A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Public Access Protection Act," directs the Secretary of the Army regarding Corps of Engineers water resources development projects. It requires that any final recommendation for such a project include a plan to maintain equivalent access to existing public recreational amenities. The goal is to protect spaces like parks, trails, and green spaces during construction. The Secretary must review how projects might impact facilities used for hiking, biking, walking, or waterborne recreation. By doing so, the bill aims to ensure people do not lose their recreational opportunities while projects are underway.
Yes· 3 of 24
- Scored +1
Would children be better off under this?
The bill preserves access to parks and green spaces essential for child development and recreation.
- Scored +1
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
The bill ensures continued access to recreational amenities like hiking and biking trails.
- Scored +1
Would people in middle age be better off under this?
The bill helps maintain public access to outdoor recreational opportunities.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Maintenance of Recreational Opportunities: The bill requires a plan to maintain an equivalent level of access to public amenities during construction, which protects people's ability to use parks, trails, and green spaces (Section 3).
-
Proactive Impact Review: The Secretary is tasked with reviewing how a project might affect existing facilities for activities like hiking, biking, walking, and waterborne recreation (Section 3).
-
Reduction of Disruptions: The sense of Congress suggests that the Secretary should minimize temporary disruptions through better project planning and coordination with communities (Section 2).
-
Provision of Alternatives: The bill suggests that where necessary, alternative public access should be provided to ensure continued recreational opportunities during the construction period (Section 2).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are explicitly stated in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill protects access to public parks and green spaces. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The bill protects access to public parks and green spaces. Would children be better off under this? — The bill preserves access to parks and green spaces essential for child development and recreation. Would high-income households be better off under this? — The bill preserves public recreational amenities used by all citizens. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill protects access to public parks and green spaces. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill protects the availability of public recreational resources. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The bill protects access to public social and recreational spaces. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill protects free public recreational spaces which are vital for low-income families. Would men be better off under this? — The bill maintains access to public recreational facilities. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — The bill helps maintain public access to outdoor recreational opportunities. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill ensures the continuity of public recreational amenities and green spaces. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill protects access to public open spaces and waterborne recreation. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill requires planning to maintain access to amenities, which is essential for accessibility. Would retired people be better off under this? — The bill maintains access to walking and waterborne recreational amenities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill protects access to waterborne and outdoor recreational spaces. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The bill protects access to walking and recreational amenities used by older populations. Would students be better off under this? — The bill preserves public green spaces and recreational areas. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill protects access to vital urban green spaces and recreational amenities. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill ensures continued access to outdoor recreational amenities. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The bill protects access to public parks and green spaces. Would women be better off under this? — The bill maintains access to public recreational facilities. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The bill ensures continued access to recreational amenities like hiking and biking trails.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport? — The bill encourages better planning for public amenities like trails and walkways used for non-motorized transit.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The bill protects public open spaces and recreational amenities which can support community well-being.
- 6/18/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- Introduced in House