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. Barrett, Tom [R-MI-7] · R–MI
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.159 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.159 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.159 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.159 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 · 2026-04-22 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 resolution proposes a constitutional amendment limiting how long future laws authorizing U.S. military force abroad could remain effective. When no congressional declaration of war is in effect for the authorization, the law would expire after five years or sooner if it sets an earlier end date. The amendment would require ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years of submission.
which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification
An Act of Congress enacted after the date of the ratification of this article that authorizes the use of military force by the United States outside of the United States, and with respect to which there is not in effect a declaration of war enacted by Congress, shall cease to have effect on the earlier of the date that is five years after the date of the enactment of such Act or the date of termination of such authorization provided for in such Act.
This is a proposed change to the Constitution, not an ordinary statute. Its seven-year ratification deadline would run from submission for ratification, rather than from introduction in Congress.
the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification
The proposed limit would apply to congressional laws enacted after ratification that authorize U.S. military force outside the United States. It would not apply to laws enacted before ratification.
An Act of Congress enacted after the date of the ratification of this article that authorizes the use of military force by the United States outside of the United States
The expiration rule would apply only when no declaration of war enacted by Congress is in effect with respect to the covered law.
and with respect to which there is not in effect a declaration of war enacted by Congress
A covered law would cease to have effect five years after enactment, or on an earlier termination date specified for its military-force authorization. The text directs the Act of Congress itself to cease having effect.
shall cease to have effect on the earlier of the date that is five years after the date of the enactment of such Act or the date of termination of such authorization provided for in such Act.
The official-actions snapshot updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on April 22, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:20:10Z. 2026-04-22: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-04-22: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-04-22. 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 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; accompanying earmark materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential treatment or special beneficiary carve-out 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.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI