PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Dec 10, 2020
Saguaro National Park Boundary Expansion and Study Act of 2020
This bill modifies the boundary of Saguaro National Park in Arizona by adding approximately 1,232 acres to the park, and it requires the Department of the Interior to conduct a study to identify lands outside the boundaries of the park that may be appropriate for inclusion in the park. The study must be conducted in accordance with criteria of the National Park Service (NPS) for boundary adjustment studies.
Interior may, with the consent of Arizona and in accordance with federal and state law, acquire land or interests therein owned by the state within the boundary of the park.
If Interior is unable to acquire such state land, Interior may enter into an agreement that would allow the NPS to manage such land within the park's boundary.
People & committees
Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-3] · D–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7124)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7124)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 7098.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7124-7125)
Mr. Huffman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 504.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 116-612.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 116-612.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
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: Sep 8, 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.7098 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.7098 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.7098 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.7098 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.