PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 29, 2003
Declares the right, title, and interest of the United States in certain tracts of land in Rio Arriba County, 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.Recognizes 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 the trust lands. Prohibits any existing right or claim of either Pueblo to any lands or interest in lands based upon Aboriginal or Indian title from being affected by this Act.Subjects the trust lands 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 constitute the reservation of water or water rights in the trust lands or any change in status of water rights of either Pueblo.
People & committees
Rep. Udall, Tom [D-NM-3] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.507 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.507 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.507 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.507 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.