HR 5573 [called a bill To Establish the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area in the State of California and for other purposes"] introduced by Paul Cook, is on its face an environmentally friendly bill--but like so many of Cook's votes, closer scrutiny suggests something else is afoot.
What are the "OTHER PURPOSES"?
Why does he have no co-sponsors?
Putting aside the fact the bill won't pass in this session
due to it being introduced so late by Paul Cook is question of why HR 5573 was not
referred to the second of the two required committees as set forth in the language of HR 5573?
The OTHER required
committee H5573 has to go through is the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. This apparently "green" bill under section 2 "m" sets into
stone mining and mineral rights previously deemed "valid" and any mining
or mineral rights claimed and deemed "valid" BEFORE the law gets enacted.
with this bill, the rush could be on to expeditiously start mining and mineral
extraction in the Alabama's. It in effect appears to give mining and mineral extraction folks a period within which to develop the very sort of burden on the resource the average person would think the bill prevents.
This bill is not going to pass until
Cook's mining and or mineral buds get their operations underway and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources gives its blessing. This
bill bombproofs those late appearing mineral and mining interest and gives them a way to come in and avoid environmental agency stoppage, even if it's in the
middle of the Scenic area. The very fact HR 5573 was NOT referred to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources yet shows that Cook's
mining and mineral extraction buds haven't gotten their operations
Stay tuned for the unfolding of the deception.