PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 16, 1999
Tijuana River Valley Estuary and Beach 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) to provide for: (1) secondary treatment of effluent from the IWTP if such treatment is not provided for at a U.S. facility; and (2) primary and secondary treatment of up to 50 million gallons per day of additional sewage from the Tijuana area to ensure that untreated sewage will not flow into the United States through the Tijuana River. 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. Requires the new or modified Treaty Minute to be subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Bilbray, Brian P. [R-CA-49] · R–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 Environment and Public Works.
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 H7470-7471)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7470-7471)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3378.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7470-7475)
Mr. LaTourette moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 499.
Committee on International Relations discharged.
Committee on International Relations discharged.
House Committee on International Relations Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Sept. 12, 2000.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 106-842, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 106-842, Part I.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) 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 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: Sep 8, 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.3378 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.3378 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.3378 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.3378 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.