PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 28, 2021
Marine Access and State Transparency or the MAST Act
This bill requires the President, before a national monument may be designated on public land, to obtain congressional approval and certify compliance with environmental review requirements.
The bill bars the President from declaring any area of the exclusive economic zone to be a national monument unless
such a declaration is specifically authorized by statute,
the President has submitted a proposal to make the declaration to the governor of each state or territory located within 200 nautical miles of that area,
each governor submits to the President a notice that the legislature of that state or territory has approved the proposal, and
the declaration is substantially the same as the proposal.
The bill prohibits the Department of the Interior or the Department of Commerce, with respect to any area of the exclusive economic zone that is designated as a national monument, from implementing any restrictions on the public use of such a national monument until the expiration of an appropriate review period providing for public input and congressional approval.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 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.629 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.629 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.629 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.629 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.