S. 246 · 108th Congress · enacted
A bill to provide that certain Bureau of Land Management land shall be held in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the State of New Mexico.
Became Public Law No: 108-66.
Latest official action 2003-07-30 · Enacted
The bill, briefly
Declares the right, title, and interest of the United States in certain tracts of land in Rio Arriba County and in Rio Arriba and Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico, to be held in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, respectively (including mineral rights). Directs the Office of Cadastral Survey to conduct a survey of the boundary lines between the properties. Declares the lands held in trust to be part of the Santa Clara Indian Reservation and the San Ildefonso Indian Reservation and directs that they be administered in accordance with any law (including regulations) or court order generally applicable to property held by the U.S. Government in trust for Indian tribes. Subjects the trust lands and other lands in the Santa Clara Pueblo Grant and the San Ildefonso Pueblo Grant that are held by the respective tribes or subsequently acquired by them to the Pueblo Lands Act of 1924. Requires trust lands to be used only for traditional or customary uses or stewardship conservation. Prohibits this Act from being construed to: (1) affect any person's (other than the United States') existing right-of-way, lease, permit, mining claim, grazing permit, water right, or other right or interest in or to the trust lands; (2) affect any existing right or claim of either Pueblo to any lands or interest in lands based upon Aboriginal or Indian title; or (3) constitute …
Congressional Research Service · 2003-01-29
Who reported lobbying on this bill?
Amount spent specifically on this bill: not disclosed
The reports below name this bill and disclose an organization’s overall lobbying expenses or a firm’s client income for the period. They can cover many bills and issues. These amounts are not payments to the bill or its politicians.
No matching lobbying report is imported yet. This is not evidence that no lobbying occurred.
2,409 latest lobbying reports imported. Some source imports are still in progress.
Politicians behind the bill
Sponsors and cosponsors from the official source, limited to members currently in office. Campaign amounts are cycle-wide and are not payments for this bill.
No current-officeholder sponsorship match is available. Historical sponsors may have left office.
1 of 1 source cosponsor records retrieved; only current officials and unwithdrawn sponsorships appear.
PAC donors to the listed sponsors
These are all-cycle contributions to the listed sponsors’ and cosponsors’ campaigns. FEC does not attribute them to this bill. A donation plus sponsorship does not establish why a politician acted.
The largest 40 donor totals appear here. Open each politician for their complete, paginated PAC donor list.
What happened after enactment?
Dated agency-reported implementation and uptake measures are shown with their scope. They do not by themselves establish causal success. If no evidence is listed, the outcome is not established.
Measured outcome: not established
Enactment alone does not show whether a law improved its intended outcome. We need a dated evaluation, observed result or verified implementation record before claiming success or failure.