PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 19, 2010
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3254) to approve the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement, and for other purposes; for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3342) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to develop water infrastructure in the Rio Grande Basin, and to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque; and for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1065) to resolve water rights claims of the White Mountain Apache Tribe in the State of Arizona.
People & committees
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-3] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H206-207)
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H206-207)
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 239 - 175 (Roll no. 9). (consideration: CR H210, H229-230)
House roll call 9 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H229-230)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.Res. 1017, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of ordering the previous question until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 1017.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H206-211)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 149.
Each bill is allowed 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered, in each instance, without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measures will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order, in each instance. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, in each instance,
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-399, by Mr. McGovern.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-399, by Mr. McGovern.
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.Res.1017 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.Res.1017 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.Res.1017 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.Res.1017 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.