Source: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R40879.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-20 14:09:41
Document Index: 548702834

Matched Legal Cases: ['§864', '§1875', '§7', '§825', '§6', '§1861', '§2']

Resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis of Their Use in the House, 1947-2017 - EveryCRSReport.com
October 29, 2009 – November 9, 2017 R40879
Between 1947 and October 20, 2017, 313 resolutions of inquiry were submitted in the House of Representatives. Two periods in particular, 1971-1975 and 2003-2006, saw the highest levels of activity on resolutions of inquiry during the 70 years studied. Early evidence suggests that the House may be entering another period of heightened activity on resolutions of inquiry: The number of such resolutions submitted thus far in the 115th Congress (2017-2018) already exceeds the number introduced in the previous three Congresses combined.
Although nearly every standing House committee has been referred at least one resolution of inquiry during the post-World War II period, the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and the Judiciary have received the largest share of references because the most commonly sought information has related to matters of defense, foreign relations, and intelligence. Most resolutions of inquiry are directed to the President himself, but other executive branch officials have been the subject of such information requests as well.
Just over half of the resolutions of inquiry introduced between 1947 and October 20, 2017, were reported by the House committee to which they were referred—in most cases adversely, indicating that the committee opposed the resolution. This opposition might be because the resolution had been made moot by the executive branch complying in whole or in part with the request, or because such a request would, in the view of the committee, compromise an ongoing investigation, endanger sensitive information, or seek already-available information. Approximately one-fifth of the resolutions of inquiry introduced during the period studied received House floor action, the last one in 1995.
November 9, 2017 (R40879)
Resolutions of Inquiry Generally
Use of Resolutions of Inquiry: 1947-2017
Some Congresses Show High Levels of Activity
Most Resolutions Relate to Defense or Foreign Affairs
Most Resolutions of Inquiry Are Directed to the President
House Action on Resolutions of Inquiry
Committees Are Acting on More Resolutions of Inquiry
Few Resolutions of Inquiry Reach the House Floor
Resolutions of Inquiry Are Increasingly a Minority Party Tool
Effectiveness of Resolutions of Inquiry Is Unclear
Conclusion and Questions for Consideration
Figure 1. Resolutions of Inquiry Submitted in the House of Representatives
Figure 2. Committees of Primary Referral for Resolutions of Inquiry
Figure 3. Primary Official to Whom House Resolutions of Inquiry Were Directed
Figure 4. House Activity on Resolutions of Inquiry
Figure 5. Have House Resolutions of Inquiry Produced Information?
Table 1. House Resolutions of Inquiry and Associated Action, 1947-October 20, 2017
Table 2. Form of Report on Resolutions of Inquiry, 1947-October 20, 2017
Table 3. House Floor Action on Resolutions of Inquiry, 1947-October 20, 2017
Table 4. Party of Resolution of Inquiry Sponsors vs. Congress, 1947-October 20, 2017
Table 5. Party of Resolution of Inquiry Sponsors vs. President, 1947-October 20, 2017
Table 6. Have House Resolutions of Inquiry Produced Requested Information?
Table 7. Identified Resolutions of Inquiry Submitted in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1947-October 20, 2017
A resolution of inquiry is a simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an executive department to furnish the House with specific factual information in the Administration's possession. Under the rules and precedents of the House of Representatives, such resolutions, if properly drafted, are given a privileged parliamentary status. This means that, under certain circumstances, a resolution of inquiry can be brought to the House floor for consideration even if the committee to which it was referred has not reported it and the majority party leadership has not scheduled it for action.
A resolution of inquiry is a resolution that formally calls on the executive branch to provide specified factual information to Congress. The use of resolutions of this type as a tool of oversight dates to the earliest days of Congress.1 Although there are historical examples of resolutions of inquiry being used in the Senate,2 they are far more common in the House of Representatives, and this report examines their use only in that chamber between 1947 and October 20, 2017.3
House resolutions of inquiry are simple resolutions (designated "H.Res."), which are submitted in the same manner as other legislation.4 Under House rules and precedents, however, resolutions of inquiry, if properly drafted and under specific circumstances, are afforded a privileged parliamentary status.5 Clause 7 of House Rule XIII makes a resolution of inquiry privileged for consideration at any time after it is reported or discharged from committee, consistent with the normal three-day layover period required of most committee reports.6
If a resolution of inquiry is not reported to the House within 14 legislative days after its introduction (not counting the days of introduction and discharge), a motion to discharge a committee from its further consideration is in order on the House floor.7 Should the committee or committees of referral report (or be discharged under a time limit imposed by the Speaker) within the 14-day period, however, only a Member acting at the formal direction of the committee may move to proceed to its consideration on the floor.8 Thus, even when a House committee opposes a resolution of inquiry, the committee will virtually always mark it up and report it, often adversely, in order to retain control over the measure and prevent a supporter from making the privileged motions on the House floor to discharge the committee and call up the resolution.
To retain the privileged parliamentary status described above, resolutions of inquiry may not contain a preamble and must call only for facts within the executive branch's control. Such resolutions may not seek opinions or require an investigation and are traditionally framed as "requesting" the President or "directing" the head of a Cabinet-level agency to respond. As is the case with other types of privileged business, committee reports accompanying resolutions of inquiry are presented from the floor, rather than submitted through the hopper.
If the House chooses to consider a resolution of inquiry, it is considered under the One-Hour Rule.9 When raised, such resolutions may be agreed to, rejected, or tabled by majority vote. In prior eras it was common for the majority party Member managing a resolution of inquiry on the House floor to quickly move to table it, either because he or she opposes its provisions, or because the request has been rendered moot by the executive branch having provided some or all of the requested information.
Finally, but importantly, as simple resolutions, resolutions of inquiry have no legal force. Thus, compliance by the executive branch with the House's request for factual information in such a resolution is entirely voluntary, resting largely on a sense of comity between coequal branches of government and recognition of the necessity for Congress to be well-informed as it legislates. While there is no direct way for the House to enforce its request for information, executive branch compliance with resolutions of inquiry might be indirectly influenced by a general respect for congressional legislative and oversight power, including Congress's power to appropriate or withhold money for agency functions.
The Congressional Research Service has identified 313 resolutions of inquiry submitted in the House between 1947 and October 20, 2017—an average of just under 9 per Congress. These statistics are represented in Table 1 and the resolutions are described in detail in Table 7.
The number of resolutions of inquiry introduced in individual Congresses over this 70-year period varies widely. Two distinct periods, however (as shown in Figure 1), saw a number of resolutions of inquiry introduced in the House that far exceeded the overall average: the 92nd-94th Congresses (1971-1976), during which a total of 87 resolutions of inquiry were introduced, and the 108th and 109th Congresses (2003-2006), during which 53 resolutions were put forward. The number of resolutions of inquiry introduced in these five Congresses alone accounts for a full 45% of all such resolutions submitted during the 70-year period examined.
1947-October 20, 2017
Source: CRS analysis of data from the Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS) and relevant issues of the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States.
The number of House resolutions of inquiry introduced in the 108th (2003-2004) and 109th (2005-2006) Congresses reflected a sharp increase in the number introduced over the preceding decade. In each Congress between the 102nd (1991-1992) and 107th (2001-2002) Congresses, an average of 1 resolution of inquiry was introduced. In the 108th Congress, 14 such resolutions were introduced, and 39 resolutions of inquiry were submitted in the 109th Congress. The 53 resolutions of inquiry introduced in these two Congresses exceeded the total number of such resolutions introduced in the previous two decades combined.
During the period under examination (1947-October 20, 2017), the 39 resolutions of inquiry introduced in the 109th Congress are exceeded only by the 44 resolutions introduced in the 93rd Congress (1973-1974). But this latter total may be misleadingly high due to parliamentary rules in effect at that time. In the 93rd Congress, House rules limited the cosponsorship of measures to a maximum of 25 Representatives.10 Several of the 44 resolutions of inquiry introduced in the 93rd Congress appear to be identically worded resolutions introduced separately, apparently to enable more than 25 Members to cosponsor them. When these "doubles" are taken into account, more resolutions of inquiry were introduced in the 109th Congress than in any single Congress since World War II. In the 111th Congress (2009-2010), 29 resolutions of inquiry were introduced.
Subsequent Congresses have seen activity on House resolutions of inquiry below historic averages. Three resolutions of inquiry were submitted in the 112th Congress (2011-2012), five were submitted in the 113th Congress (2013-2014), and no resolutions of inquiry were put forward in the 114th Congress (2015-2016). Early indications suggest, however, that the House may be entering another period of high resolution of inquiry activity: The 13 resolutions submitted thus far in the 115th Congress (2017-2018) exceed the average for a Congress and are more than the number of resolutions of inquiry put forward in the previous three Congresses combined.
The reason for the sharp increase in the number of such resolutions introduced during some recent Congresses is open to interpretation. Some have charged that instead of using resolutions of inquiry as an oversight tool to obtain information from the executive branch, in at least some instances, minority party Members have purposely used the privileged status such resolutions enjoy as a way to "force" committees to act on a given subject or get Members to record votes on politically controversial policy questions, in essence, enabling the minority party to "schedule" a committee markup meeting on a subject of its choosing. Those holding this view point to the high number of resolutions introduced during periods when the House and the President are of the same political party as evidence of the "political" use of resolutions of inquiry. The sharp uptick in such resolutions submitted in the GOP-controlled 115th Congress, where a Republican President has taken over for a Democratic chief executive, arguably supports this viewpoint.
One 2005 committee report took a skeptical view of several resolutions of inquiry referred to the committee that sought information on pre-Iraq war intelligence, saying, "[these] resolutions are politically-calculated attacks on the ... administration."11 Still another report argued that "the Minority [party] is attempting to use this parliamentary tool for political means. Perhaps most importantly, as a matter of procedure, [the resolution of inquiry] challenges the Majority's prerogatives and its right to set the legislative agenda, and for that reason alone should be rejected."12 Members holding this viewpoint argue that recent activity on resolutions of inquiry is more about "message politics" than obtaining information from the executive branch.
Other Members have taken a different view, arguing that resolutions of inquiry have increased in number recently because the executive branch has frequently responded "grudgingly" to information requests from Congress, particularly those made by minority party Members relating to politically sensitive issues. Such Members argue that the White House has treated letters from lawmakers requesting information "as if they are junk mail, routinely tossing them aside without responding."13 This executive branch behavior, these Members contend, coupled with what they characterize as an ambivalence by majority parties to the rights of the minority in the House, has led to the increased use of such resolutions. Members holding this view argue that resolutions of inquiry, precisely because they are privileged, are one of the few parliamentary tools available to individual Representatives—including those in the minority—to hold the executive branch to account.
The most commonly identified subjects of House resolutions of inquiry over the past seven decades have been defense, foreign affairs, and intelligence. This may help to explain in part the significant increases noted above during the 92nd-94th (1971-1976) and 108th-109th (2003-2006) Congresses, periods where Members were focused on military conflicts in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan and on foreign affairs and intelligence issues stemming from the so-called Global War on Terrorism.
When resolutions of inquiry are submitted, the Speaker, acting through the Parliamentarian, refers them to committee based on the subject matter of the measure and the jurisdiction of House committees as codified in clause 1 of Rule X.
With the exception of the Committees on Budget, Rules, and Ethics, every standing committee of the House has, at some point over the 70 years examined, had at least one resolution of inquiry referred to it. However, as is reflected in Figure 2, and as may be inferred from the most common subjects of such resolutions mentioned above, three House committees have received the greatest share of such referrals: Armed Services, which was referred 74 resolutions of inquiry over this period; Foreign Affairs, with 71; and Judiciary, which received 42. These three panels were the committees of primary referral for 60% of all resolutions of inquiry introduced between 1947 and October 20, 2017.
Source: Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS) and relevant issues of the Journal of the United States House of Representatives.
Notes: For purposes of consistency and clarity, committees are identified by their designation in clause 1 of House Rule X as adopted by the 115th Congress.
The referral of legislation to more than one House committee has been permitted in the House since 1975, and over the period examined, several resolutions of inquiry were multiply referred. The House Parliamentarian has recently written, however, that "the modern practice is to refer [resolutions of inquiry] to a single committee only."14 Since 2004, three resolutions of inquiry have been multiply referred. It is not clear if this is the case because the subject of recent resolutions fell exclusively into the jurisdiction of one committee, because resolution sponsors have introduced separate resolutions directed to different officials (as opposed to one multiply-referred resolution directed to all of them), or because House Speakers, acting through the Parliamentarian, have consciously chosen to avoid the multiple referral of resolutions of inquiry wherever possible.
As has been noted, privileged resolutions of inquiry are directed to the President of the United States, or, under House Rule XIII, to the "head of an executive department." Under chamber precedents, the "head of an executive department" has been interpreted to mean the Secretary of a Cabinet-level executive agency—that is, those listed in 5 U.S.C. 101, not subordinate government officials such as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Director of National Intelligence.15 As such, although a resolution of inquiry directed to an officer below the Cabinet level could be introduced, it would not enjoy privileged status. The inclusion of lesser officials is viewed as destroying the privilege of an entire resolution, even in cases where the resolution is also directed to the President or a Cabinet Secretary.
Since 1947, 114 of the 313 resolutions of inquiry introduced in the House (36%) have been directed to the President of the United States; 59 (19%) have been directed to the Secretary of Defense or his predecessor; 38 resolutions (12%) sought information from the Secretary of State; and 27 (9%) sought information from the Attorney General. Various other executive branch officials, including the Secretaries of Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, and the Treasury, have been the target of House resolutions of inquiry. These statistics are represented in Figure 3.
Source: CRS analysis of data from the Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS) and relevant issues of the Journal of the United States House of Representatives.
Notes: As of October 20, 2017. In cases in which a resolution was addressed to more than one executive branch official, the first listed official was counted.
A small number of resolutions of inquiry introduced during the period examined were directed solely or in part to sub-Cabinet officials, including the Directors of Central Intelligence and National Intelligence, the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner. As noted, such resolutions were arguably not privileged for consideration in the House, and, in at least once instance, the Speaker sustained a point of order to that effect when an effort was made to raise the measure on the floor.16
A committee has a number of choices after a resolution of inquiry is referred to it. It may mark up and report the resolution without amendment, or it may recommend amendments to it. It may report the resolution to the House favorably, adversely, or without recommendation. It may also take no action; however, as has been noted, in failing to act, it risks a Member, after the expiration of the 14-legislative-day period, making a privileged motion on the House floor to discharge the committee of further consideration of the resolution.
Just over half of the resolutions of inquiry introduced between 1947 and October 20, 2017, were acted on by the primary House committee of referral. Approximately 52% (162 of 313) of the resolutions of inquiry submitted were actively considered at the committee level. As is discussed in more detail below, however, in recent Congresses, House committees have chosen to mark up virtually every privileged resolution of inquiry referred to them, presumably in order to retain control of the resolution and prevent another Member from triggering floor votes on the motion to discharge the committee.
As is reflected in Table 2, during the period examined, committees which chose to mark up a resolution of inquiry and report it to the House chose frequently (73%) to report the resolution "adversely," a parliamentary designation which means that the committee did not recommend that the House agree to the resolution. In a smaller percentage of cases during the time period examined, House committees have chosen to report resolutions of inquiry favorably (13%) or without recommendation (14%). On occasion, the committees have reported amendments to the resolution, oftentimes recommending the adoption of a full substitute.
No generalizations can be made about adverse reports on resolutions of inquiry. A House committee may choose to report a resolution adversely because they oppose it or to ensure that no Member except a designee of the committee may try to call up the resolution on the floor. In several instances over the period examined, however, an adverse report was clearly made because the executive branch had produced some or all of the requested information, and the committee did not want the House to expend its time on a moot question. It has also been common for committees to report adversely with the rationale that production of the information would compromise an ongoing investigation. An adverse report might also occur because, in the view of the committee, the requested information was too sensitive to be provided or, conversely, was already widely available, and thus, not the proper subject of a privileged resolution.
As mentioned, data show that since the 108th Congress (2003-2004), committees have almost universally marked up every properly drafted resolution of inquiry referred to them regardless of its subject, sponsor, or how the committee viewed the resolution. This was not the case in earlier Congresses during the 70-year period studied. This suggests that, today, committees are acting on resolutions of inquiry at least in part to retain control of the resolution.
The fact that more resolutions of inquiry have been introduced in some recent Congresses, and House committees are marking up virtually every such resolution referred to them, has led some to question whether resolutions of inquiry are improperly increasing the workload of House committees. Those holding such a view argue that if committees feel they "have to" mark up a resolution of inquiry because it is privileged, the potential exists for minority party Members to flood a committee with such resolutions and wrest partial control over a committee's markup agenda from the majority.
Those holding this view note that certain House committees are disproportionately affected by such resolutions, and they argue that using resolutions of inquiry in this way is not the purpose such measures were created for or given privileged status under chamber rules. They note, for example, that in the 109th Congress (2005-2006), 45% (10 out of 22) of the reports made to the House by the Committee on International Relations (now named Foreign Affairs) were on minority-party sponsored resolutions of inquiry.17 During the same period, 21% (3 out of 14) of the reports made to the House by the Committee on Armed Services were on minority-party sponsored resolutions of inquiry.18
Members holding the opposite view argue that although resolutions of inquiry may have increased in number in recent years, they still represent a small fraction of the overall legislative workload and are easily managed by the chamber's committee system. They further argue that such resolutions actually aid the House, by compelling its committees to seek information from the executive branch that Members need to legislate effectively. Those holding this view might argue that resolutions of inquiry motivate committees to focus not just on legislating but also on the oversight responsibilities they have been charged with by the House.
As is reflected in Table 3, House floor consideration of resolutions of inquiry during the 70-year period examined was generally rare. In recent Congresses it has been virtually nonexistent. In the last 26 years, two resolutions of inquiry have received action on the House floor.
Between 1947 and October 20, 2017, 64 resolutions of inquiry have been considered on the House floor, about 20% of those introduced, and approximately 40% of those reported by the chamber's committees. Of the resolutions receiving floor action, 52 (81%) were laid on the table by majority vote, effectively killing them. Eleven resolutions of inquiry have been agreed to by the House since 1947, the most recent occurring in the 104th Congress (1995-1996). It is worth reiterating that the tabling of a resolution on the House floor may have been undertaken because the question had been made moot by the executive branch being in substantial compliance with the request. For example, in a handful of instances during the period examined, it was the sponsor of the resolution of inquiry who moved to lay the resolution on the table, apparently satisfied it had produced the desired result.
During the 91st-95th Congresses, several resolutions of inquiry that were submitted received no action either in committee or on the floor. This might be due to the fact that, as has been noted, several of the resolutions of inquiry introduced during this period appear to be identically worded resolutions introduced separately, apparently to enable more Members to cosponsor them. One might speculate that no action was taken on other resolutions during this period because the executive branch provided the requested information. In current practice, House committees will virtually always mark up and report a resolution of inquiry in order to retain control of the measure and avoid floor votes.
Resolutions of inquiry are sometimes assumed to be an oversight tool that is used disproportionately, or even exclusively, by congressional minorities. This view is, in a sense, understandable. The majority party in the House arguably has far more effective oversight tools at its disposal than nonbinding resolutions of inquiry: committee hearings, subpoenas, and the ability to pass legislation.
An examination of resolutions of inquiry introduced between 1947 and October 20, 2017, however, reveals a far more bipartisan overall picture than this view might suggest. Over the 70 years examined, the party affiliation of resolution of inquiry sponsors is fairly evenly divided. Of the 313 resolutions of inquiry introduced between 1947 and October 20, 2017, 132 were introduced by Members of the congressional majority party and 181 by minority party Members.19 The political affiliation of resolution of inquiry sponsors versus that of the President is more divided. Of the 313 resolutions of inquiry submitted in the House between 1947 and October 20, 2017, 239 (76%) were introduced by Members of Congress belonging to the opposite political party of the President.
If one examines only recent Congresses, the statistical picture is much starker and supports the view that resolutions of inquiry have become overwhelmingly a minority party tool. In recent years, the sponsorship of resolutions of inquiry has become far more partisan and more lopsided in party division than at any time during the seven decades studied. Since 2005, 2 of the 91 resolutions of inquiry submitted were authored by a Member of Congress having the same political party as the President. The others were submitted by Members directed at Presidents of the opposite party.
Because resolutions of inquiry are primarily intended to be an information-gathering tool, one question is whether available evidence suggests such resolutions have been successful in producing information from the executive branch.
The data in Table 6 and in Figure 3 are gleaned from an examination of legislative history documents, such as committee reports and floor debate, accompanying resolutions of inquiry introduced between 1947 and October 20, 2017. Based on these documents and the measures themselves, resolutions of inquiry were divided into three categories: (1) Yes, evidence suggests the resolution did produce full or partial information from the executive branch; (2) No, the evidence suggests that no information was received from the executive branch in response to the resolution; or (3) Whether information was produced is unknown, unclear, or in dispute.
In half of the resolutions submitted between 1947 and October 20, 2017, whether the resolution resulted in the production of information was unknown, unclear, or in dispute based on an examination of the legislative history. Twenty-eight percent of the resolutions of inquiry introduced over the period studied appear to have resulted in the production of some or all of the information requested of the executive branch. Twenty-two percent of the resolutions authored during this period appear to have failed to produce any requested information. When a similar examination is limited to the most recent period of high resolution of inquiry activity noted above, 2003-2006, the effectiveness of such resolutions in producing information from the executive branch is far less. During these years, such resolutions failed to produce information 64% of the time and succeeded in 19% of cases.
As these statistics suggest, making determinations about the "success" of resolutions of inquiry can be difficult. As has been noted, slightly under half of the resolutions of inquiry introduced between 1947 and October 20, 2017, were never marked up by House committee or considered on the chamber floor. In such cases there are no legislative history documents to examine to find clues as to whether the Member's information request was answered or ignored. It is easy to imagine that, in at least some of these instances, information was in fact obtained. This supposition seems particularly likely in cases of resolutions introduced in the early years studied, where requests were commonly made for routine, noncontroversial data, such as labor statistics or documents about the government's use of railroad cars. It seems reasonable to suppose that such resolutions' sponsors never tried to call the measures up on the floor precisely because their request had been satisfied; in such a scenario, inaction on a resolution would be an indication of its success. But that is only a supposition. Likewise, the very introduction of a resolution of inquiry might encourage an executive department to hand over information, but it may not be immediately apparent that the resolution was the motivating factor.
Although the established purpose of a resolution of inquiry is to acquire factual information, that may not be the only goal a Member has when authoring such legislation. Calling attention to an issue, seizing a committee's agenda from the majority party, forcing other legislative action (such as a hearing), getting Members on the record with difficult policy votes, or demonstrating interest in a particular subject area may all be possible goals for introducing a resolution of inquiry. As has been noted above, in recent Congresses, some have argued that the increase in resolutions of inquiry introduced is precisely because the resolutions are being used for goals such as these, rather than as a purely information-gathering mechanism.
Notes: Categories based solely on examination of resolutions and related legislative history documents.
An examination of resolutions of inquiry introduced in the House between 1947 and October 20, 2017, raises several questions for the potential consideration of policymakers. Overall, the data suggest that resolutions of inquiry have become more common in some recent Congresses, have resulted in more work at the committee level, and have increasingly been used by minority party Members in the House.
As noted, the data examined raise the question of whether increases in the number of House resolutions of inquiry submitted in some recent Congresses are affecting the workload of certain chamber committees. If policymakers were to determine that this is the case, and that it merits action, they might consider whether changes in the treatment of such resolutions under House rules are warranted. The House might respond, for example, by making such resolutions privileged only if a House committee chose to report them favorably. Or, the House might choose instead to extend the time period that committees have to report a privileged resolution of inquiry from the present 14 legislative days to a longer period of time. A change of this latter type might preserve the traditional use of resolutions of inquiry for all Members and give committees more freedom to choose when they will act on them. It might also discourage resolutions of inquiry from being introduced in an attempt to gain political advantage by highlighting important, but transient, hot-button political issues.
Perhaps the clearest picture emerging from a systematic examination of resolution of inquiry activity in the post-WWII period, however, relates to the efficacy of such resolutions. Although the data show that in some cases—particularly in earlier eras—such resolutions have produced information, half the time it is unclear if resolutions of inquiry result in the production of any information to the House, and if so, to what degree.
The possibility that the standing committees of the House are spending an increased amount of time acting on resolutions whose efficacy is largely unknown may lead policymakers to try to institute a more rigorous accounting of future resolutions of this type. Lawmakers might do so in a number of ways. Committees, for example, might direct the agencies they oversee to formally catalogue and submit to them what response, if any, they have made to recently introduced resolutions of inquiry. Committees might be encouraged to report this information to the House in the activities report they are already required to submit to the House each Congress under clause 1(d)(1) of Rule XI, or by some other mechanism. Executive branch communications to the House in response to a resolution of inquiry might be designated as such in the Congressional Record, or noted in a special category when received by the Clerk of the House, so that the cause and effect (or lack thereof) of such resolutions might become clearer. Policymakers might also consider standardizing the procedures House committees use to handle resolutions of inquiry, for example, by requiring them to transmit the resolution to the executive branch within a stated time frame with a letter from the chairman formally requesting executive comment on the resolution.20
Other options also exist. The House Committee on Rules, as the panel with jurisdiction over chamber rules, might examine whether resolutions of inquiry, as a mechanism rooted in the earliest days of Congress, should continue to enjoy privileged parliamentary status considering advances in information technology, including the development of oversight tools available to Members in recent decades. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has special duties under House Rule X to report committee oversight plans to the House along with any recommendations to promote "more effective and coordinated oversight," might also consider examining the use of such resolutions as oversight tools.
Whether policymakers ultimately determine that changes in the use of resolutions of inquiry are warranted or not, such an examination might arguably give all Members of the House a better understanding of the resolution's use in the ongoing oversight relationship between the legislative and executive branches of government.
Resolutions of Inquiry Introduced
Resolutions Receiving Committee Action
Resolutions Receiving Floor Action
Notes: Table reflects resolutions of inquiry introduced through October 20, 2017.
Notes: Reflects activity as of October 20, 2017.
Congressional Majority Party
Sponsor Member of Majority Party
Sponsor Member of Minority Party
Notes: Reflects activity as of October 20, 2017. "D" signifies Democratic Party. "R" signifies Republican Party.
Sponsor Party Same As President
Sponsor Party Different Than President
Yes (or Partial)
Unknown, Unclear, or Disputed
Notes: Reflects activity as of October 20, 2017. Categories based on CRS examination of resolutions and related legislative history documents.
Resolution, Introduction, and Sponsorship
Official(s) to Whom Inquiry Is Directed
Committee(s) of Referral and Consideration
Rep. Lawrence H. Smith (R-WI)
Materials in the possession of the War and Navy Departments suitable for use in relieving the housing shortage
Rep. Edith N. Rogers (R-MA)
Withdrawal of U.S. troops from China
H.Rept. 80-16
Rep. Ellsworth Buck (R-NY)
Documents, records, and memorandum related to Serge Rubenstein
H.Rept. 80-886
H.Rept. 80-887
Food and meat being shipped from Greece and the Mediterranean to the United States
H.Rept. 80-814
Rep. Karl E. Mundt (R-SD)
Decommissioning of certain factories in post-war Germany
Reported favorably (amended)
H.Rept. 80-1225
Sale of supplies to the Soviet Union by firms and individuals located in the United States
H.Rept. 80-1155
Amount of coal and oil being sent to Canada and other countries by the United States
Information relative to oil: Idle tankers and why said tankers have not been put into operation
Director of the Office of Defense Transportation
Shortage of coal cars used in transportation of coal to New England and whether coal cars from Great Lakes terminals may be transferred to New England
Whether full use is being made of oil tankers under the control of the Navy
H.Rept. 80-1154
The amount of fuel, gasoline, petroleum products, and coal available in the United States
Reported without recommendation
H.Rept. 80-1231
Rep. John Z. Anderson (R-CA)
Research on price spreads between the producer and consumer of agricultural products
H.Rept. 80-1662
Rep. John P. Thomas (R-NJ)
A letter authored by FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, relating to Dr. Edward U. Condon, Director of the National Bureau of Standards
H.Rept. 80-1753
H.Res. 50
H.Rept. 81-10
Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall (R-NY)
Administrative action on the program of national defense preparedness
H.Rept. 81-36
Rep. Clark W. Thompson (D-TX)
Effect of imports on the domestic fishing industry
H.Rept. 81-355
Rep. Vito Marcantonio (American Laborite-NY)
Denial of visas to certain foreign officials (Pierre Cot of the Republic of France and Konni Zilliacus of Great Britain)
H.Rept. 81-504
Rep. Thomas J. Lane (D-MA)
Statistics relating to the woolen and worsted manufacturing industry
Employment statistics relating to the woolen and worsted manufacturing industry
Corporate income tax statistics relating to the woolen and worsted manufacturing industry
Personal finances of mental patients hospitalized by the Veterans' Administration
Rep. Edgar A. Jonas (R-IL)
Receipts from taxes paid on tips and gratuities received by taxpayers
Rep. John D. Lodge (R-CT)
H.Rept. 81-1618
The number of watches, clocks, and parts of watches and clocks imported into the U.S. over the previous five years
The number of watches, clocks, and parts of watches and clocks manufactured in the U.S. over the previous five years
Rep. Donald L. Jackson (R-CA)
Arrest and detention, and deportation of Rafael Garcia Travesi-Carral
Railroad accidents involving troop transport trains
Railroad accident which occurred near Woodbridge, New Jersey, on February 6, 1951
Rep. Ellis Y. Berry (R-SD)
Any agreements made between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain during their recent conversations
H.Rept. 82-1381
Rep. Matthew H. Ellsworth (R-OR)
Information related to the President's actions during the 1952 steel strike
Insurgency in prisoner-of-war camps in Korea and communist-inspired disturbances of the peace in Japan since the departure of General MacArthur
H.Rept. 82-2128
H.Rept. 82-2129
Reduction in grade of Colonel Charles F. Colson relating to his conduct during the riot at Koje Island, Korea
H.Rept. 82-2130
H.Rept. 82-2131
Rep. Edmund P. Radwan (R-NY)
Any agreement made by the Secretary of State and the government of Great Britain during their recent meetings and conversations which may affect the conduct of the war in Korea
Rep. Clare Hoffman (R-MI)
The military operation in Korea codenamed "Operation Smack"
Federal employees not falling under civil service rules and regulations
H.Rept. 83-164
Effect on the weather of certain atomic bomb explosions
H.Rept. 83-646
Federal Civil Defense Administrator
H.Rept. 83-641
Laid on the table by rule
H.Rept. 83-647
H.Rept. 83-648
H.Rept. 83-682
Rep. George M. Rhodes (D-PA)
Discharge of federal officers and employees for security reasons during the past year
Chairman of the United States Civil Service Commission
Facts concerning the explosion on the aircraft carrier Bennington
Discharged by unanimous consent and laid on the table
Transmission of hate propaganda through the mails
Veterans' Administration expenditures
Extent and cost of certain military installations
H.Rept. 84-56
Rep. John P. Pillion (R-NY)
Information related to Antarctica
Rep. Craig Hosmer (R-CA)
Statistical information relating to the staffing and workload of Social Security field offices in Michigan and Indiana
Rep. James A. Haley (D-FL)
Rep. Herman P. Eberharter (D-PA)
Settlement of the American Distilling Company income tax case by the Internal Revenue Service
H.Rept. 84-2867
Statistical information related to salaries and employment in the manufacturing industry
Violence related to labor strikes
Rep. Joseph M. Montoya (D-NM)
Information related to the school-age Indian population of the United States
Activity by Labor Department employees in relation to the Aiken Brothers Company of Greenville, South Carolina
Statistical information about the amount of money paid to various labor unions
Rep. Leonard Farbstein (D-NY)
Reasons underlying U.S. sponsorship and active support of the censure of Israel by the United Nations Security Council
Rep. Barratt O'Hara (D-IL)
Temporary summer employment at the U.S. Postal Service
H.Rept. 89-1010
Reports of the White House Education Task Force chaired by John W. Gardner
Specified proposals and position papers relating to education in the states and in big city schools
Certain information regarding the 1967 budget
Rep. Bella S. Abzug (D-NY)
Cosponsors: (10)
The report "U.S.-Vietnam Relationships, 1945-1967" (Also known as "The Pentagon Papers")
H.Rept. 92-318
H.Rept. 92-319
Motion to discharge fell on a point of order
Rep. Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey, Jr. (R-CA)
U.S. operations in Laos
H.Rept. 92-327
H.Rept. 92-328
The report "U.S. Vietnam Relationships, 1945-1967" (Also known as "The Pentagon Papers")
H.Rept. 92-329
Bombing operations in northern Laos
H.Rept. 92-330
Rep. James M. Collins (R-TX)
Busing to achieve racial balance in the public schools
Discharged and agreed to
Rep. Bertram L. Podell (D-NY)
Extent of military assistance to certain foreign countries
Discharged and laid on the table
Communications pertaining to the upcoming Vietnamese presidential election
H.Rept. 92-512
Rep. Lester Wolff (D-NY)
Role of the U.S. government in events leading to an uncontested presidential election in South Vietnam on October 3, 1971
H.Rept. 92-567
H.Rept. 92-568
Statistics relating to U.S. military involvement in Indochina
H.Rept. 92-1003
H.Res. 1078
Statistics relating to U.S. military involvement in North Vietnam
H.Rept. 92-1330
H.Rept. 92-1331
Rep. Michael J. Harrington (D-MA)
Cosponsors: (21)
Statistics relating to U.S. military involvement in Vietnam
H.Rept. 93-40
Data relating to the extent of the bombing of North Vietnam from December 17, 1972, through January 10, 1973
H.Rept. 93-38
H.Rept. 93-39
H.Rept. 93-41
Basis of the venue in the northern district of Texas of the grand jury investigation before which Kenneth Tierney, Thomas Laffey, Matthias Reilly, Paschal Morahan, and Daniel Crawford were summoned
Rep. Hugh L. Carey (D-NY)
Record of the Department of Justice which led to the determination of the venue in the Northern District of Texas of the grand jury investigation before which Kenneth Tierney, Thomas Laffey, Matthias Reilly, Paschal Morahan, and Daniel Crawford were summoned
Rep. James V. Stanton (D-OH)
Rep. Ogden R. Reid (D-NY)
Regulations governing social services proposed in the Federal Register of February 16, 1973 (38 F.R. 4608-4613)
Rep. Robert L. Leggett (D-CA)
Bombing and other activities in Cambodia and Laos during the period January 27, 1973, to April 30, 1973
H.Rept. 93-170
Data concerning the extent of the bombing of Cambodia and Laos from January 20, 1969, through April 30, 1970
Rep. Paul Findley (R-IL)
Allegations that Spiro T. Agnew accepted bribes or received consideration for services rendered
Papers, documents, recordings, memorandums, and items of evidence in the custody of the Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox, as of noon, Saturday, October 20, 1973
The military alert declared by the President on October 24, 1974
H.Rept. 93-970
Rep. Andrew J. Hinshaw (R-CA)
Expenditure of Federal moneys on private property owned by: (1) Franklin D. Roosevelt; (2) Harry S. Truman; (3) Dwight D. Eisenhower; (4) John F. Kennedy; and (5) Lyndon B. Johnson
H.Res. 1050
Federal funds for administrative support and personnel at or near the private residences of (1) Franklin D. Roosevelt, (2) Harry S. Truman, (3) Dwight D. Eisenhower, (4) John F. Kennedy, and (5) Lyndon B. Johnson during their terms as President and Vice President
Agreements for nuclear cooperation with Egypt and Israel
Cosponsors: (16)
The specific offenses against the United States for which a pardon was granted to Richard M. Nixon on September 8, 1974
H.Res. 1370
Decision to grant a pardon to Richard M. Nixon
H.Res. 1398
Payments to Richard M. Nixon and his family
H.Res. 1404
H.Res. 1452
The President's proposal to classify as new oil, all oil extracted from domestic oil wells by secondary methods
H.Res. 1467
Comments by the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff at Duke University on October 10, 1974
Specified facts pertaining to small business investment companies
Specified activities of the Central Intelligence Agency since January 1, 1960
Information contained in the report of William E. Colby delivered to the President on or about December 26, 1974, relating to activities of the Central Intelligence Agency
H.Rept. 94-22
Reconnaissance flights since January, 1973, over North and South Vietnam as well as other activities in Indochina
H.Rept. 94-23
American involvement and knowledge of the coup in Chile
Whether any citizen of the United States, since December 31, 1970, has been subjected to incarceration or denial of rights contrary to the laws or Constitution of the Republic of Mexico
Cosponsors: (18)
United States nationals in South Vietnam, their employers, the nature of their work and an explanation of why such persons have not been evacuated
Cosponsors: (25)
Facts relating to the seizure of the U.S. merchant ship Mayaguez by the Khmer Rouge
Cosponsors: (23)
Rep. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (D-NY)
The sale of Hawk and Redeye missiles to Jordan
List of public school systems in the United States which will be receiving Federal funds and will be engaging in the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance
Discharged and agree to
Rep. Alan Steelman (R-TX)
Rep. Philip M. Crane (R-IL)
The extent of Cuban or other foreign military or paramilitary presence in the Republic of Panama or in the Panama Canal Zone
Payment of funds by the United States Armed Forces or Embassy staff to the Italian Christian Democratic Party or the Italian media
H.Res. 1427
The payment of funds by any person acting under the direction of the United States Government or any agency or other instrumentality of the United States Government to any political party in Italy or the Italian media
Rep. Chalmers P. Wylie (R-OH)
All communications and documents received by the Department of Justice from Kim Sang Keun of South Korea respecting Members and employees of Congress
H.Res. 709
Rep. Tim Lee Carter (R-KY)
The service serial number of each individual who was present at the explosion of the atomic device known as "Smokey" which was detonated at Camp Desert Rock, Nevada, on August 31, 1957
Military equipment shipments to Chile
Rep. James H. Weaver (D-OR)
The incident at the Three Mile Island nuclear generating plant and on the danger of similar incidents occurring at other nuclear generating plants
Oil situation, including data on: (1) shortages, supplies, demand, and allocation of crude oil; and (2) refinery yield reductions and capacity utilization
H.Rept. 96-261
Information concerning: (1) Israeli use of military aircraft of U.S. origin outside Israeli borders; and (2) Israeli compliance with the Arms Export Control Act
Human rights objectives and policies with respect to specified countries
Rep. Peter Peyser (R-NY)
Evidence compiled by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation against Members of Congress in connection with the Abscam investigation
H.Rept. 96-778
U.S. decision to vote for the United Nations Security Council resolution on March 1, 1980
Rep. George V. Hansen (R-ID)
Understandings made with the Former Shah of Iran at Lackland Air Force Base and elsewhere
Commitments, admissions, and/or obligations made to the Government of Iran during March 1980
Rep. Robert E. Bauman (D-MD)
Cosponsors: (98)
House and Justice Department actions and conversations with regard to Billy Carter's involvement with Libya and State Department cables, communications, or memorandums furnished to Billy Carter
H.Rept. 96-1213, pt. I
H.Rept. 96-1213, pt. II
Rep. Jim Courter (R-NJ)
Disclosure of classified information relating to the new so-called "Stealth" technology for military aircraft
H.Rept. 96-1309
Disclosure of classified information relating to the Stealth technology for military aircraft
Specified documents containing information about U.S. involvement in Iran
Rep. George W. Crockett, Jr. (D-MI)
Pending extradition proceedings against Ziad Abu Eain
Certain information concerning Roberto D'Aubuisson
Reported without recommendation (amended)
H.Rept. 97-579
Rep. Toby Moffett (D-CT)
Possible Executive interference with the investigation of Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan
Procurement of the C-5B aircraft
H.Rept. 97-641
Cosponsors: (71)
United States activities in Honduras and Nicaragua
H.Rept. 98-88, pt. 1I
H.Rept. 98-88, pt. 1
Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez (D-TX)
Certain financial information on Henry Kissinger and Henry Kissinger and Associates
Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-CA)
Cosponsors: (22)
United States activities regarding Grenada
H.Rept. 98-597, pt. 1
H.Rept. 98-597, pt. 1I
A report by the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency entitled "A Quarter Century of Soviet Compliance Practices Under Arms Control Commitments: 1958-1983 (U)," November 1983
Rep. James Michael Shannon (D-MA)
Death squads in El Salvador including possible involvement of Roberto D'Aubuisson, a former Army officer
H.Rept. 98-658
Possible involvement of Colonel Oscar Edgardo Casanova in the 1980 slayings of four U.S. missionaries in El Salvador, and possible involvement of Minister of Defense Eugenio Vides Casanova in the Salvadoran Government's investigation into the slayings
H.Rept. 98-657
The CIA and death squads in El Salvador
H.Rept. 98-709
Documents relating to: (1) certain military intelligence gathering activities in El Salvador including any possible uses of such intelligence information by El Salvador, Honduras, or Guatemala; (2) military assistance furnished to Honduras and El Salvador; and (3) activities of the United States in El Salvador and Honduras related to hostile action against Nicaragua or against the governments of those nations
H.Rept. 98-742, pt. I
Rep. Don Edwards (D-CA)
Covert training or other support of counterterrorist units against anti-American terrorists in Lebanon or other parts of the Middle East
Counterterrorist units which received covert training or other support from the United States
H.Rept. 99-171
Rep. William M. Hendon (R-NC)
All information, including Defense Intelligence Agency analyses, relating to live Americans in Southeast Asia
H.Rept. 99-260, pt. I
Rep. Leon Panetta (D-CA)
Cosponsors: (48)
The use of $27,000,000 appropriated for humanitarian assistance for the Nicaraguan democratic resistance
H.Rept. 99-585
Rep. Ronald D. Coleman (D-TX)
Activities of Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North or any other member of the staff of the National Security Council in support of the Nicaraguan resistance
H.Rept. 99-724, pt. I
Any proposal by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, or anyone outside of the administration, for a plan of real or illusionary events intended to destabilize the Libyan Government
Documents prepared in accordance with certain report requirements in the 1985, 1986, and 1987 Department of Defense Authorization Acts relating to the Strategic Defense Initiative program and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
H.Rept. 100-53
H.Res. 176
Contractor and national laboratory activities performed for the purpose of informing Congress on nuclear testing
Rep. Bob Smith (R-NH)
Statements made by Vietnamese Vice Foreign Minister Phan Hein concerning certain civilians and members of the armed forces held as prisoners of war or considered to be missing in action since the beginning of the Vietnam Conflict
H.Rept. 100-500
Cosponsors: (147)
U.S. foreign aid in Central America
H.Rept. 100-773
Information concerning the actions of the Commission on Base Realignment and Closure with respect to Fort Dix, New Jersey
H.Rept. 101-9
Rep. Larry J. Hopkins (R-KY)
Actions of the Commission on Base Realignment and Closure with respect to specified military bases
H.Rept. 101-10
Payments made by the U.S. Government to Manuel Noriega and Guillermo Endara
All unresolved, active live-sighting case files on Americans reported in captivity in Southeast Asia after February 1, 1973
Statistics relating to the conduct and effect of Operation Desert Shield
H.Rept. 102-5, pt. I
H.Rept. 102-5, pt. II
Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL)
Several specified activities of the White House Travel Office
H.Rept. 103-183
Rep. Jan Meyers (R-KS)
Communications between the White House and the Small Business Administration regarding Capital Management Services, Inc., or David Hale; various questions relating to the activities of Vincent Foster
The Mexican economy and certain activities of the International Monetary Fund
H.Rept. 104-53
Actions taken by the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States Executive Directors at the international financial institutions to comply with the requirements of 1621 of the International Financial Institutions Act, relating to encouragement of fair labor practices
Communications between the Archivist of the United States and the primary responsible individual in each State relating to transmission of certificates of ascertainment or of the determination of an electoral controversy involving the presidential election held on November 7, 2000
Documents in the President's possession relating to Iraq's declaration on its weapons of mass destruction that was provided to the United Nations on December 7, 2002
H.Rept. 108-38
Documents that provide specific evidence with respect to claims of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
H.Rept. 108-168
Any use of Federal agency resources in any task or action involving or relating to Members of the Texas Legislature in the period beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 2003
H.Rept. 108-223
H.Rept. 108-215
H.Rept. 108-220
The report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled "Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned" and other materials relating to the Administration's planning for the reconstruction and security of post-war Iraq
Cosponsors: (45)
H.Rept. 108-289, pt. II
H.Rept. 108-289, pt. I
Cosponsors: (74)
Documents in the possession of the President relating to the disclosure of the identity of Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency during the period beginning on May 6, 2003, and ending on July 31, 2003
H.Rept. 108-413, pt. I
H.Rept. 108-413, pt. IV
H.Rept. 108-413, pt. II
H.Rept. 108-413, pt. III
Any picture, photograph, video, communication, or report produced in conjunction with any completed Department of Defense investigation conducted by Major General Antonio M. Taguba relating to allegations of torture or allegations of violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq
H.Rept. 108-547
Cosponsors: (47)
Documents relating to the treatment of prisoners or detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Guantanamo Bay and any instructions for handling such documents
H.Rept. 108-632
H.Rept. 108-631
H.Rept. 108-658
Specified information respecting the National Energy Policy Development Group
H.Rept. 108-697
Estimated cost of the Administration's Medicare prescription drug legislation
H.Rept. 108-754, pt. I
H.Rept. 108-754, pt. II
Plan assets and liabilities of single-employer pension plans
H.Rept. 109-34
The security investigations and background checks relating to granting access to the White House of James D. Guckert (also known as Jeff Gannon)
H.Rept. 109-30
Cosponsors: (39)
President's remarks on the Social Security trust fund
H.Rept. 109-58
Cosponsors: (80)
07/21/2005 (D-CA)
The policy of the United States with respect to Iraq
H.Rept. 109-223
H.Rept. 109-224
Cosponsors: (20)
H.Rept. 109-234
H.Rept. 109-228
H.Rept. 109-225
H.Rept. 109-230
Reapportionment of airport screeners
H.Rept. 109-259
Contracts for services or construction related to Hurricane Katrina recovery
H.Rept. 109-258
H.Rept. 109-269
Cosponsors: (109)
H.Rept. 109-291
Cosponsors: (150)
The anticipated effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the United States
H.Rept. 109-296
President's October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio and his January 28, 2003 State of the Union Message
H.Rept. 109-351
Extraordinary rendition of certain foreign persons
H.Rept. 109-374
United States policies under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva Conventions
H.Rept. 109-375
Electronic surveillance without search warrants on individuals in the United States
H.Rept. 109-385
The Secretary of State's trip to Europe in December 2005
H.Rept. 109-376
Cosponsors: (51)
H.Rept. 109-382
Authorization of electronic surveillance of citizens of the United States without court approved warrants
H.Rept. 109-383
Collection of counterterrorism intelligence information pertaining to persons inside the United States without obtaining court-ordered warrants
H.Rept. 109-384
Information relating to any entity (including the Rendon Group and the Lincoln Group) with which the United States has entered into a contract for public relations purposes concerning Iraq
H.Rept. 109-397
The final draft report, produced by the professional staff of the Technology Administration, entitled: "Six-Month Assessment of Workforce Globalization In Certain Knowledge-Based Industries"
H.Rept. 109-415
Dubai Ports World acquisition of six United States commercial ports leases
H.Rept. 109-414
Receipt and consideration by the Executive Office of the President of any information concerning the variation between the version of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, that the House of Representatives passed on February 1, 2006, and the version of the bill that the President signed on February 8, 2006
H.Rept. 109-457
Any existing or previous agreement between the Department of Homeland Security and Shirlington Limousine and Transportation, Incorporated of Arlington, VA
H.Rept. 109-484
Requests made by the National Security Agency and other Federal agencies to telephone service providers requesting access to telephone communications records of persons in the United States
H.Rept. 109-527
Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility's investigation of the National Security Agency's surveillance program
H.Rept. 109-528
Strategies and plans either designed to cause regime change in or for the use of military force against Iran
H.Rept. 109-526
Documents relating to the report submitted to a House committee on the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act
H.Rept. 109-689
Documents relating to Maher Arar
National Intelligence Estimate of April 2006 relating to trends in global terrorism
Cosponsors: (56)
Communications with the American International Group, Inc. (AIG)
H.Rept. 111-84
Documents relating to the intelligence assessment titled, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment"
H.Rept. 111-134
Director of Environmental Protection Agency
Information relating to the EPA's finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health and public health and welfare
Information relating to the EPA's finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health and welfare
H.Rept. 111-146
Information relating to communications with Chrysler, L.L.C.
H.Rept. 111-147
Information relating to the FY2010-2030 shipbuilding plan
H.Rept. 111-167
Information relating to the FY2010-2030 aviation plan
H.Rept. 111-168
Communications related to detainees and foreign persons suspected of terrorism
H.Rept. 111-189
The immigration status of any detainees and foreign persons suspected of terrorism
Specific communications with and financial assistance provided to General Motors Corporation and Chrysler LLC
H.Rept. 111-231
Communications regarding detainees and foreign persons suspected of terrorism
H.Rept. 111-221
The transfer or release of detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States
H.Rept. 111-242
Information received from or referencing the American Association for Justice and any of its members since January 20, 2009, that refers or relates to any recommendation regarding medical malpractice reform
H.Rept. 111-341
Detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba who are transferred into the United States
H.Rept. 111-378
The Department's planning, information sharing, and coordination with any state or locality receiving detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
H.Rept. 111-377
Effects on foreign intelligence collection of the transfer of detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States
H.Rept. 111-384
Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-CA)
Trial or detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, or Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi
H.Rept. 111-383
Inventory and review of intelligence related to the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, described by the President in a memorandum dated November 10, 2009
H.Rept. 111-402
Transportation Security Administration's Aviation Security Screening Management Standard Operating Procedures manual
H.Rept. 111-403
Agreements and communications relating to proposed health care reform legislation
H.Rept. 111-408
Nutrient management of the Illinois River Watershed, Arkansas and Oklahoma
012/16/2009
Decision to dismiss United States v. New Black Panther Party
H.Rept. 111-404
H.Rept. 111-407
H.Res. 1238
The Secretary's Treasured Landscape Initiative, designation of national monuments, and high priority land-rationalization efforts
H.Rept. 111-480
H.Res. 1406
Specified information relating to the potential designation of National Monuments under the Antiquities Act
H.Rept. 111-510
Discussion of administration appointments by White House staff with any candidate for public office in exchange for such candidate's withdrawal from any election
H.Rept. 111-538
H.Res. 1466
The application to foreclose Yucca Mountain, Nevada from use as a high level nuclear waste repository
H.Rept. 111-550
H.Res. 1561
Documents prepared by or for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
H.Rept. 111-649
H.Res. 1749
Documents related to a review by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence described in a document entitled "FACT SHEET: U.S. Government Mitigation Efforts in Light of the Recent Unlawful Disclosure of Classified Information"
H.Res. 1763
Documents unlawfully disclosed and provided to WikiLeaks and select public press outlets, as referenced in a November 27, 2010, letter by a Department of State Legal Adviser
Documents related to consultation with Congress regarding Operation Odyssey Dawn or military actions in or against Libya
H.Rept. 112-77
H.Rept. 112-76
Documents related to the practice of targeted killing of United States citizens and targets abroad
H.Rept. 112-704
Emails in the possession of the Executive Office of the President that were transmitted to or from the email account(s) of former Internal Revenue Service Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner between January 2009 and April 2011
H.Rept. 113-524
H.Rept. 113-545
H.Rept. 113-525
H.Rept. 113-547
Cosponsors: (143)
Financial practices of the President of the United States
Reported adversely (amended)
H.Rept. 115-28
Plans to repeal or replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health-related measures of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
H.Rept. 115-54
Communications with the government of Russia
H.Rept. 115-74
Cosponsors: (92)
Tax returns and other specified financial information of President Donald J. Trump
H.Rept. 115-73
Certain communications by the President of the United States on Twitter
H.Rept. 115-83
Department of Homeland Security's research, integration, and analysis activities relating to Russian government interference in the elections for federal office held in 2016
H.Rept. 115-89
General Services Administration documents relating to the lease of the Old Post Office Pavilion to the Trump Organization
H.Rept. 115-269
President Trump's financial connections to Russia and related information
H.Rept. 115-265
The removal of former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey
H.Rept. 115-300
Department of Homeland Security policies and activities relating to businesses owned or controlled by President Donald J. Trump
H.Rept. 115-270
Tax returns of each business entity disclosed by Donald J. Trump on his Office of Government Ethics Form 278e
H.Rept. 115-309
H.Rept. 115-335
The Trump Administration executive order on the review of designations under the Antiquities Act
H.Rept. 115-364
Notes: Reflects activity as of October 20, 2017. For purposes of clarity and consistency, House committee reports are cited in the table using the present convention: "Congress-report number," although reports were not designated in this way during the entire period studied. Cosponsorship of measures in the House was not permitted prior to 1967. As is discussed in more detail the report above, regardless of how a committee reports a resolution of inquiry—adversely, favorably, or without recommendation—the act of reporting within the required time frame means that only a Member designated by the committee can call the measure up on the floor. This has occasionally led to a seemingly counterintuitive situation where a resolution of inquiry is reported favorably, perhaps in an amended form, but is still not called up on the House floor by the committee that "favors" it. The committee's primary goal in such cases was presumably to retain control of the legislation and, perhaps, to avoid certain difficult votes during the markup of the resolution.
For more information on resolutions of inquiry, see CRS Report RL31909, House Resolutions of Inquiry, by [author name scrubbed]. Also: U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives, H.Doc. 114-192, 114th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2017), §864, pp. 670-672.
Riddick's Senate Procedure, the official compilation of Senate precedents, lists several examples of resolutions of inquiry from the 19th century and one from 1926. See pp. 799 and 1205.
1947 was chosen as year to begin this examination because it is the first year in which most provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-753, 60 Stat. 812) became effective, a milestone which is widely viewed as the beginning of the "modern" U.S. Congress.
Members have occasionally called on the Executive Branch to provide information to the House and Senate in an inquiry framed as a concurrent, rather than simple, resolution. In modern practice, however, resolutions of inquiry are simple resolutions introduced, and acted upon, in one chamber. See Asher C. Hinds, Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1907), vol. 3, §1875.
House rules and precedents place certain types of legislation in a special "privileged" category which gives measures of this kind the ability to be called up for consideration when the House is not considering another matter.
House Rule XIII, clause 4. For more information on House layover requirements, see CRS Report RS22015, Availability of Legislative Measures in the House of Representatives (The "Three-Day Rule"), by [author name scrubbed].
The current time period of 14 legislative days for a committee to report was established in the 98th Congress (1983-1984). Prior to 1983, House rules required resolutions of inquiry to be reported within one week.
In cases of multiple referral, all committees must report or be discharged before a resolution of inquiry may be considered on the floor. For a discussion of who may call up a multiply referred resolution of inquiry, see Charles W. Johnson, John V. Sullivan, and Thomas J. Wickham Jr., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House (Washington: GPO, 2017), ch. 49, §7, p. 849.
Clause 2 of Rule XVII, which limits to one hour the amount of time that a Member may occupy in debate on a pending question, is the default setting for consideration and debate in the House. In most cases, the Member in control of the hour of debate will move the previous question at the conclusion of the hour, cutting off further debate and bringing the pending measure to a final vote. For more information, see CRS Report 98-427, Considering Measures in the House Under the One-Hour Rule, by [author name scrubbed].
U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives, §825, p. 635.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on International Relations, Report to Accompany H.Res. 549, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-351 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 2.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Adverse Report to Accompany H.Res. 467, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-258 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 6.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Adverse Report to Accompany H.Res. 643, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-382 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 185.
House Practice,ch. 49, §6, p. 848.
Asher C. Hinds, Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1907), vol. 3, §1861, p. 169.
Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, H. Doc. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 4, ch. 15, §2.1.
See U.S. Congress, House Committee on International Relations, Legislative Review Activities, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-747 (Washington: GPO, 2007), pp. 27-28.
Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS).
Two resolutions of inquiry introduced over the period were sponsored by Members with a political affiliation other than Democratic or Republican. For purposes of this analysis, both sponsors were grouped with the Democratic Party, which is the party they voluntarily affiliated with for purposes of House committee assignment.
In the early years of the period studied, it appeared to be universal practice for a House committee receiving referral of a resolution of inquiry to immediately request formal executive comment on the resolution. The executive's response to this request was commonly printed in the committee's report to the House on the resolution. In recent Congresses, however, it is not clear from the legislative history documents examined if House committees are still routinely making such requests for formal executive comment on resolutions of inquiry, and if so, to what extent.