H.R. 2215 (119th)Bill Overview

Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act

Public Lands and Natural Resources|Congressional oversightHistoric sites and heritage areas

Sponsor

Seth MoultonD

Cosponsors

Support

Democratic

Introduced

Mar 18, 2025

Discussions

Bill Text

View ↗

Committee

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee

Current stageLaw

Became Public Law No: 119-25.

Introduced

Committee

Floor

President

Law

Congressional Activities

01 · The brief

Renames the Salem Maritime National Historic Site as the Salem Maritime National Historical Park and treats all statutory references accordingly.

Directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a boundary study evaluating inclusion of Salem-area sites tied to maritime history, coastal defenses, and military history (including the Salem Armory Visitor Center and adjacent park).

Requires a report to the House Natural Resources and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committees within three years after funds are made available.

Passage85/100

Narrow, noncontroversial administrative action with minimal fiscal impact and a study-only mandate—characteristics that historically favor enactment.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions primarily as a discrete substantive change (renaming a federally designated site) with an attached study/reporting requirement; it is clear in its immediate actions but limited in implementation detail and resourcing provisions.

Contention55/100

Heritage protection and federal recognition versus local control concerns

02 · What it does

Full Analysis

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%

Local governmentsLocal governments · Federal agencies

Likely helped

Local governmentsRaises national recognition possibly increasing heritage tourism and local visitor spending.
Targeted stakeholdersMakes the site eligible for expanded National Park Service technical assistance and preservation funding.
Targeted stakeholdersBoundary study could identify additional historic sites for long-term preservation and interpretation.

Likely burdened

Local governmentsStudy and potential additions could lead to increased federal involvement in local land management decisions.
Federal agenciesPossible future inclusion of sites may raise concerns about property restrictions or federal acquisition.
Federal agenciesConducting the study and any subsequent expansions could impose additional federal costs and resource commitments.

03 · Why people split

Full Analysis

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Heritage protection and federal recognition versus local control concerns

Progressive90%

Generally supportive: redesignation and study can expand federal protection, recognition, and resources for historic and maritime sites.

Views this as an opportunity to preserve heritage, expand public access, and support local economies, while noting outcomes depend on the study and funding.

Leans supportive

Centrist75%

Cautiously favorable: sees the bill as a modest administrative change and sensible planning step.

Likes the requirement for a study and report but emphasizes fiscal transparency, clear scope, and coordination with local authorities before any expansion.

Leans supportive

Conservative30%

Skeptical: views renaming and a boundary study as potential federal overreach that could lead to land acquisition and added federal costs.

Might accept a limited study but worries about local control, property rights, and long-term fiscal impacts.

Likely resistant

04 · Can it pass?

Full Analysis