Latest action: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Allows the International Boundary and Water Commission to accept money for wastewater and flood control projects.
The problem
The International Boundary and Water Commission needs funding flexibility to address wastewater treatment and flood control infrastructure along international boundaries.
The proposal
The bill authorizes the Commission to accept additional funds from various sources for wastewater treatment and flood control work activities.
The impact
Affects communities along U.S. borders, water infrastructure management, and bilateral water cooperation with neighboring countries.
Authorizes funding for critical wastewater and flood control infrastructure along international boundaries. This addresses infrastructure needs in border communities that may lack adequate resources otherwise.
Allows the Commission to accept funds from multiple sources beyond standard government appropriations. This provides more financial flexibility to address urgent water infrastructure problems.
Supports wastewater treatment improvements that protect water quality in shared border regions. Better treatment facilities reduce pollution and improve public health.
Enables investment in flood control works that protect communities from flooding damage. This infrastructure saves lives and prevents economic losses.
The bill doesn't specify what funding sources can provide money or how much. This vagueness could lead to confusion about where funds come from.
Without more details, it's unclear how funds will be tracked or audited. This raises questions about accountability and responsible spending.
Water management involves both countries' interests and sovereignty. Accepting outside funds could create diplomatic issues if not carefully managed.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 7250
To reauthorize the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000.
HR 10602
Ottawa County Environmental Infrastructure Act
HR 10533
Newton County Water Infrastructure Improvement Act
S 2753
Urban Canal Modernization Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.