PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
Protecting Arizona from Federal Land Grabs Act
This bill prohibits any further extension or establishment of national monuments in Arizona except by express authorization of Congress.
People & committees
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5] · R–AZ
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: Oct 22, 2025. 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.104 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.104 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.104 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.104 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 · 2025-01-03 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 add Arizona alongside Wyoming in an existing federal law provision. Its stated subject is limiting the establishment or expansion of national monuments in Arizona. The bill does not reproduce the existing provision, so the precise restrictions affecting monument decisions in Arizona cannot be determined from the supplied text alone.
2. Limitation on extension or establishment of national monuments in Arizona Subsection (d) of section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, is amended— (1) by inserting or Arizona after Wyoming; and (2) by inserting or Arizona after Wyoming.
The proposal is named the Protecting Arizona from Federal Land Grabs Act. Its substantive amendment gives two identical instructions to insert “or Arizona” after “Wyoming” in subsection (d) of section 320301 of title 54 of the United States Code.
1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Protecting Arizona from Federal Land Grabs Act.
Subsection (d) of section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, is amended— (1) by inserting or Arizona after Wyoming; and (2) by inserting or Arizona after Wyoming.
The supplied action snapshot, updated October 22, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on January 3, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-10-22T08:05:50Z. 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-01-03. 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 attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Evidence is limited
The complete introduced text was reviewed, but the statutory language it amends is missing. The amendment instructions alone do not establish the precise treatment needed to assess a narrow exemption or preferential benefit.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 22, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI