Congress Swing TrackerLegislative intelligence Swing vote analysis

H.R. 1948: To authorize the International Boundary and Water Commission to accept funds for activities relating to wastewater treatment and flood control works, and for other purposes. · Congress Swing Tracker

H.R. 1948119th CongressWater Resources Development

To authorize the International Boundary and Water Commission to accept funds for activities relating to wastewater treatment and flood control works, and for other purposes.

Sponsored by Rep. Scott H. Peters (D-CA) · 10 active : 4 Republicans, 6 Democrats

Latest action: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Read the summary

Where it standsPassed House, now in the Senate

Passed House

House: passedJun 9, 2025
Senate: next
President: not yet

9 senators score as swing votes

Summary

, via Congress.gov

Summary on Congress.gov

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.

Read full summary

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

Committees and subjects

Committees

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure · HouseReported by · Markup by · Discharged from · Referred to
Water Resources and Environment · HouseReferred to
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations · SenateReferred to

Subjects

Floods and storm protection
Latin America
Mexico
Water quality
Water resources funding

Senate · 100 House · 433

Model

v3defaultv2

Directional: count only breaks toward the other party Why do scores change?

How the House breaks down

44Swing 70–100
200Middle 30–70
187Entrenched 0–30
2Insufficient data not ranked

Members fall into . 2 representatives don’t have enough data yet and are marked “insufficient data”. Non-voting delegates are not counted. The bill is not before the House right now; these scores show where members would stand.

Key players in the House

Ranked by swing score, 0–100 · swing-v2, directional

: only movement toward the other party counts, so members who sit further from the center than their party no longer score as swing votes.

Bars show each input from 0 to 100: ideology gap, scorecard gap, . is the seat’s partisan lean, and shows how much of the input data a score has.

Similar past votes, House

Earlier behind swing-v3’s input

Not applicable in the House. There is not enough similar voting history (weight 0.5 of 5.0 needed), so this input is left out of the score rather than counted as missing.

H.R. 131 · Jan 8, 2026 · Roll call 369Passage, Objections of the President To The Contrary NotwithstandingFinish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act
FailedSame policy area×0.5

Cosponsors

10 active

Show all 10 cosponsors

Dan Crenshaw (R-TX-2)
Derrick Van Orden (R-WI-3)
Jake Ellzey (R-TX-6)
Joaquin Castro (D-TX-20)
Juan Vargas (D-CA-52)
Mike Levin (D-CA-49)
Ryan K. Zinke (R-MT-1)
Sara Jacobs (D-CA-51)
Veronica Escobar (D-TX-16)
Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX-34)

How the swing score works

Ideology gapHow far a member’s DW-NOMINATE voting score sits from their party’s median in the same chamber.

Scorecard gapHow far their Heritage Action and LCV ratings stray from their party’s average, using the groups’ votes on similar bills where available.

Cross-pressureHow strongly their district or state leans toward the other party, from our own computed partisan lean.

Similar votesHow often they voted against their own party on earlier roll calls about this bill or similar ones.

Committee bonusMembers of the committees handling the bill decide whether it moves, so they get a boost.

Cosponsor checkThe sponsor and active cosponsors have already committed, so they drop toward entrenched.