms. Norton and currently referred to the Committee on Agriculture, this bill is titled the McIntire-Stennis Act District of Columbia Equality Act, highlighting its goal of achieving equitable treatment for the District of Columbia in forestry funding initiatives.
Summary of Significant Issues
A primary issue with the bill is a lack of clarity in its introduction. The short title cites the Act both as the "McIntire-Stennis Act" and "District of Columbia Equality Act". This dual naming might lead to confusion about the bill’s intent, with stakeholders unclear if it serves two distinct legislative purposes.
Another concern arises from Section 2 of the bill, which amends existing legislation to include the District of Columbia. Yet, the bill fails to provide a detailed rationale behind this inclusion, leaving unclear the necessity and priorities that this amendment addresses. The absence of financial or budgetary analysis raises questions about the potential cost implications of this inclusion and whether it aligns with fiscal responsibility objectives.
Impact on the Public
By addressing equal funding considerations for the District of Columbia under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act, the bill attempts to rectify what it perceives as a gap in current forestry funding distribution. Broadly, this adjustment might lead to more comprehensive and inclusive federal forestry support across the entirety of the U.S., ensuring all regions can benefit from these initiatives. However, without substantive explanation or data on cost implications, there is potential public concern regarding the legislative process and resource allocation.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For residents and stakeholders within the District of Columbia, this bill could bring about positive change by opening up additional avenues of funding for forestry and related environmental efforts. Such initiatives may enhance urban green spaces and associated environmental benefits.
Conversely, other stakeholders, such as those in regions already part of the McIntire-Stennis funding, might view this as a dilution of resources, fearing that spreading the available funds more widely could lead to reduced allocations per area. Without transparency regarding financial impacts and intent, these parties might also question the broader fiscal and ecological priorities of the amendment.
Overall, while the bill presents an opportunity to address funding equity, stakeholders stress the need for clearer rationale and financial insights to fully evaluate its merit and implications.
Issues
The section title 'Short title' in Section 1 does not provide clarity, as it cites the Act as both 'McIntire-Stennis Act' and 'District of Columbia Equality Act', potentially misleading stakeholders regarding the legislative intent and scope. This lack of clarity could confuse policymakers and the public.
Section 2 lacks a comprehensive explanation or justification for why the District of Columbia should receive equal treatment in funding under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act. Without clarity on the rationale, stakeholders may question the necessity or the priority of this amendment, impacting its perceived legitimacy.
Section 2 does not address potential cost implications or provide a budgetary analysis regarding the inclusion of the District of Columbia in the funding program. This omission makes it challenging to assess the financial impact and whether the results justify the expenditure, potentially leading to concerns over fiscal responsibility.
The text fails to explain the potential benefits or consequences of the proposed amendment, making it difficult to evaluate its overall impact on forestry initiatives and stakeholders within the District of Columbia, possibly affecting its support or opposition.
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 McIntire-Stennis Act District of Columbia Equality Act is the short title given to this piece of legislation.
2. Inclusion of District of Columbia for purposes of funding under McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed amendment to the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act adds the District of Columbia to the list of areas eligible for funding under the Act.