PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.J.Res.40 / 119th Congress

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Defense relating to "Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program".

Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 12, 2025

This joint resolution nullifies the Department of Defense (DOD) rule titled Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program (89 Fed. Reg. 83092) and published on October 15, 2024. Among other elements, the rule establishes the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Program. The program institutes policies regarding the protection of Federal Contract Information (FCI) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) that is processed, stored, or transmitted on defense contractor and subcontractor information systems during defense contract performance. The rule also identifies entities to which the rule applies and describes DOD implementation of the program.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

Who introduced it

Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9] · R–GA

Committees

  • Armed Services Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

    2. Introduced in House

    3. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

    Source last updated: Jun 13, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    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.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.J.Res.40 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.J.Res.40 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.J.Res.40 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.J.Res.40 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.

    View full prompt & sources

    Read the proposal in plain language

    AI-generated · Source-checked by AI · Oct 20, 2026

    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.

    What it would do

    This resolution proposes canceling a Department of Defense rule on cybersecurity certification. If enacted, it would leave that rule with no legal force or effect.

    Check the source
    That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Defense relating to Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program (89 Fed. Reg. 83092 (October 15, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
    Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2025-02-12

    How it would work

    The proposed cancellation targets the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program rule identified as published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2024, at volume 89, page 83092.

    Check the source
    the rule submitted by the Department of Defense relating to Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program (89 Fed. Reg. 83092 (October 15, 2024))
    Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2025-02-12

    What the record shows

    The supplied June 13, 2025 source snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Armed Services on February 12, 2025.

    Check the source
    Source snapshot updated 2025-06-13T18:51:07Z. 2025-02-12: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 2025-02-12: Introduced in House
    Official legislative record · 2025-06-13T18:51:07Z

    Riders & Targeted Benefits

    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.

    Riders

    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 complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.

    Earmarks

    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 establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.

    Other targeted benefits

    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 referenced rule and accompanying materials are not supplied.

    What this analysis cannot establish

    • The referenced rule is not supplied. The evidence does not explain its requirements, who must comply, its exceptions, or how canceling it would affect particular people or organizations.
    • The introduced resolution specifies no separate implementation date or administrative process.
    • The supplied actions snapshot does not establish passage or enactment. Its lack of later actions does not prove that the resolution never advanced or became law.

    Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jun 13, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI