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 36 · Passed House amended · May 23, 2016
Alabama Hills National Scenic Area Establishment Act
(Sec. 3) This bill establishes in Inyo County, California, the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area, comprising approximately 18,610 acres of land.
The Department of the Interior shall manage the Area as a component of the National Landscape Conservation System.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Interior shall allow existing recreational uses of the Area to continue, including hiking, mountain biking, rock climbing, sightseeing, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, and appropriate authorized motorized vehicle use.
The use of motorized vehicles in the Area shall be permitted only on:
roads and trails designated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for use of such vehicles as part of a management plan sustaining a semi-primitive motorized experience, or
on county-maintained roads.
Nothing in this bill creates a protective perimeter or buffer zone around the National Scenic Area.
Interior shall continue to provide private landowners with adequate access to inholdings in the Area.
Livestock grazing already established in the Area, including grazing under the Alabama Hills and the George Creek allotments, shall continue.
The federal land within the area is withdrawn from: (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and (3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing or mineral materials.
Interior may make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements with, state, tribal, and local governmental and private entities to conduct research, interpretation, or public education or to carry out any other initiative related to the restoration, conservation, or management of the Area.
The management plan shall establish plans for maintenance of public utility and other rights of way within the Area.
(Sec. 4) Interior shall develop a comprehensive plan for the long-term management of the Area.
In developing this plan, Interior shall:
consult with appropriate state, tribal, and local governmental entities, including Inyo County and the Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe; and
seek input from investor-owned utilities (including the Southern California Edison Company), the Alabama Hills Stewardship Group, members of the public, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
In developing the management plan, Interior shall allow, in perpetuity, casual-use mining limited to the use of hand tools, metal detectors, hand-fed dry washers, vacuum cleaners, gold pans, small sluices, and similar items.
(Sec. 5) Interior shall take approximately 132 acres of federal land into trust for the benefit of the Lone-Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, which shall be considered part of the Tribe's reservation, excluding a specified right-of-way granted to the City of Los Angeles.
Gaming shall not be allowed on such trust land.
(Sec. 6) The bill transfers administrative jurisdiction of approximately 56 acres of specified federal land from the U.S. Forest Service to the BLM.
(Sec. 7) Valid, existing, commercial permits for guided recreational opportunities for the public may continue.
(Sec. 8) No additional funds are authorized to carry out the requirements of this bill, which shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized.
People & committees
Rep. Cook, Paul [R-CA-8] · R–CA
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 H2892-2893)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2892-2893)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 496.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2892-2894)
Mr. Cook moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 445.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-575.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-575.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs Discharged.
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal 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.496 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.496 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.496 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.496 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.