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. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5] · R–WI
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: May 20, 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.J.Res.39 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.39 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.39 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.39 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 · 2025-02-11 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 would cancel a Federal Trade Commission rule concerning notices before mergers, reporting requirements, and waiting periods. If enacted, it would make that rule have no force or effect. The supplied resolution does not describe the rule’s requirements or identify who must comply with them.
That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Trade Commission relating to Premerger Notification; Reporting and Waiting Period Requirements (89 Fed. Reg. 89216; published November 12, 2024), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The proposed disapproval applies specifically to the rule published November 12, 2024, at volume 89, page 89216 of the Federal Register, the federal government’s publication for rules and notices.
the rule submitted by the Federal Trade Commission relating to Premerger Notification; Reporting and Waiting Period Requirements (89 Fed. Reg. 89216; published November 12, 2024)
The source snapshot updated May 20, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on February 11, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-20T08:05:36Z. 2025-02-11: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-11: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-11. 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 does not cover other versions or accompanying earmark disclosures or reports.
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. This conclusion is limited to that version; the underlying rule is not supplied.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 20, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI