[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 79 (Monday, June 7, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6455-S6456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          GALISTEO BASIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill, S. 
1093, which I introduced on May 20 of this year for the protection of 
various historic sites in the Galisteo Basin in my home State of New 
Mexico. The basin is located in Santa Fe County, NM. As shown on this 
map--it is very hard for anyone to see this map I understand--this is 
Santa Fe and the Galisteo Basin is this area south of Santa Fe where 
the various dots are shown. These dots identify the location of the 
various historical sites that are talked about in the bill. To 
understand the importance of these sites, it is important to understand 
a little history about this basin.
  When the Spanish Conquistadors arrived in New Mexico in 1598, they 
found a thriving native pueblo culture with its own unique traditions, 
its own religion, and its own architecture and art, which was enriched 
and influenced by an extensive system of trade. The subsequent history 
of conflict and coexistence between these two cultures--the pueblo 
Indian culture on the one hand and the Spanish culture--shaped much of 
the language and the art and cultural world view of the people in my 
State today.
  The initial history of cultural interaction in New Mexico encompassed 
a period of a little over 100 years from 1598 through the pueblo revolt 
in 1680 and also the period of recolonization by the Spanish in the 
early 1700s. Among these sites, which are shown on this map and which 
are discussed in the bill, are examples of both the stone and the adobe 
architectural styles which typified Native American pueblo communities 
prior to and during early Spanish colonization, including two of

[[Page S6456]]

the largest of these ancient towns, San Marcos and San Lazaro Pueblos. 
Each of these large towns had thousands of rooms at their peak.
  Also included in these sites are spectacular examples of Native 
American petroglyph art, as well as historic missions which were 
constructed as part of the Spaniards' drive to convert the native 
populace to Catholicism. The 26 archaeological sites addressed in this 
bill provide a cohesive picture of this crucial nexus of New Mexican 
history depicting the culture of the pueblo people and illustrating how 
it was affected by the Spanish settlers.
  Through these sites, we have an opportunity to truly understand the 
simultaneous growth and the coexistence of these two cultures. 
Unfortunately, this is an opportunity we may soon lose. Most of these 
sites are currently not part of any preservation program, and through 
weathering, erosion, vandalism, and amateur excavations, they are 
losing their ability to be interpreted at a later date.
  This legislation creates a program under the Department of the 
Interior to preserve these sites and to provide interpretive research 
in an integrated manner. While many of these sites are on Federal 
public land, many are privately owned, and there are a few on State 
trust lands. The vision behind the legislation is that an integrated 
preservation program at sites on Federal lands could serve as a 
foundation for archaeological research that could be augmented with 
voluntary cooperative agreements with State agencies and with private 
landowners. These agreements will provide landowners with the 
opportunity for technical and financial assistance to preserve the 
sites on their property. Where the parties deem it appropriate, the 
legislation would also allow for the purchase or exchange of property 
to acquire these very valuable sites. With such a program, we should be 
able to preserve the history embodied in these sites for future 
generations.
  I add that this legislation is supported by the Cochiti Pueblo, which 
is culturally and historically tied to these sites. I have received a 
letter from Isaac Herrera, the Governor of Cochiti Pueblo, expressing 
his support and that of the tribal council for the legislation. 
Governor Herrera notes that this tribe has already donated $10,000 to 
the preservation of one of these sites. So this legislation has the 
support of the pueblo. It also has the support of our State land 
commissioner, Ray Powell.
  I conclude by showing some examples from these magnificent sites. The 
first two charts are from the Comanche Gap site. They are outstanding 
examples of petroglyph art, of which we have a lot in our State of New 
Mexico. These are examples of very intricate work that has been done by 
the pueblo Indians on the rock formations.
  The next three charts are of the various pueblo sites. The first is 
Pueblo Blanco. As you can see, the drywash at the top of this picture 
and the road at the bottom are the types of erosion threats which I 
mentioned earlier.
  The next picture is Arroyo Hondo. Again, you have a drywash at the 
top. This is probably the most extensively excavated of the various 
sites. The School of American Research in Santa Fe has done a 
tremendous amount of work to try to interpret and understand this site.
  Finally is the Pueblo of Colorado which, once again, shows the threat 
of erosion from the drywashes above the site.
  So these are examples of what we are trying to preserve through this 
legislation.
  I did have a chance this Saturday--2 days ago--to visit the San 
Marcos site and saw the damage that is being done there by erosion. I 
also saw the value of preserving the site to show where the Spanish 
conquistadors came in and built a church right on a part of that 
pueblo. Trying to understand the interaction of the two cultures at 
that site is a very worthwhile endeavor.
  I also particularly thank Jessica Schultz who has been an intern in 
my office this past year. She has done yeoman work providing research 
for the bill and helping to get the bill drafted.
  I feel strongly that it will be a major contribution if we can pass 
this legislation and make it law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill that I referred to 
be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The bill (S. 1093) is printed in the Congressional Record of 
Thursday, May 20, 1999.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________