The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS--MARCH 14, 2002” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S2008-S2009 on March 18, 2002.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS--MARCH 14, 2002
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2018. A bill to establish the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area within the Cibola National Forest in the State of New Mexico to resolve a land claim involving the Sandia Mountain Wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; jointly, pursuant to the order of March 14, 2002, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have twenty calendar days, excluding any period where the Senate is not in session for more that three days, to report or be discharged.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that would create a unique area within the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico, entitled the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area. The importance of this bill cannot be overstated. It would resolve, through a negotiated agreement, the Pueblo of Sandia's land claim to Sandia Moutain, an area of significant value and use to all New Mexicans. The bill would also maintain full public ownership and access to the National Forest and Sandia Mountain Wilderness lands within the Pueblo's claim area; clear title for affected homeowners; and grant the necessary rights-of-way and easements to protect private property interests and the public's ongoing use of the Area.
The need for this bill and the basis for Sandia Pueblo's claim arise from a 1748 grant to the Pueblo from a representative of the King of Spain. That grant was recognized and confirmed by Congress in 1858, 11 Stat. 374). There remains, however, a dispute over the location of the eastern boundary of the Pueblo that stems from an 1859 survey of the grant. That survey fixed the eastern boundary roughly along the top of a foothill on the western slope of the mountain, rather than along the true crest of the mountain. The Pueblo has contended that the interpretation of the grant, and thus the survey and subsequent patent, are erroneous, and that the true eastern boundary is the crest of the mountain.
In the early 1980's, the Pueblo approached the Department of the Interior seeking a resurvey of the grant to locate the eastern boundary of the Pueblo along the main ridge of Sandia Mountain. In December 1988, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued an opinion rejecting the Pueblo's claim. The Pueblo challenged the opinion in federal district court and in 1998, the court issued on Order setting aside the 1988 opinion and remanding the matter to Interior for forther proceedings. Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt, Civ. No. 94-2624, D.D.C., July 18, 1998. The Order was appealed but appellate proceedings were stayed for more than a year while a settlement was being negotiated. Ultimately, on April 4, 2000, a settlement agreement was executed between the United States, Pueblo, and the Sandia Peak Tram Company. That agreement was conditioned on congressional ratification, but remains effective until November 15, 2002.
In November, 2000, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the District Court's action was not a final appealable decision. Upon dismissal, the Department of the Interior proceeded with its reconsideration of the 1988 Solicitor's opinion in accord with the 1998 Order of the District Court. On January 19, 2001, the Solicitor issued a new opinion that concluded that the 1859 survey of the Sandia Pueblo grant was erroneous and that a resurvey should be conducted. Implementation of the opinion would therefore remove the area from its National Forest status and convey it to the Pueblo. The Department stayed the resurvey, however, until after November 15, 2002, so that there would be time for Congress to legislate the settlement and make it permanent.
To state the obvious, this is a very complicated situation. The area that is the subject of the Pueblo's claim has been used by the Pueblo and its members for centuries and is of great significance to the Pueblo for traditional and cultural reasons. The Pueblo strongly desires that the wilderness character of the area continue to be preserved and its use by the Pueblo protected. Notwithstanding that interest and use, the Federal Government has administered the claim area as a unit of the National Forest system for most of the last century and over the years has issued patents for several hundred acres of land within the area to persons who had no notice of the Pueblo's claim. As a result, there are now several subdivisions within the external boundaries of the area, and although the Pueblo's lawsuit specifically disclaimed any title or interest in privately-owned lands, the residents of the subdivisions have concerns that the claim and its associated litigation have resulted in hardships by clouding titles to land. Finally, as a unit of the National forest system, the areas has great significance to the public and in particular, the people in the State of New Mexico, including the residents of the Counties of Bernalillo and Sandoval and the City of Albuquerque, who use the claim area for recreational and other purposes and who desire that the public use and natural character of the area be preserved.
Because of the complexity of the situation, including the significant and overlapping interests just mentioned, Congress has not yet acted in this matter. In particular, concerns about the settlement were expressed by parties who did not participate in the final stages of the negotiations. I have worked with those parties to address their concerns while still trying to maintain the benefits secured by the parties in the Settlement Agreement. I believe the legislation that I have introduced today is a fair compromise. It provides the Pueblo specific rights and interests in the area that help to resolve its claim with finality but also, as noted earlier, maintains full public ownership and access to the National Forest system lands. In that sense, using the term ``Trust'' in the title recognizes those specific interests but does not confer the same status that exists when the Secretary of the Interior accepts title to land in trust on behalf of an Indian tribe.
Most importantly, the bill I am introducing today relies on a settlement as the basis for resolving this claim. Although other approaches have been circulated, this bill is the only one with the potential to secure a consensus of the interested parties. Not only is a negotiated settlement the appropriate manner by which to resolve the Pueblo's claim, it also allows for a solution that fits the unique circumstances of this situation. To my knowledge, Sandia Pueblo's claim is the only Indian land claim that exists where the tribe may effectively recover ownership of federal land without an Act of Congress. Nonetheless, the parties have negotiated a creative arrangement to address the Pueblo's interest, protect private property, and still maintain public ownership of the land. That is to be commended and I am proud to introduce this legislation to preserve the substance of that arrangement.
____________________
