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. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5] · R–CA
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: Jul 18, 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.99 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.99 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.99 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.99 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 · 2025-06-06 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 resolution proposes a constitutional amendment requiring agreement from two-thirds of each chamber of Congress to admit a new state. It would affect future admissions to the United States. The proposal would become part of the Constitution only after ratification—formal approval—by three-fourths of state legislatures.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union upon the Concurrence of two thirds of each House.
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
The proposed amendment would allow, but would not require, Congress to admit new states with two-thirds agreement in each chamber separately.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union upon the Concurrence of two thirds of each House.
The resolution proposes a constitutional amendment, rather than an ordinary statute. Its stated condition for becoming part of the Constitution is ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
That 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
The official-actions snapshot updated July 18, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 6, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-07-18T13:09:03Z. 2025-06-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-06-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-06-06. 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 appropriations policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text dated June 6, 2025. This conclusion does not cover 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 dated June 6, 2025. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials; earmark disclosures and committee reports were not supplied.
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 dated June 6, 2025. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 18, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI