PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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: Sep 19, 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.J.Res.158 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.J.Res.158 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.J.Res.158 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.J.Res.158 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 · 2026-04-21 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 express Congress’s support for states offering temporary sales-tax relief to veterans around Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day. Its introductory statements describe voluntary, three-day tax holidays and also discuss military families and serving personnel. The operative text encourages states to act; it does not itself establish a tax holiday or require states to participate.
That it is the sense of Congress to encourage States to establish Veterans Tax Relief that coincide with Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day, providing a practical way for communities across the country to recognize the service of America’s veterans by providing financial relief to them.
Whereas a State may elect to establish three-day sales tax holidays, for veterans and military families, that coincide with Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day, national holidays that honor military service;
Whereas participation by States would be voluntary, preserving State authority over tax policy;
Whereas eligible participants would include veterans, members of the Armed Forces on active duty, Reserves, and members of the National Guard;
The introductory statements describe three-day sales-tax holidays coinciding with each of the three named national holidays. They frame these occasions as recognition of military service.
Whereas a State may elect to establish three-day sales tax holidays, for veterans and military families, that coincide with Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day, national holidays that honor military service;
The introductory statements name veterans, active-duty military personnel, reservists, and National Guard members as eligible participants. They also describe the proposed holidays as being for military families.
Whereas eligible participants would include veterans, members of the Armed Forces on active duty, Reserves, and members of the National Guard;
Whereas a State may elect to establish three-day sales tax holidays, for veterans and military families, that coincide with Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day, national holidays that honor military service;
A sales-tax holiday is described here as temporary relief from state sales taxes on consumer purchases. The resolution presents financial relief and recognition of military service as its intended purposes.
Whereas such tax holidays would provide temporary relief from State sales taxes on consumer purchases;
Whereas such establishment would provide practical financial relief to veterans and military families while creating three annual national moments for Americans to recognize the service and sacrifice of those who defend the country;
The introductory statements say that establishing a state sales-tax holiday would not require new federal spending. This is a statement about the proposal, rather than an appropriation of federal money.
Whereas establishment of a State sales tax holiday does not require new Federal spending;
That it is the sense of Congress to encourage States to establish Veterans Tax Relief that coincide with Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day, providing a practical way for communities across the country to recognize the service of America’s veterans by providing financial relief to them.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on April 21, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:18:50Z. 2026-04-21: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-04-21: Introduced in House 2026-04-21: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-04-21. 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 change attached to appropriations was identified in the supplied introduced full text. This conclusion does not extend to 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 supplied introduced full text. This conclusion does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying disclosure and committee materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out or preferential exception beyond coverage of the proposal’s broad intended beneficiary population was identified in the supplied introduced full text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not extend to accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI