PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3] · D–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 6, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1581 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1581 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1581 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1581 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-25 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would replace Fort Monroe National Monument in Virginia with a national historical park, incorporating all monument land and land interests and carrying over available unobligated funds. The park would preserve Fort Monroe’s historic, natural, and recreational resources and interpret its history. The Interior Secretary could acquire land within the park boundary and help preserve nonfederal resources within or near the park through cooperative agreements.
The term Commonwealth means the Commonwealth of Virginia.
There is established the Fort Monroe National Historical Park in the Commonwealth to preserve the historic, natural, and recreational resources of Fort Monroe
The Fort Monroe National Monument, established by Presidential Proclamation 8750 of November 1, 2011 (54 U.S.C. 320301 note), is abolished and all land or interests in land therein are incorporated into, and shall be considered to be part of, the Historical Park.
Any unobligated funds available for purposes of the Fort Monroe National Monument shall be available for purposes of the Historical Park.
The Secretary may acquire land, including interests in land, within the boundaries of the Historical Park by donation, transfer, exchange, or purchase from a willing seller using donated or appropriated funds.
The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with the Commonwealth or other public or private entities to identify, interpret, and provide financial and technical assistance for the preservation of non-Federal resources within the boundary of the Historical Park and outside of the boundary in close proximity to the Historical Park
The proposed law is named the Fort Monroe National Historical Park Establishment Act. Its references to the “Commonwealth” mean Virginia, and its references to the “Secretary” mean the Secretary of the Interior.
This Act may be cited as the Fort Monroe National Historical Park Establishment Act.
The term Commonwealth means the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior.
The park’s proposed interpretation would cover Old Point Comfort and Captain John Smith’s voyages, captive Africans’ arrival in English North America, successive fortifications and the War of 1812, and Fort Monroe’s coastal defense, artillery training, military and community life. It would include the Civil War, the 1861 Contraband Decision concerning people escaping enslavement, and the formation and service of United States Colored Troop units stationed there. Other purposes include interpreting people and events associated with the fort and its natural and recreational resources. These are stated purposes, not evidence of future results.
interpret for the benefit of present and future generations— (1) Old Point Comfort, its relationship to the voyages of Captain John Smith, its location as the first entry place of captive Africans into English North America, its use for successive fortifications, and its role in the War of 1812; (2) the development and use of Fort Monroe as a coastal defense facility and artillery training center, including its military and community life; (3) the fort’s role in the Civil War, including the 1861 Contraband Decision providing a pathway to freedom for those escaping enslavement during that war, and the formation and service of United States Colored Troop units stationed at Fort Monroe; (4) persons and events associated with the fort, which contributed to its and the Nation’s history, and their relevance to modern society; and (5) the natural and recreational resource values associated with Fort Monroe.
The bill would abolish the national monument designation and incorporate all its land and land interests into the historical park. Federal references to the monument would then mean the historical park.
The Fort Monroe National Monument, established by Presidential Proclamation 8750 of November 1, 2011 (54 U.S.C. 320301 note), is abolished and all land or interests in land therein are incorporated into, and shall be considered to be part of, the Historical Park.
Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record, map, or other paper of the United States to Fort Monroe National Monument shall be deemed to be a reference to Fort Monroe National Historical Park.
Existing monument funds that have not already been committed to obligations would become available for the historical park. This provision transfers the availability of existing funds rather than specifying a new funding amount.
Any unobligated funds available for purposes of the Fort Monroe National Monument shall be available for purposes of the Historical Park.
The proposed park boundary would generally follow the June 2024 map numbered 250/193734. The National Park Service would have to keep that map available for public inspection in its appropriate offices.
The term Map means the map titled Fort Monroe National Historical Park Proposed Boundary, numbered 250/193734, and dated June 2024.
(a) Boundary The boundary of the Historical Park shall be as generally depicted on the Map. (b) Availability of Map The Map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
The Interior Secretary could acquire land or land interests within the park by donation, transfer, exchange, or purchase. Purchases under this authority would require a willing seller and could use donated funds or money provided through appropriations.
The Secretary may acquire land, including interests in land, within the boundaries of the Historical Park by donation, transfer, exchange, or purchase from a willing seller using donated or appropriated funds.
The Interior Secretary would administer the park under this proposed law and laws generally applicable to the National Park System. The bill cites specific federal statutes without reproducing their requirements; their detailed effects cannot be determined from the supplied text alone.
The Secretary shall administer the Historical Park in accordance with— (1) this Act; and (2) the laws generally applicable to units of the National Park System, including— (A) section 100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections 100751(a), 100752, 100753 and 102101 of title 54, United States Code; and (B) chapter 3201 of title 54, United States Code.
Except where the bill otherwise provides, federal authority to carry out federal laws and regulations on federal land inside the park would remain unchanged. Virginia and local civil and criminal jurisdiction would also remain unchanged unless an agreement for concurrent jurisdiction modifies it. Their authority to apply state laws, regulations, and rules on nonfederal land within the park would be preserved.
(1) Federal authority Except as otherwise provided in this Act, nothing shall enlarge, diminish or modify any authority of the United States to carry out Federal laws and regulations on Federal land located within the boundary of the Historical Park. (2) Commonwealth authority Nothing in this Act enlarges, diminishes, or modifies any authority of the Commonwealth, or any political subdivision of the Commonwealth— (A) to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction unless an agreement for concurrent jurisdiction is executed and modifies Commonwealth or local government jurisdiction in any way; or (B) to carry out Commonwealth laws, regulations and rules on non-Federal land located within the boundary of the Historical Park.
Section 5(c) would require permitting replacement of square footage lost through loss or authorized demolition of buildings or structures within the Fort Monroe National Historic Landmark District. Replacement construction would have to comply with the Secretary’s historic-property standards and the cited federal historic-preservation provision, as applicable. The heading refers to Commonwealth-owned buildings and structures, but the operative sentence does not expressly repeat that ownership restriction, leaving its precise ownership scope uncertain.
(c) No net loss of commonwealth owned buildings and structures In the event of loss or authorized demolition of buildings or structures within the Fort Monroe National Historic Landmark District, replacement of the square footage from such loss or demolition shall be permitted provided that such construction complies with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and section 306108 of title 54, United States Code (formerly section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), as applicable.
The park superintendent could serve on boards or committees affecting Fort Monroe by virtue of holding that office. Eligible bodies would be those the Secretary considers beneficial to preserving park resources and which further the park’s interpretive or educational purposes.
The Superintendent of the Historical Park is authorized to serve as an ex-officio member of such boards or committees affecting Fort Monroe that the Secretary considers beneficial to the preservation of Historical Park resources and which further the interpretive or educational purposes of the Historical Park.
The Secretary could make cooperative agreements with Virginia or other public or private entities to identify, interpret, and help preserve nonfederal resources within the park or close to it. These agreements could provide financial and technical assistance; the authority would not require the Secretary to make an agreement or provide funding.
The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with the Commonwealth or other public or private entities to identify, interpret, and provide financial and technical assistance for the preservation of non-Federal resources within the boundary of the Historical Park and outside of the boundary in close proximity to the Historical Park
Assistance agreements for nonfederal land would have to provide reasonable public access. Exterior changes would require mutual agreement of the other parties to the agreements. The federal share of each activity’s total cost could not exceed 50 percent; fairly valued goods, services, or other noncash contributions could count toward the nonfederal share where appropriate.
(1) any cooperative agreement entered into to provide assistance to non-Federal land shall provide for reasonable public access to the non-Federal land; (2) no changes or alterations shall be made to the exterior of the properties except by mutual agreement of the other parties to the agreements; and (3) the Federal share of the total cost of any activity carried out under the agreement shall be not more than 50 percent, with in-kind contributions or goods or services fairly valued authorized, as appropriate, for the non-Federal share.
The bill would not itself inhibit Virginia from providing for adaptive reuse of the interiors of nonfederally owned historic resources in accordance with the Secretary’s historic-property standards. The supplied text does not establish what other legal requirements would apply.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to inhibit the Commonwealth from providing for the adaptive reuse of the interior of any non-federally owned historic resource in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated February 6, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on February 25, 2025. It does not establish the bill’s status after those recorded actions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-02-06T19:34:06Z. 2025-02-25: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-02-25: Introduced in House 2025-02-25: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-25. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence or attachment history in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending meeting the stated earmark definition was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials. Missing requests, disclosures, and legislative reports prevent a definitive determination of formal earmark status.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The complete supplied introduced text contains a narrow protection warranting scrutiny as special treatment. Classification does not determine whether the treatment is justified.
Section 5(c) would benefit owners of covered buildings or structures by requiring permission to replace square footage lost through loss or authorized demolition within the Fort Monroe National Historic Landmark District. This is a specific rebuilding protection within the park’s preservation framework, conditioned on compliance with the Secretary’s historic-property standards and the cited statute, as applicable. The heading identifies Commonwealth-owned property, although the operative sentence leaves the precise ownership scope uncertain. The referenced standards and statute are not supplied, so their detailed constraints cannot be assessed.
(c) No net loss of commonwealth owned buildings and structures In the event of loss or authorized demolition of buildings or structures within the Fort Monroe National Historic Landmark District, replacement of the square footage from such loss or demolition shall be permitted provided that such construction complies with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and section 306108 of title 54, United States Code (formerly section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), as applicable.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Feb 6, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI