Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill amends section 303102 of title 54, United States Code, to change the statutory language governing the Historic Preservation Fund. The amendment replaces existing text with a provision listing fiscal-year amounts (noting $150,000,000 for 2023 and $250,000,000 for 2035).
Supporters emphasize cultural preservation and local economic benefits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise authorization amendment that directly targets funding levels for the Historic Preservation Fund but is sparsely drafted.
This bill amends section 303102 of title 54, United States Code, to change the statutory language governing the Historic Preservation Fund.
The amendment replaces existing text with a provision listing fiscal-year amounts (noting $150,000,000 for 2023 and $250,000,000 for 2035).
The stated purpose is to extend funding authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund through the updated years and amounts.
Narrow, administratively simple, and low-salience topic favors passage; modest fiscal increase is the main obstacle.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise authorization amendment that directly targets funding levels for the Historic Preservation Fund but is sparsely drafted. It identifies the statutory provision to be changed and supplies new year/amount figures, yet the insertion text is ambiguous and lacks customary implementation and fiscal details.
Supporters emphasize cultural preservation and local economic benefits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Supporters emphasize cultural preservation and local economic benefits
Likely broadly supportive because the bill increases and extends federal funding for historic preservation.
Supporters would view this as advancing cultural conservation, community revitalization, and public heritage access.
Some progressives may seek assurances funds prioritize underserved communities and climate resilience for historic sites.
Generally favorable but pragmatic: preserving historic assets is noncontroversial, yet details matter.
The centrist view will emphasize fiscal clarity, whether authorizations are funded, and performance metrics.
They will seek assurances on oversight, cost control, and measurable outcomes.
Skeptical of expanding federal spending and multiyear authorizations; may view preservation as primarily a state or private responsibility.
Support could be conditional if funding is modest and returns are clear, but many conservatives will object to larger federal commitments through 2035.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administratively simple, and low-salience topic favors passage; modest fiscal increase is the main obstacle.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Supporters emphasize cultural preservation and local economic benefits
Narrow, administratively simple, and low-salience topic favors passage; modest fiscal increase is the main obstacle.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise authorization amendment that directly targets funding levels for the Historic Preservation Fund but is sparsely drafted. It identifies the statutory prov…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.