PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large] · D–DC
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 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E120)
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 2, 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.1265 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.1265 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.1265 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.1265 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-12 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would add states to two lists in the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act’s wastewater infrastructure and trash-free waters grant provisions. The supplied text shows the additions but does not reproduce the existing law, so it does not establish all eligibility rules or exactly how states could participate.
1. Wastewater infrastructure and trash-free waters grants Section 302 of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act (33 U.S.C. 4282) is amended— (1) in subsection (c)(1)— (A) by inserting States, before municipalities; and (B) by inserting a comma before or Indian Tribes; and (2) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting States, before units of local government.
In section 302(c)(1), the bill would insert “States,” before “municipalities” and add a comma before “or Indian Tribes.”
(1) in subsection (c)(1)— (A) by inserting States, before municipalities; and (B) by inserting a comma before or Indian Tribes;
In section 302(d)(1), the bill would insert “States,” before “units of local government.”
(2) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting States, before units of local government.
The supplied May 2, 2025 snapshot records introduction and referral to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on February 12, 2025, followed by referral to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment on April 1, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-02T13:58:50Z. 2025-04-01: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 2025-02-12: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2025-02-12: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-12. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; earmark disclosures and accompanying committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Broad participation changes alone do not warrant a finding. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 2, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI