Congress has many techniques for obtaining documents from the executive branch, including simple requests, committee investigations, subpoenas, and holding executive officials in contempt. One procedure, used only in the House of Representatives, is the resolution of inquiry , which "is a simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an executive department to furnish the House of Representatives with specific factual information in the possession of the executive branch." It has been the practice to use the verbs "request" in asking for information from the President and "direct" when addressing department heads. Resolutions of inquiry are often much more effective in obtaining information from the executive branch than one would expect from viewing committee and floor action. Administrations have often released a substantial amount of information, leading the committee of jurisdiction to conclude that the dispute is moot and it is therefore appropriate to report the resolution adversely and table it on the floor. As examples in this report demonstrate, the sponsor of a resolution will often support an adverse report and tabling action because the Administration has substantially complied with the resolution. There is no counterpart in current Senate parliamentary practice for resolutions of inquiry, although there are precedents dating to the end of the 19 th century and an effort in 1926. Nothing prevents the Senate from passing such resolutions, but apparently the Senate is satisfied with the leverage it has through other legislative means, including the nomination process and Senate "holds." Unlike the House, the Senate has no special practices for expediting consideration through committee discharge or non-debatable motions, and resolutions are not generally privileged for immediate consideration. From its very first years, Congress has requested information from the executive branch to further legislative inquiries. Initially, these requests did not depend on a House rule. They were made pursuant to the implied authority of Congress to investigate the executive branch. For example, in 1790 the House investigated the receipts and expenditures of public moneys during Robert Morris's term as Superintendent of Finance during the Continental Congress. Congress sought documents from the executive branch in 1790 to judge the size of an annuity to be given Baron Frederick von Steuben. As part of its 1792 investigation into the military losses suffered by the troops of Major General Arthur St. Clair, the House received a substantial number of documents from the War Department. These early investigations differed in scope and procedure from the House resolution of inquiry, which depends not on Congress operating as the "Grand Inquest" but by a special rule that grants privileged status to a lawmaker's motion to obtain documents from the executive branch. Early House rules contained no procedure for requesting information from the President or cabinet officials. Throughout its first two decades, however, the House made repeated requests to the President and departmental heads for information, sometimes to be returned to Congress, and sometimes to the states. For example, on January 5, 1797, the House took up this resolution (involving the concurrence of both chambers): Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled , That the President of the United States be requested to give information to the several States who were, by the Commissioners appointed to settle accounts between the United States and the individual States, found indebted to the United States of the several sums in which they were so found indebted.... This type of resolution differed from the resolution of inquiry, because it lacked privileged status under House rules. Similarly, in 1811, the House considered a resolution requesting the President to lay before the House "a list of the whole number of persons impressed, seized, and otherwise unlawfully taken from on board vessels sailing under the United States' flag on the high seas or rivers, in ports and harbors." In 1820, the House clarified its rules for requesting information from the executive branch. There was concern that the House had not been acting with sufficient consideration before making such requests. In offering an amendment to House rules on December 12, 1820, Representative Charles Rich noted that "six clerks had been constantly employed, from the close of the last session to the present time, in collecting the materials to enable one of the departments to answer a call at the last session." Rich offered this change to the rules: A proposition, requesting information from the President of the United States, or directing it to be furnished by the Secretary of either of the Executive Departments, or the Postmaster General, shall lie upon the table one day for consideration, unless otherwise ordered, with the unanimous consent of the House. On the following day, the House agreed to Rich's proposition. Two years later, the House made another change to its rules governing resolutions of inquiry, requiring not merely a day's delay but also committee consideration: "And shall be taken up for consideration on the next day, in the order in which they were presented, immediately after reports are called for from select committees, and, when adopted, the Clerk shall cause the same to be delivered." The House rule now read: A proposition, requesting information from the President of the United States, or directing it to be furnished by the head of either of the Executive Departments, or by the Postmaster General, shall lie on the table one day for consideration, unless otherwise ordered by the unanimous consent of the House; and all such propositions shall be taken up for consideration in the order they were presented, immediately after reports are called for from select committees; and, when adopted, the Clerk shall cause the same to be delivered. This language survived until 1879, when the House Rules Committee reported language to eliminate the need for lawmakers to seek unanimous consent from the chamber in order to seek executive documents. Speaker Samuel J. Randall explained that it was "very seldom that it is in order for a member to offer a resolution calling for information; that is the difficulty. Any one member at any time may prevent a call for information." Granting this advantage, Representative Roger Q. Mills objected to the procedure for committee referral: "What is the necessity for having a resolution calling for information from one of the Executive Departments referred to a committee? What is the use of my offering a resolution of that kind and having it referred to a committee and there buried?" Representative James A. Garfield explained that the purpose of committee referral was to avoid the "constant danger of gentlemen upon this floor duplicating calls for information. Some one may want some information and offer a resolution calling for it and it passes by unanimous consent, and the same thing may have been asked already by somebody else and nobody has paid any attention to the fact that the same thing has already been called for." Garfield thought it better that legislative requests for information "be referred to the committees, in order that they may not be duplicated so as to put the Departments to the necessity of employing a large number of clerks for a useless purpose." The House Committee on Rules recommended language that gave committees of jurisdiction full discretion over resolutions referred to them: "Under this call resolutions for information from the Executive Departments of the Government may be offered for reference to the appropriate committees, such committees to have the right to report at any time." The language "under this call" referred to a procedure that required resolutions calling for executive information to be offered only during the morning hour of every Monday. Representative Mills objected to this procedure, pointing out that a resolution calling for information might be "of a partisan character," because a member of the minority wanted information in the possession of an executive officer of the majority party in the House. Did anyone believe, he asked, "that such a resolution would get out of any committee against the vote of a majority of its members, when the design of the resolution was, perhaps, to expose the malfeasance of some officer belonging to the party of the majority?" Representative William H. Calkins found Garfield's argument about duplication unpersuasive. If a lawmaker asked for information that an executive department had already made available to another lawmaker, "it would be a full answer to the resolution for such Department to reply that the information had already been given, and the Department would not be required to go over it again." As to Mills's argument that a committee could use its majority party power to block any action on a resolution, Speaker Randall noted that members of the majority party could block floor action on the resolution, because "a single member of that majority could object to it." Mills conceded that point, but said "there would be a record." Representative John H. Baker thought that too much power had been centered in the committees of jurisdiction. Upon receiving a resolution requesting information, it should be "imperative for the committee to report either for or against the resolution, so as to allow the question to come before the House for its determination." Speaker Randall considered that "a very good suggestion" that did not occur to the Rules Committee. Representative Harry White sharpened Baker's proposal by requiring the committee to report "within one week." Baker's amendment, as modified, was agreed to, resulting in this language: "And such committees shall report thereon within one week thereafter." Under House Rule XIII, clause 7, a Member may address a resolution of inquiry "to the head of an executive department." The resolution is privileged and may be considered at any time after it is properly reported or discharged from committee. If the resolution is not reported to the House within 14 legislative days after its introduction, a motion to discharge the committee from its further consideration is privileged. Should the committee or committees of referral report (or be discharged under a time limit placed by the Speaker) within the 14 day period, only a designee of the committee can move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution on the floor. Typically, the House debates a resolution of inquiry for not more than one hour before voting on it. When a committee reports a resolution, the time for consideration is generally given to the committee chairman, who may decide to grant half the time to the ranking member of the committee or subcommittee.