PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 10, 1999
United States-Mexico Border Sewage Cleanup Act of 1999 - Authorizes the U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, subject to the negotiation and conclusion of a new Treaty Minute pursuant to the Treaty for the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande or the amendment of Treaty Minute 283, to provide for the secondary treatment of effluent from the Advanced Primary Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTP) in Mexico.Permits the Commission to enter into a fee-for-services contract with the owner of the Mexican Facility (proposed wastewater treatment facility to be constructed within Mexico for treating sewage flows generated within Mexico, which flows impact U.S. and Mexican surface waters, health, and safety). Sets forth contract requirements.Requests the Secretary of State to give the highest priority to the negotiation and execution of a new Treaty Minute or a modification of Treaty Minute 283 in order that the other provisions of this Act to address river and ocean pollution in the San Diego U.S.-Mexico border region may be implemented as soon as possible. Requests the Secretary to initiate such negotiations with Mexico.Limits the amount of grants that may be made for the construction of certain treatment works in San Diego, California, pursuant to the Water Quality Act of 1987. Makes such limitation inapplicable if the Governments of the United States and Mexico enter into a new Treaty Minute or a renegotiation of Treaty Minute 283 pursuant to this Act.Authorizes appropriations.
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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Aug 20, 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.R.3310 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.3310 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.3310 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.3310 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.