PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee Indian and Alaska Native Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 18, 2014
Establishes the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area, comprised of approximately 18,610 acres of land in Inyo County, California. Declares that the purpose of the Area is to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of present and future generations the nationally significant scenic, cultural, recreational, geological, educational, biological, historical, cinematographic, and scientific resources of the Area managed consistent with the multiple use principles defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) manage the Area as a component of the National Landscape Conservation System, (2) allow existing recreational uses of the Area to continue except as the Secretary otherwise determines to be necessary for public health and safety, (3) permit the use of motorized vehicles in the Area only on roads and trails designated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as part of a management plan promoting a semi-primitive motorized experience or on county-maintained roads in accordance with applicable state and county laws, and (4) develop a comprehensive plan for the Area's long-term management.
Permits the Secretary to acquire non-federal land within the Area only through exchange, donation, or purchase from a willing seller. Withdraws the federal land within the Area from all forms of: (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.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to take approximately 132 acres of federal land into trust for the benefit of the Lone-Pine Paiute Shoshone Tribe, excluding a specified right-of-way granted to the City of Los Angeles. Prohibits gaming on such land.
Transfers administrative jurisdiction of approximately 40 acres of specified federal land from the U.S. Forest Service to BLM.
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.
Referred to the Subcommittee Indian and Alaska Native Affairs.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
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.5573 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.5573 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.5573 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.5573 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.