PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H6963-6964)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 8, 1993
Amends the Water Quality Act of 1987 to require a minimum capacity rate of 50 million gallons per day for a certain treatment works in San Diego, California. Requires such treatment works to be constructed by December 31, 1995. Directs the United States to negotiate an agreement with the Mexican Government for payment of any increase in construction costs resulting from the construction deadline.
People & committees
Rep. Filner, Bob [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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H6963-6964)
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Public Works + Transportation.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. 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.3020 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.3020 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.3020 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.3020 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.