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
Rep. McClellan, Jennifer L. [D-VA-4] · D–VA
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 Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 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: Oct 4, 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.1938 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.1938 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.1938 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.1938 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 · 2025-03-06 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 bill would require the Defense Department to ask permitting authorities to update stormwater permits or management plans for its facilities. The requested changes would require testing discharges for PFAS—a group of chemicals—at least quarterly and measures to reduce those discharges. It would also reserve at least 1 percent of the department’s annual PFAS remediation funds for testing stormwater runoff.
the Secretary of Defense shall, with respect to each permit under section 402(p) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(p)) that applies to a Department of Defense facility, request from the State that issued the permit, or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as applicable, approval of a modification to such permit, or a revision to an applicable stormwater management plan
(1) monitoring of discharges of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances not less frequently than quarterly; and (2) implementation of appropriate best management practices or control technologies to reduce such discharges consistent with the requirements of such Act.
Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act, or otherwise made available to the Secretary in each fiscal year, for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances remediation efforts, not less than 1 percent shall be obligated or expended annually for testing for such substances in stormwater runoff at Department of Defense facilities.
Within one year after enactment, the Secretary of Defense would have to request approval for changes covering each Defense Department facility permit issued under the cited stormwater provision of federal water-pollution law. Requests would go to the issuing state or the Environmental Protection Agency, as applicable. This deadline governs the request; the bill does not set a deadline for approval.
Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, with respect to each permit under section 402(p) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(p)) that applies to a Department of Defense facility, request from the State that issued the permit, or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as applicable, approval of a modification to such permit, or a revision to an applicable stormwater management plan
The requested permit or management-plan changes would require monitoring discharges of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called PFAS, at least once each quarter.
approval of a modification to such permit, or a revision to an applicable stormwater management plan, to require— (1) monitoring of discharges of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances not less frequently than quarterly
The requested changes would also require appropriate operating practices or pollution-control technologies to reduce PFAS discharges, consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The bill does not specify a numerical discharge limit or a particular technology.
each permit under section 402(p) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(p))
(2) implementation of appropriate best management practices or control technologies to reduce such discharges consistent with the requirements of such Act.
Each year, at least 1 percent of the covered PFAS remediation funds would have to be legally committed or spent on testing stormwater runoff at Defense Department facilities. The percentage applies to PFAS remediation funds authorized by this bill or otherwise made available to the Secretary, rather than to the entire defense budget. The provision sets no fixed dollar amount or ending date.
(b) Funding Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act, or otherwise made available to the Secretary in each fiscal year, for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances remediation efforts, not less than 1 percent shall be obligated or expended annually for testing for such substances in stormwater runoff at Department of Defense facilities.
The supplied action snapshot, updated October 4, 2025, records introduction in the House on March 6, 2025, and referrals that day to the Armed Services and Transportation and Infrastructure committees and the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. These entries do not establish enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2025-10-04T08:05:48Z. 2025-03-06: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 2025-03-06: Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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.
2025-03-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-06. 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 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 a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. A program-wide funding allocation is not automatically an earmark; this conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit, special exemption or carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 4, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI