PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Held at the desk.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 19, 2025
Technical Corrections to the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act, Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, and Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act
This bill authorizes deposits representing unpaid interest into the Navajo Nation Water Resources Development Trust Fund, the Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund, and the Aamodt Settlement Pueblos’ Fund. These funds were established in 2009 and 2010 under certain water rights settlement agreements that did not allow accrual of interest.
People & committees
Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S8692-8693)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8692)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 262.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 119-95.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 119-95.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 18, 2026. 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 S.640 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 S.640 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 S.640 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 S.640 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.