Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ)
Chiricahua National Park Act
A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Became Public Law No: 119-133.
Became law
Passed both chambers and was signed by the President, or became law without a signature.
Nothing more in Congress: it is law. When it takes effect depends on the dates written into it — some parts start at once, others a year or more later.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- Passed Senate unanimous consent
- To President
- Became Law
No one's position on it was recorded: the House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together), and the Senate by unanimous consent (no one objected, so there was no vote).
What this bill would do
This bill is officially known as the Chiricahua National Park Act. It changes the name of the Chiricahua National Monument in Arizona to the Chiricahua National Park. The boundaries of the new park remain the same as the old monument's boundaries. Any money that was available for the monument will now be available for the park. The Secretary of the Interior is directed to run the park using existing laws and past presidential proclamations.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +8
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Provides explicit protections for cultural/religious sites and guarantees access for tribal members.
- Scored +5
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Redesignates the area as a National Park and mandates the protection of cultural and religious sites.
- Scored +5
Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion?
Ensures the protection and access to traditional religious sites for tribal members.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Traditional Sites: Under Section 3(a), the Secretary of the Interior must ensure the protection of traditional cultural and religious sites within the park, and consult with Indian Tribes for this protection. This is a positive step for respecting and safeguarding indigenous cultural heritage.
-
Access for Indian Tribes: Under Section 3(b), members of Indian Tribes are given access to traditional cultural and religious sites for customary uses. Furthermore, the Secretary may temporarily close specific areas to the general public upon request to protect these traditional and customary uses, ensuring tribes can practice their traditions undisturbed.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Public Access Restrictions: Under Section 3(b)(1)(B), the Secretary may temporarily close specific areas of the national park to general public use upon the request of an Indian Tribe to protect traditional cultural and customary uses. This could be viewed as a negative impact for everyday citizens or tourists who might be blocked from visiting certain parts of the park during these closures.
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 Native Americans be better off under this? — Provides explicit protections for cultural/religious sites and guarantees access for tribal members. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Likely to increase tourism and economic activity in rural Arizona. Would business owners be better off under this? — Potential for increased tourism revenue for local businesses due to National Park status.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Redesignates the area as a National Park and mandates the protection of cultural and religious sites. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Upgrading a monument to a national park generally increases the level of federal protection and management for the land. Does this invest in rural communities? — Redesignation as a National Park may increase tourism and economic activity in the surrounding rural Arizona area.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion? — Ensures the protection and access to traditional religious sites for tribal members. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Protects traditional cultural and religious sites and ensures access for Indian Tribes.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal designation and management authority by redesignating the area as a National Park.
- Public Law (10/21/2026)
The text as it became law
What changed from Enrolled Bill: No change to the wording. Only the printed details that record the bill’s progress, such as the heading and dates, are different.
- Enrolled Bill
The final version, on its way to the President
What changed from Referred in Senate: No change to the wording. Only the printed details that record the bill’s progress, such as the heading and dates, are different.
- 10/20/2026
- Signed by President.
- Became Public Law No: 119-133.
- 10/15/2026
- Presented to President.
- 10/14/2026
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- 9/30/2026
- Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5226)
- 7/29/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- 3/17/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 3/16/2026
- The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2525)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2525)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6380.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2525-2527)
- Mr. Wittman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 3/12/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-543.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 467.
- 3/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/11/2026
- Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
- 12/11/2025
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 12/4/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
- 12/3/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House
4 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Greg StantonDemocrat · Arizona