PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 6, 2025
This bill authorizes the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico (USIBWC) to accept funds to study, design, construct, operate, or maintain wastewater treatment works, water conservation projects, or flood control works, and related structures. The USIBWC is a federal government agency and the U.S. component of the International Boundary and Water Commission, which applies the boundary and water treaties of the United States and Mexico and settles differences that may arise in their application.
The USIBWC may not provide credit towards the nonfederal share of project costs, or reimbursement, to nonfederal entities in an amount that exceeds $5 million in any fiscal year.
Further, the USIBWC may not accept funds from any nonfederal entity that (1) is domiciled in, headquartered in, or organized under the laws of a foreign country of concern (e.g., China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran); or (2) has in place any agreement with a foreign country of concern.
Any funds accepted by the USIBWC must be deposited into the account titled International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico.
People & committees
Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2555)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2555)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1948.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2555-2556)
Mr. Ezell moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 108.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-139.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-139.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Discharged
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 13, 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 H.R.1948 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.1948 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.1948 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.1948 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.