Order Code RL31909
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
House Resolutions of Inquiry
May 12, 2003
Louis Fisher
Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

House Resolutions of Inquiry
Summary
The resolution of inquiry is a House procedure that seeks factual information
from the executive branch. The resolution is privileged and may be considered at any
time after it is properly reported or discharged from committee. It applies only to
requests for facts––not opinions––within the Administration’s control. This report
explains the history, procedure, specific uses of resolutions of inquiry, and identifies
the use thus far in the 108th Congress (H.Res. 68).
The examples in this report demonstrate that even when a resolution of inquiry
is reported adversely from a committee and tabled on the floor, it frequently leads to
the release of a substantial amount of information from the Administration. The
quality and quantity of executive branch material discharged by a resolution of
inquiry is often the very reason for reporting it adversely and tabling it, because the
sponsor of the amendment has received everything requested.
For other CRS reports regarding legislative techniques for obtaining information
from the executive branch, see CRS Report RL30966, Congressional Access to
Executive Branch Information: Legislative Tools
, by Louis Fisher; and CRS Report
RL31836, Congressional Investigations: Subpoenas and Contempt Power, by Louis
Fisher. For legal analysis, see CRS Report 95-464A, Investigative Oversight: An
Introduction to the Law, Practice, and Procedure of Congressional Inquiry
, by
Morton Rosenberg, and CRS Report RS30319, Presidential Claims of Executive
Privilege: History, Law, Practice and Recent Developments
, by Morton Rosenberg.
For a general report on oversight methods, see CRS Report RL30240, Congressional
Oversight Manual
.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Contents
Origins of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Committee and Floor Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Administrative Discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Committee Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Committee Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Adverse Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Competing Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Discharging a Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Military Operations in Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Forcing Other Legislative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Supplemental Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Triggering Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Mexico Rescue Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Iraq’s Declaration on WMD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

House Resolutions of Inquiry
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.”1 It has been the practice to use the verbs
“request” in asking for information from the President and “direct” when addressing
department heads.2
Resolutions of inquiry are often much more effective in obtaining information
from the executive branch than one would expect from 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 the
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 practice for resolutions of inquiry,
although there are precedents dating to the end of the 19th century and an effort in
1926.3 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.”4 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.5
1 Deschler’s Precedents, H. Doc. No. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., vol. 7, ch. 24, § 8. For
a current summary of House procedures for resolutions of inquiry, see “House Practice: A
Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House” 817-22 (2003).
2 De Alva Stanwood Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives
360 (1916).
3 Riddick’s Senate Procedure, S. Doc. No. 101-28, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 799, 1205 (1992).
The effort in 1926 was challenged on a point of order. When the sponsor of the resolution
asked for unanimous consent to proceed, there was objection. 67 Cong. Rec. 2658-59, 2661-
62, 2663.
4 See CRS Report RL31685, Proposals to Reform “Holds” in the Senate, by Walter J.
Oleszek, and CRS Report 98-712 GOV, “Holds” in the Senate, by Walter J. Oleszek.
5 Riddick’s Senate Procedure, at 1204.

CRS-2
Origins of Practice
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.6 Congress sought
documents from the executive branch in 1790 to judge the size of an annuity to be
given Baron von Steuben.7 As part of its 1792 investigation into the military losses
suffered by the troops of Maj. Gen. Arthur St. Clair, the House received a substantial
number of documents from the War Department.8
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.9
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 . . . .10
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
6 1 Annals of Cong. 1168 (February 8, 1790, 1204 (February 10, 1790); 2 Annals of Cong.
1514 (March 19, 1790), 2017 (February 16, 1791).
7 2 Annals of Cong. 1572 (April 6, 1790), 1584 (April 19, 1790); 6 Stat. 2 (1790).
8 3 Annals of Cong. 1106-13 and Appendix (1052-59, 1310-17).
9 E.g., the initial House rules adopted in 1789 made no mention of legislative procedures
for obtaining executive documents; 1 Journal of the House of Representatives 8-14 (1826).
Nor were such procedures in place in 1794; 4 Annals of Cong. 875-82.
10 6 Annals of Cong. 1805 (1797).

CRS-3
vessels sailing under the United States’ flag on the high seas or rivers, in ports and
harbors.”11
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, Rep. 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.”12 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.13
On the following day, the House agreed to Rich’s proposition.14 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.”15 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.16
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
11 Annals of Cong., 12th Cong., 1st Sess. 370 (1811). The House agreed to this resolution;
id. at 373.
12 Annals of Cong., 16th Cong., 2d Sess. 608 (1820).
13 Id. at 607.
14 Id. at 641.
15 Annals of Cong., 17th Cong., 1st Sess. 748 (1822).
16 Id. at 756 (the language on this page has “when appointed” rather than “when adopted,”
as originally proposed. “Appointed” appears to be a typographical error).

CRS-4
for information; that is the difficulty. Any one member at any time may prevent a
call for information.”17
Granting this advantage, Rep. 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?”18 Rep. James 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.”19
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.”20 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.21
Rep. 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?”22 Rep. 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.”23
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
17 9 Cong. Rec. 1018 (1879).
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.

CRS-5
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.”24
Rep. 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.25 Rep. Harry White sharpened Baker’s proposal by requiring the
committee to report “within one week.”26 Baker’s amendment, as modified, was
agreed to, resulting in this language: “And such committees shall report thereon
within one week thereafter.”27
Committee and Floor Procedures
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 consideration is
privileged. Typically, the House debates a resolution of inquiry for no 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. The deadline
for a committee to report was extended from one week to 14 legislative days in
1983.28 In calculating the days available for committee consideration, the first day
and the last day are not counted.29
A resolution of inquiry is usually referred to the committee that has jurisdiction
over the subject matter, but on a number of occasions two or more committees have
been involved in responding to a resolution of inquiry. After a resolution of inquiry
is introduced and referred to committee, the committee sends the resolution to the
Administration for action, requesting a timely response to allow the committee to act
within the deadline for a committee report.
While waiting for information from the executive branch, the committee may
decide to act on the resolution in the form in which it was referred or consider
amendments to it. The committee then votes to report the resolution favorably or
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 1019.
28 129 Cong. Rec. 34 (1983) (paragraph 7).
29 3 Hinds’ Precedents § 1858.

CRS-6
adversely. It may also decide not to report at all, forcing the Member who introduced
the resolution to make a motion to discharge the committee. In most cases the
committee reports, either positively or negatively. If the committee concludes that
the Administration’s response is in substantial compliance with the resolution, it may
offer a motion on the House floor to table the resolution on the ground that the
congressional interest has been satisfied.
When a resolution of inquiry is reported from committee, the chairman of the
committee calls up the resolution and becomes floor manager, either to pass the
resolution or table it. If the committee decides not to report, the sponsor of the
resolution can call up the resolution as privileged business.
The privileged status of the resolution applies only to requests for facts within
the Administration’s control and not for opinions or investigations.30 In 1905, a
Member of the House asked unanimous consent for a resolution that requested the
Secretary of the Interior “to furnish to Congress a report on the progress of the
investigation of the black sands of the Pacific slope . . . and for his opinion as to
whether or not this investigation should be continued.”31 Another Member pointed
out that the Geological Survey, in a letter to the Senate, had already reported on the
result of the investigation.32 Because of a possible duplication of printing, objection
was heard to the resolution of inquiry. The sponsor of the resolution asked: “Is not
this a privileged resolution?” Speaker Joseph G. Cannon replied: “The Chair thinks
the first part of the resolution privileged. The latter part is not privileged; and that
destroys the privilege of the whole resolution.”33
Resolutions of inquiry are directed “to the head of an executive department.”
There have been parliamentary challenges to resolutions that are directed to executive
officials who are not considered the head of an executive department. In 1891, a
Member offered a resolution of inquiry to the Regents of the Smithsonian Institution
for information regarding expenditures of the National Zoological Park. The
following dialogue occurred between Rep. Benjamin A. Enloe and Speaker Charles
F. Crisp:
The SPEAKER. The rule applies only to resolutions of inquiry addressed
to the heads of Executive Departments.
Mr. ENLOE. On that point, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that the reason
why the resolution was framed as it is and also the reason why I consider this as
presenting a question of privilege is because it is addressed to the Regents of the
Smithsonian Institution, who are made trustees for the disbursement of this fund
and for the organization of this park and are not under the control of any
Department of the Government.
The SPEAKER. “Head of Executive Departments” is the language of the
rule.
30 See House Rule XIII, Cl. 7 (Rules of the House of Representatives, H. Doc. No. 106-320,
106th Cong., 2d Sess. 619 (2001)).
31 40 Cong. Rec. 591-92 (1905).
32 Id. at 592 (remarks by Rep. Tawney).
33 Id. at 593.

CRS-7
Mr. ENLOE. I understand; but the Regents of the Smithsonian are not
under the jurisdiction of any Department of the Government.
A MEMBER. And consequently do not come under the rule.
Mr. ENLOE. They are virtually the head of a Department, and I should
think they come within the meaning of the rule.
The SPEAKER. They are not heads of any Executive Department.
. . .
Mr. ENLOW. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is privileged; but, instead of
arguing that proposition, I will ask unanimous consent that the resolution be now
considered by the House.34
Objection was heard.35 Following Enlow’s resolution, a Member announced
that he had a resolution reported back from the Committee on Commerce, asking for
certain information from the Interstate Commerce Commission. Again Speaker
Crisp ruled: “The Chair thinks it is not privileged. The Interstate Commerce
Commission is not the head of a department.”36
There are cases when the Chair rules against a resolution of inquiry because it
is not directed to an executive department, but the Member prevails through a
unanimous consent motion. In 1904, a member called up a resolution of inquiry to
obtain information from the Civil Service Commission. After the Chair ruled that
the resolution was not a privileged matter because it did not call upon “the head of
Department, but upon the Civil Service Commission,” the Member asked unanimous
consent for its immediate consideration. There was no objection, “and the resolution
was accordingly considered and adopted.”37
Although the President is not “the head of an executive department,” resolutions
of inquiry are directed to the President without the parliamentary challenge that the
President is not technically a departmental head.
Administrative Discretion
Some House resolutions of inquiry give the Administration discretion in
providing factual information to Congress, particularly when they are directed to the
President. In 1811, a resolution requested from the President, “as far as practicable,”
a list of Americans impressed by other countries, “with such other information on
this subject as he in his judgment may think proper to communicate.”38 In the same
year, a resolution requested from the President information relative to the situation
in the Indiana Territory, “which may not be improper to be communicated.”39 Early
in 1812, a resolution requested the President to furnish the House with copies of
34 22 Cong. Rec. 1874-75 (1891).
35 Id. at 1875.
36 Id.
37 38 Cong. Rec. 3181 (1904).
38 Annals of Cong., 12th Cong., 1st Sess. 370 (1811).
39 Id. at 582.

CRS-8
instructions given to the U.S. Minister at London, regarding the impressment of
American seamen into the naval service of Great Britain, “excepting so much as it
may be improper to disclose, on account of any pending negotiation.”40
In 1876, the House passed a resolution requesting President Ulysses S. Grant to
inform the House “if, in his opinion, it is not incompatible with the public interest,”
whether since March 4, 1869 (the date his term began) any executive offices, acts,
or duties had been performed at a distance from “the seat of Government established
by law, and for how long a period at any one time, and in what part of the United
States; also, whether any public necessity existed for such performance, and, if so,
of what character, and how far the performance of such executive offices, acts, or
duties, at such distance from the seat of Government established by law was in
compliance with the act of Congress of the 16th day of July, 1790.” This resolution
was not taken up as a resolution of inquiry. Instead, the rules were suspended by the
necessary two-thirds majority and the resolution adopted.41
President Grant could have withheld information on the ground stated in the
resolution, that disclosure was not compatible with the public interest. He chose to
set forth constitutional reasons for declining the information. First, he said he could
find nothing in the Constitution to justify congressional interest as to where the
President discharged official acts and duties. What the House could require in terms
of information from the executive branch was limited “to what is necessary for the
proper discharge of its powers of legislation or of impeachment,” neither of which,
he said, applied. Asking where executive acts are performed and at what distance
from the seat of Government “does not necessarily belong to the province of
legislation. It does not profess to be asked for that object.”42
Second, if the House sought the information to assist in the impeachment
process, “it is asked in derogation of an inherent natural right, recognized in this
country by a constitutional guaranty which protects every citizen, the President as
well as the humblest in the land, from being made a witness against himself.”43 This
position was not well taken. Other Presidents have made it clear that if the House
sought information as part of impeachment proceedings, the information would be
supplied. In denying the House the papers it requested on the Jay Treaty, President
George Washington stated that the only ground on which the House might have
legitimately requested the documents was impeachment, “which the resolution has
not expressed.”44 President James Polk recognized that the power of impeachment
gives the House “the right to investigate the conduct of all public officers under the
Government. This is cheerfully admitted. In such a case the safety of the Republic
would be the supreme law, and the power of the House in the pursuit of this object
would penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Department. It could
40 Id. at 779 (1812).
41 4 Cong. Rec. 2158 (1876).
42 9 Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 4316 (James D. Richardson
ed.) (hereafter “Richardson”).
43 Id.
44 Annals of Cong., 4th Cong., 1st Sess. 759 (1796).

CRS-9
command the attendance of any and every agent of the Government, and compel
them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial, and to testify on
oath to all facts within their knowledge.”45
Third, Grant pointed out that previous Presidents found it necessary to discharge
official business outside the nation’s capital, and that “during such absences I did not
neglect or forego the obligations of the duties of my office.”46 To his letter to the
House he appended a study on the number of days other Presidents had conducted
official business outside the nation’s capital.
Fourth, with regard to the statute of July 16, 1790, Grant said that no act of
Congress could limit his constitutional duty to discharge governmental functions
outside the nation’s capital, and that the 1790 statute made no attempt to do so. He
noted that on March 30, 1791, shortly after passage of the statute cited in the
resolution, President Washington issued a proclamation “having reference to the
subject of this very act from Georgetown, a place remote from Philadelphia, which
then was the seat of Government . . . .”47
In 1952, the House debated a resolution of inquiry to “direct” the Secretary of
State to transmit to the House, “at the earliest practicable date, full and complete
information with respect to any agreements, commitments, or understandings which
may have been entered into” by President Harry Truman and Prime Minister Winston
Churchill in the course of their conversations during January 1952, “and which might
require the shipment of additional members of the Armed Forces of the United States
beyond the continental limits of the United States or involve United States forces in
armed conflict on foreign soil.”48 The resolution came to the floor accompanied by
an adverse report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs.49
During debate on the resolution, which passed 189 to 143,50 those who
supported the resolution regarded it as non-binding. For example, Rep. John Martin
Vorys advised his colleagues that “we cannot by this resolution make the Executive
answer. We cannot make the President, we cannot make the Secretary of State, say
anything. That has been passed on time and again under the precedents of this
House. We can put a question up to them. All we can do, if we pass this resolution,
is to say to the Secretary of State and the Department of State: “Please try again.
That answer you sent down was not very good.”51 Rep. James P. Richards, who
voted against the resolution, said, regarding this resolution, “it is within the province
45 5 Richardson 2284 (April 20, 1846).
46 9 Richardson 4317.
47 Id. at 4318.
48 98 Stat. 1205 (1952).
49 Id.
50 Id. at 1215.
51 Id. at 1208.

CRS-10
of the President to refuse to divulge information that he considers would be
dangerous or incompatible with the interests of our Nation.”52
Discretion over the release of information to Congress has also been given
expressly to department heads. In 1971 the House considered a resolution directing
the Secretary of State to furnish certain information respecting U.S. operations in
Laos, but the language of the resolution included the phrase “to the extent not
incompatible with the public interest.”53 The House tabled this resolution, 261 to
118.54 In 1979, in the midst of an energy crisis, a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 291)
requested certain facts from the President, “to the extent possible,” regarding
shortages of crude oil and refined petroleum products, refinery capacity utilization,
and related matters. It was adopted 340 to 4.55
Committee Review
A committee has a number of choices after a resolution of inquiry is referred to
it. It may vote on the resolution up or down or amend it. It can report favorably or
adversely, but an “adverse report” is often accompanied by a substantial amount of
information prepared by the executive branch. The quality and quantity of this
information can bring the Administration into compliance with the resolution,
making further congressional action unnecessary. Usually a committee issues a
report on a resolution of inquiry; if it does not, it can be discharged.
Committee Amendments
Resolutions of inquiry may be amended at the committee level before action on
the House floor. In 1980, the House acted on H. Res. 745, a resolution directing
President Jimmy Carter to furnish information on the role of Billy Carter, the
President’s brother, as an agent of the government of Libya.56 The House Judiciary
Committee, after considering and adopting a number of amendments, reported the
resolution favorably by a vote of 27 to 0.57 The amendments included two that had
been adopted by the Foreign Affairs Committee.58 A third committee, the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, reported on the resolution with regard to classified
52 Id. at 1209.
53 117 Cong. Rec. 23800 (1971).
54 Id. at 23807. See “Laos Secrets: House Defeat of Disclosure Move,” CQ Weekly Rept.,
July 9, 1971, at 1463-66.
55 125 Cong. Rec. 15027, 15039 (1979).
56 126 Cong. Rec. 24948 (1980).
57 H.Rept. No. 96-1213 (Part 1), 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980).
58 126 Cong. Rec. at 24950 (statement by Rep. Rodino); H.Rept. No. 96-1213 (Part 2), 96th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1980).

CRS-11
material that touched on the relationship between Libya and Billy Carter. It
concluded that the Administration was in substantial compliance with H. Res. 745.59
During floor action, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Peter
Rodino, asked unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered en
bloc. There was no objection to his request and the committee amendments were
agreed to.60 He then noted that out of the previous 33 resolutions of inquiry, dating
back to 1932, motions to table carried 25 times, largely because there had been
substantial compliance to the committee on jurisdiction. It was Rodino’s judgment
that the Administration had substantially complied with H. Res. 745 and that the
issue was therefore “moot” and he would make a motion to table the resolution.61
Rep. Robert McClory, a member of the Judiciary Committee, disagreed with
Rodino’s position and his proposal to table the resolution. In McClory’s view, “there
has been something less than substantial compliance with the terms of the
resolution,” and that one omission from the materials assembled by the
Administration was President Carter’s “conversation on June 17, 1980, with the
Attorney General concerning the Billy Carter investigation.”62 Rodino’s motion to
table the resolution was rejected on a vote of 124 to 260, after which the House voted
to agree to the resolution.63 In defeating the tabling motion, 116 Democrats joined
144 Republicans.64
Adverse Reports
The fact that a committee reports a resolution of inquiry adversely does not
mean the committee opposes the resolution or that the Administration has declined
to supply information. The documents delivered by the executive branch may bring
it in substantial compliance with the resolution, thus making it unnecessary for the
committee to report the resolution favorably for floor action.
An example typifying this executive-legislative exchange comes from 1979,
when 81 Members supported H. Res. 291, a resolution that directed President Carter
to provide the House with information on the energy crisis: shortages of crude oil and
refined petroleum products, methods used in allocating oil supplies, possible actions
within the private industry to withhold or reduce oil supplies, and any reduction in
59 H.Rept. No. 96-1269, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980).
60 126 Cong. Rec. at 24949.
61 Id. at 24951.
62 Id. at 24953.
63 Id. at 24961.
64 CQ Weekly Report, September 13, 1980, at 2740.

CRS-12
the supply of crude oil from any foreign country.65 Within a week, 21 additional
Members joined as sponsors of the resolution.66
The House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce reported the
resolution unfavorably and recommended that it not pass.67 However, the committee
had been seeking the information in a number of hearings, and had asked the
Department of Energy to provide the information requested in the resolution. The
committee stated that much of the information could be found in departmental
publications, and that some of the information had been obtained in the course of
committee investigations. Yet it also faulted the Administration: “it cannot be said
that all information necessary to a full understanding of the supply problem is
collected by the DOE, nor that the information which is collected is timely. To the
contrary, the Committee has found the DOE lacking vital information on such
matters as secondary stocks and actual sales of products.” The information supplied
by the department was “rarely timely, as a result of long lag times in sending out
forms and retrieving them,” and the department was “heavily reliant on unverified
industry data despite the clear directives from the Congress in a variety of statutes,
such as the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, and the
Department of Energy Organization Act.”68
The committee offered several reasons for reporting the resolution adversely:
(1) the department had provided “all of the requested documents which were
available at the time resolution was considered, and has promised to provide the
Committee additional information when it becomes available;” (2) much of the
information was of a confidential or proprietary nature, which was appropriate to
share with the committee of jurisdiction but less appropriate to share with the entire
Congress; (3) the cost of reproducing the documents was substantial and
unnecessary; (4) whatever information was available to the department had been
shared with the committee and Congress; and (5) the data requested would probably
not “quell public skepticism relating to the Nation’s gasoline problems”69 The
committee then added a sixth reason:
The Committee wishes to make clear that it is extremely interested in
reliable information concerning the nature of our petroleum supply problems.
The information currently available is far from adequate, and the Committee in
reporting this resolution adversely does not suggest that the Congress and the
public have been fully informed concerning these matters. Nor does the
Committee wish to indicate that the Congress does not have a right to such
information. To the contrary, the Congress clearly has such a right. Rather, the
65 125 Cong. Rec. 12626 (1979).
66 Id. at 12979.
67 H.Rept. No. 96-261, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979).
68 Id. at 4.
69 Id. at 7.

CRS-13
use of a resolution of inquiry is not the appropriate mechanism for obtaining this
readily available data: it simply will not result in any new data.70
When the resolution came to the floor on June 14, Rep. John Dingell pointed to
a desk covered with information provided by the Energy Department, including “the
tables, data, and other documents. The total is a stack of papers nearly a foot high.”
Yet he also conceded that all of the committee members “believe that the
Department’s gathering system is inadequate and that data concerning the energy
supplies, demands, and prices is not timely provided.”71 Dingell said he was not
critical of those who filed the resolution of inquiry: “I do believe that continued
inquiry by the Congress is highly desirable. I believe that the information must be
made plain.”72
Instead of the mass of material sitting on the desk, several Members wanted a
summary of what the documents contained. Dingell said the department had
prepared a summary but it was not yet available from the printer. After several
Members objected to voting on the resolution without a summary, Dingell agreed to
withdraw his initial motion for the immediate consideration of the resolution.73
Debate continued the next day, with a number of Members expressing
dissatisfaction with the quality of departmental data. Minority Leader John J.
Rhodes, who had introduced the resolution, said that “as far as the technicalities of
the situation are concerned, those questions were answered, but they were answered
in such a way as to be almost incomprehensible, and certainly not to inform with the
House or the American people as to the reasons for the existence of these
shortages.”74 A move to table the resolution of inquiry lost on a vote of 4 to 338.75
As the debate moved along, with Members of both parties expressing support
for the resolution, Dingell said “I understand the temper of the House very clearly.
I want to have my colleagues know that we have had the resolution on inquiry fully
and fairly and properly complied with by the DOE, and it will be further fully, fairly,
and properly complied with according to the letter of the rules of the House if this
resolution is adopted.” He wanted his colleagues to know “I have no objection to the
vote which will take place, and I want them to know that the vote will, I regret to
advise them, procure no new information other than that which was available at the
committee table and which was made available to my Republican colleagues
yesterday in response to the resolution.” He pledged to “persist in my efforts to
procure the information which I and my colleagues desire to have on this particular
matter, and that the motion to table made earlier by me was simply to save the time
of the House and to see to it that the information requested by the sponsors of the
70 Id. at 8.
71 125 Cong. Rec. 14952 (1979).
72 Id. at 14953.
73 Id. at 14955.
74 Id. at 15028.
75 Id. at 15029.

CRS-14
resolution of inquiry was presented to the House in a proper and appropriate
fashion.”76 The resolution of inquiry passed on a vote of 340 to 4.77
Another example comes from 1986, after Rep. Leon Panetta introduced H. Res.
395 to receive documents regarding the Administration’s use of $27 million in
appropriated funds for humanitarian assistance for the Nicaraguan democratic
resistance. A subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing
on the resolution and made a tentative recommendation that the resolution be
reported favorably to the full committee.78 The subcommittee reviewed documents
provided by the Administration, and agreed to recommend that the full committee
report adversely if the subcommittee received information covering six categories.79
This second effort by the Administration convinced both the subcommittee and
Panetta that the executive branch was in essential compliance with the resolution, but
the subcommittee and Panetta also agreed that the documents demonstrated that the
Administration “has not complied with the law requiring it to set up appropriate
monitoring procedures with respect to the so-called humanitarian assistance for the
Contras authorized by the Congress.”80 Panetta, having met with representatives
from the Central Intelligence Agency to review classified documents, wrote to the
chairman of the full committee that the Administration had complied with his
resolution of inquiry.81
Competing Investigations
A committee may decide to report a resolution of inquiry adversely because it
competes with other investigations that are regarded as more appropriate. In 1980,
for example, H. Res. 571 directed the Attorney General to furnish the House with “all
evidence compiled by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation against Members of Congress in connection with the Abscam
investigation,” which was a Justice Department undercover operation that led to
charges of criminal conduct against certain Members of Congress. The resolution
also asked for “the total amount of Federal moneys expended in connection with the
Abscam probe.”82
The House Judiciary Committee reported the resolution adversely.83 Committee
opposition to the resolution was unanimous.84 The Justice Department “vigorously
76 Id. at 15035.
77 Id. at 15039.
78 H.Rept. No. 99-585, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1986).
79 Id. at 4-5.
80 Id. at 5.
81 Id. at 6.
82 126 Cong. Rec. 4071 (1980).
83 H.Rept. No. 96-778, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980).
84 126 Cong. Rec. 4073 (statement by Rep. McClory).

CRS-15
oppose[d]” the resolution.85 The objections raised by the department, with which the
committee agreed, centered on the concern that disclosure of evidence to the House
would jeopardize the ability of the department to successfully conduct grand jury
investigations and to prosecute any indictments, and that the release of unsifted and
unevaluated evidence “would injure the reputations of innocent people who may be
involved in no ethical or legal impropriety.”86
Other considerations were present. The House Standards of Official Conduct
Committee, conducting its own inquiry into Abscam, unanimously opposed the
resolution of inquiry.87 The committee had begun the process of negotiating with the
Justice Department to obtain access to evidence needed for investigation by the
House.88 Moreover, two subcommittees of the House Judiciary Committee were
planning hearings into the proper standards for the Justice Department to conduct
undercover operations, particularly against Members of Congress.89 During House
debate, Rep. John J. Cavanaugh expressed concern that Abscam “raises serious
questions of the separation of powers and the ability of one branch of our
Government––the executive––to employ investigative methods that are capable of
subverting and intimidating and compromising the independence, the constitutional
independence, of another and separate branch of our Government.”90
In this case, Congress chose not to interrupt or interfere with Justice Department
prosecutions because it might appear to be self-serving. Rep. William J. Hughes
stated: “I can think of nothing that would be more damaging to the Congress than to
be perceived as having obstructed an active criminal investigation.”91 One Member
was concerned that forcing the Justice Department to release evidence might help
some Members who faced criminal prosecution and look as though lawmakers had
greater protection than the average citizen.92 By a vote of 404 to 4, the House
decided to table the resolution of inquiry.93
In other situations, Congress may choose to investigate a scandal even if
jeopardizes successful prosecutions. In terms of public policy, it may be more
important to investigate a matter promptly rather than wait for the Justice Department
or an Independent Counsel to investigate, prosecute, and pursue appeals. Such was
the case with Iran-Contra, where both Houses of Congress concluded that the value
of timely legislative investigation outweighed the needs of prosecutors. Lawrence
Walsh, the independent counsel for Iran-Contra, recognized that if Congress “decides
85 H.Rept. No. 96-778, at 2 (letter of Assistant Attorney General Philip B. Heymann).
86 Id.
87 126 Cong. Rec. 4075 (statement by Rep. Bennett).
88 Id.
89 Id. (statement by Rep. Rodino).
90 Id. at 4077.
91 Id. at 4076.
92 Id. (statement by Rep. Lungren).
93 Id. at 4078-79.

CRS-16
to grant immunity, there is no way that it can be avoided. They have the last word
and that is a proper distribution of power. . . . The legislative branch has the power
to decide whether it is more important perhaps even to destroy a prosecution than to
hold back testimony they need.”94
Discharging a Committee
If a committee receives a resolution of inquiry and fails to report it within the
requisite number of days, a motion to discharge the committee is privileged. That
procedure was used in 1971 after Rep. James M. Collins introduced H. Res. 539
directing the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to furnish certain
documents.95 The resolution directed the release, “to the extent not incompatible
with the public interest,” of any documents containing a list of the public school
systems, from August 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972, that would be receiving federal funds
and would be engaging in busing schoolchildren to achieve racial balance. Also
requested were any documents regarding HEW rules and regulations with respect to
the use of any federal funds administered by the department for busing to achieve
racial balance.96 The resolution was referred to the Committee on Education and
Labor.
When the committee failed to report the resolution during the deadline, which
was seven days in 1971, Rep. Collins moved to discharge the committee. His motion
was agreed to, 252 to 129.97 Rep. Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill, Jr.,who at that time was
the House Majority Whip, voted against the discharge motion but admitted that he
was uncertain about the meaning of the resolution: “What does the resolution do?
Is there anything wrong? Is it a serious resolution? Is it something we should have
had up today? Is it of that import?”98 He said that when Members came to the floor
they were told: “Well, if you are for busing, you vote ‘nay.’ If you are against busing,
you vote ‘yea.’”99 He now realized that the guidance given to Members was
“inaccurate.”100 The vote was not for or against busing, but for or against receiving
information from HEW. With this new understanding, O’Neill announced that he
had no objection to the resolution and that “I will, and I hope all other Members will
vote for the resolution.”101
94 Lawrence E. Walsh, “The Independent Counsel and the Separation of Powers,” 25
Houston L. Rev. 1, 9 (1988).
95 117 Cong. Rec. 24936 (1971).
96 Id. at 28863.
97 Id.
98 Id. at 28864.
99 Id. at 28866.
100 Id.
101 Id. at 28867.

CRS-17
O’Neill asked the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Rep. Carl
Perkins, why the committee had not acted on the resolution. Perkins explained: “To
be perfectly truthful and frank, . . . I forgot about it. . . . [I]t was of the nature that the
sponsor of the resolution could have picked up the telephone and gotten the
information from HEW.”102
Rep. Edith Green emphasized that the resolution “is simply a request for
information,” not “a bill to legislate,” and asked the HEW Secretary “in a perfectly
orderly fashion to supply within 60 days the amount of money that is now being spent
and in which districts for busing and the guidelines, rules and regulations which
HEW has drawn up to enforce this busing to achieve some magical racial balance.”103
With the purpose of the resolution clarified, the House passed it 351 to 36.104
Military Operations in Vietnam
The House frequently uses resolutions of inquiry to obtain information on
matters of defense and military policy. A particularly heavy use of resolutions of
inquiry came during the Vietnam War. In 1971, the House voted on two resolutions
to give Members access to the “Pentagon Papers,” the Defense Department study
entitled “United States-Vietnam Relationships, 1945-1967.” One of the cosponsors
of the resolution, Rep. Bella Abzug, stated that the procedures adopted by the House
Armed Services Committee, which had a single copy of the study, did not provide
Members adequate access to the 47-volume study: “they cannot take notes, cannot
have staff people review and comment, cannot report on what they have read. Under
such limitations, a Congressman must have an elephantine memory to retain the facts
that would enable him to exercise his constitutional duty.”105
H.Res. 489 directed the President “to furnish the House of Representatives
within fifteen days after the adoption of this resolution with the full and complete
text” of the Pentagon Papers. The House Armed Services Committee reported the
resolution adversely, 25 to 2, and it was tabled on the floor, 272 to 113.106 H. Res.
490, containing the identical language, was also reported adversely and tabled.107
Also in 1971, the House considered three resolutions of inquiry to obtain
information about U.S. covert operations in Laos. H. Res. 492 directed the Secretary
of State, “to the extent not incompatible with the public interest,” to provide the
House with any documents containing policy instructions or guidelines given to the
U.S. Ambassador in Laos regarding covert CIA operations in Laos, Thai and other
foreign armed forces operations in Laos, U.S. bombing operations other than those
102 Id. at 28864.
103 Id. at 28866.
104 Id. at 28869.
105 117 Cong. Rec. 23026 (1971).
106 H.Rept. No. 92-318, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971); 117 Cong. Rec. at 23030-31.
107 H.Rept. No. 92-319, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971); 117 Cong. Rec. at 23031.

CRS-18
along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, U.S. armed forces operations in Laos, and U.S. Agency
for International Development operations in Laos that assisted, directly or indirectly,
military or CIA operations in Laos.108 The resolution was accompanied by an adverse
report from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.109 Rep. Benjamin Rosenthal, a
cosponsor of the resolution, explained its purpose:
This administration has steadfastly refused to report to the people and to the
Congress the nature of the CIA covertly declared war in Laos where the CIA
agents are advising the Meo tribesmen. The administration has steadfastly
refused to admit that we are hiring Thai mercenaries and ferrying them to Laos
in American aircraft to conduct a war in defense of the Laotian Government––a
war which this administration has not declared. . . . Yet it is widely reported in
the papers––the New York Times and the Washington Post and other
newspapers, Life magazine and the Christian Science Monitor––that all of these
events are taking place. We in Congress are forced to depend on what we are
advised of in the public newspapers as to our involvement in Laos.110
The resolution was tabled, 261 to 118.111 Another resolution of inquiry,
directing the Secretary of State––“to the extent not incompatible with the public
interest”–– to furnish the House with additional information regarding U.S. policy
involving Laos,112 was also tabled.113
House resolutions of inquiry are typically reported from committee after a
committee meeting and a roll-call vote, but usually without holding hearings.
However, in 1972 the House Armed Services Committee held hearings on H. Res.
918, a resolution of inquiry introduced by Rep. Abzug to obtain information on U.S.
bombing in Vietnam. Most of the resolution requested specific facts on U.S. military
personnel in South Vietnam, the number of sorties flown during specific periods, the
tonnage of bombs and shells fired or dropped during specific periods, and other
statistics.114
In testifying on the resolution at the hearings, Rep. Abzug stated that the level
of bombing constituted “the most dramatic proof yet that the Nixon administration
is entirely committed to a full-scale and long-term U.S. air war in Indochina instead
of negotiating a full withdrawal in return for the release of our captured pilots.”115
At these hearings, Dennis J. Doolin, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East
108 117 Cong. Rec. at 23800.
109 Id. at 23801 (statement by Rep. Morgan).
110 Id.
111 Id. at 23807-08.
112 Id. at 23808.
113 Id. at 23810.
114 118 Cong. Rec. 13497-98 (1972).
115 “Full Committee Hearing and Consideration of H. Res. 918, a Resolution of Inquiry
Concerning the Bombing in Vietnam by the United States Government,” hearing before the
House Committee on Armed Services, April 18, 1972, at 9043.

CRS-19
Asia and Pacific Affairs, provided information on some of the elements in H. Res.
918.116
The resolution was reported adversely, 32 to 4.117 During floor debate, the
chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. F. Edward Hébert,
explained that the information sought in the resolution was in committee files,
“available to any Member of the House for his examination, subject, of course, to the
rules established by the committee which preclude the release or public use of such
information without the consent of the committee.”118 After describing the material
available in the committee’s sessions, both open and closed, he said that the
resolution “is directed to giving the Congress the information which is here printed
for them to see. Every question is answered.”119
Later in the debate, Rep. William J. Randall, a member of the Armed Services
Committee, noted that the when the committee went into executive session, “[a]ll
afternoon the answers to the questions propounded by the Member from New York
[Rep. Abzug] were spread upon the record. We were given the very latest facts and
figures on all of the things asked for in the resolution.”120
House floor debate on the Abzug resolution, occupying 87 pages in the
Congressional Record, includes the transcript from the open hearings before the
Armed Services Committee and a number of articles on military operations in
Vietnam. Some of the Members who voted to table the resolution objected only to
one part: the part asking the Administration to give the target date for full
independence for Saigon. Otherwise, said Rep. Paul Findley, “the resolution seems
to deal entirely with facts of past actions that should be available to Congress.”121
The House voted 270 to 113 to table the resolution.122 Although the resolution was
not agreed to, it forced the delivery of information from the Administration to the
Armed Services Committee, and from there to individual Members.
A similar pattern emerged in 1973, when the House acted on H. Res. 379, which
directed the Secretary of Defense to furnish the House information on military
operations in Cambodia and Laos: the number of sorties flown by the U.S. during
certain periods, the tonnage of bombs and shells fired or dropped during certain
periods, the number and nomenclature of U.S. aircraft lost over Cambodia and Laos,
and other statistics.123 The House Armed Services Committee held a hearing to
review the 19 specific questions addressed in the resolution. Chairman Hébert asked
116 Id. at 9057-150.
117 H.Rept. No. 92-1003, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972).
118 118 Cong. Rec. 14349 (1972).
119 Id.
120 Id. at 14433.
121 Id. at 14432.
122 Id. at 14434.
123 119 Cong. Rec. 14990-91 (1973).

CRS-20
the Defense Department “to be as responsive as possible to each of the questions, and
to the maximum extent possible provide this information in open session.” If
necessary, the committee would go into closed session to “receive such additional
classified information as may be necessary to permit the Department to be fully
responsive to this privileged resolution.”124
In open session, Deputy Assistant Secretary Doolin provided answers to each
of the questions, with two exceptions. He told the committee that he would not be
able to provide the answer for Question 10 for another 24 hours, at which time the
committee received the information and placed it in the hearing record.125 He also
noted that Question 18, regarding the legal authority for U.S. military activity in
Cambodia and Laos since January 27, 1973, would be addressed by DOD General
Counsel J. Fred Buzhardt, who proceeded to provide a legal analysis.126 As noted in
the following exchange with Rep. Charles Wilson, all of the information given by
Doolin and Buzhardt was in open session:
Mr. CHARLES WILSON. There was no difficulty in presenting this to us in
open session, was there?
Mr. DOOLIN. No, sir. I have tried to be as forthcoming as possible.
Mr. CHARLES WILSON. This information could have been furnished by a
resolution asked for by any Members of the Congress, I assume?
Mr. DOOLIN. Yes, sir.127
Toward the end of the hearing, Chairman Hébert noted that the resolution “asks
for certain information to be brought to the attention of the Congress. That
information is now before the attention of the Congress. Therefore, making, in
effect, the resolution a moot question.” The sponsor of the resolution, Rep. Robert
L. Leggett, agreed that “we answered all of the questions I think really very well.”128
When Chairman Hébert said “the resolution becomes moot,” Leggett responded: “I
concur in that.”129 The committee then voted 36 to zero to report the resolution
adversely.130 The answers to the 19 questions were placed in the Congressional
Record
, at which point the resolution was tabled.131
124 “Full Committee Consideration of Privileged Resolution H. Res. 379, Concerning
Certain Military Actions in Cambodia and Laos,” hearing before the House Committee on
Armed Services, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. 1-2 (1973).
125 Id. at 5-6.
126 Id. at 11-12.
127 Id. at 17.
128 Id. at 32.
129 Id. at 33.
130 Id. See H.Rept. No. 93-170, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).
131 119 Cong. Rec. 14991-94.

CRS-21
Forcing Other Legislative Actions
Some resolutions of inquiry have caused Congress to take other legislative
actions to address the lack of information received from the Administration. The two
examples included here relate to the calling of supplemental hearings and the
adoption of substitute legislation.
Supplemental Hearings
A resolution of inquiry, after being partially satisfied by answers from the
Administration, can trigger supplemental information obtained through congressional
hearings. This was the result of H.Res. 552, introduced by Rep. Benjamin Rosenthal
on June 18, 1975, to seek information about the Administration’s proposed sale of
Hawk and Redeye missiles to Jordan.132 On the following day, the House Committee
on International Relations forwarded the resolution to President Gerald Ford,
requesting a prompt reply. The White House responded on June 25, providing
responses to the 20 questions put by the resolution.133
However, committee chairman Thomas E. Morgan questioned whether the
resolution was a bona fide “privileged resolution of inquiry” under House rules. On
June 26, the committee voted to table the resolution on the ground that it was not
restricted to factual answers, but instead required “investigation” on the part of the
President to answer several of the questions.134 Rosenthal, having announced his
intention to call up H.Res. 552 for House action because the committee had not
reported on his resolution, agreed to withhold that motion in exchange for committee
hearings. Morgan advised Rosenthal that the committee “should get the facts
regarding the proposed sale, and I will be glad to cooperate with him in making that
happen.”135
The hearings were important because Congress was in the process of deciding
whether to block the sale by passing a resolution of disapproval under Section 36(b)
of the Foreign Military Sales Act. On July 9, Rosenthal said that information about
the proposed sale “was leaked to the press, not formally announced,” and that “[n]o
attempt was made to inform the Congress about the sale in the past 2 months, and
there would have been none were it not for the questions posed in House Resolution
552, the resolution of inquiry.” When the Administration acknowledged the sale, it
indicated that formal notice would be reported to Congress in late July or early
August. Rosenthal pointed out that “Congress probably will be in recess at that time
and unable to act on this very important arms sale and policy decision.”136
132 121 Cong. Rec. 19616 (1975).
133 Id. at 21664-67.
134 Id. at 21664.
135 Id. at 21882.
136 Id. at 21884.

CRS-22
Formal notice of the sale reached Congress on July 10. Under Section 36(b),
Congress had 20 calendar days to pass a concurrent resolution of disapproval.
Legislative action on the disapproval resolution therefore had to be completed by July
30. On July 14, Rep. Jonathan Bingham and ten other Members introduced
H.Con.Res. 337 to disapprove the sale. On July 16 and 17, a subcommittee of the
House International Relations Committee held two days of hearings on the proposed
sale.137 Administration officials defended the sale on the first day; eight Members of
Congress raised their objections the following day.
With the disapproval resolution moving toward a vote, President Ford withdrew
the proposed sale on July 28 and entered into negotiations with Congress. The
Administration announced a compromise on September 16, limiting the missiles to
“defensive and non-mobile antiaircraft weapons.”138
Triggering Legislation
In 1991, just prior to U.S. military operations against Iraq, Rep. Barbara Boxer
and six Democratic colleagues introduced H.Res. 19 to call for certain information
regarding casualty estimates, biological and chemical weapons, financial assistance
from other countries (burdensharing), and other information.139
Members of both parties recognized that the House was entitled to budgetary
and other information from the executive branch, but decided on a different
approach. After the war began, Representatives Charles Schumer and Leon Panetta
introduced H.R. 586 on January 18, for the purpose of requiring regular reports from
the Administration on U.S. expenditures for military operations and the financial
contributions from other countries.140 Action on a bill would avoid the 14-day
deadline imposed by a resolution of inquiry.141
On February 21, the House moved to suspend the rules to pass H.R. 586.
During debate on the bill, several Members discussed that the General Accounting
Office had not been given access to any of the costs incurred in connection with the
war.142 Rep. Schumer said that until the resolution of inquiry and his bill were
introduced, “we just were not getting those answers when we asked questions.”143
Lawmakers received information on what allies had pledged but not “about how
137 “Proposed Sales to Jordan of the Hawk and Vulcan Air Defense Systems,” hearings
before the Subcommittee on International Political and Military Affairs of the House
Committee on International Relations, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).
138 1975 CQ Almanac 358-59.
139 137 Cong. Rec. 105 (1991).
140 137 Cong. Rec. 1910 (1991).
141 Glasser, “Liberals Seek to Revive,” at 8.
142 137 Cong. Rec. at 3900 (statements by Rep. Spratt and Rep. Panetta).
143 Id. at 3902.

CRS-23
much they had actually paid.”144 Rep. Boxer announced that she would support H.R.
586 and the tabling of her resolution.145 In a letter dated February 20, Brent
Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to President George H.W. Bush, provided
specific information in response to H.Res. 19.146 After H.R. 586 passed 393 to 1,147
the House engaged in a brief debate on H.Res. 19 before tabling it by a vote of 390
to 0.148 In discussing the resolution of inquiry, Rep. Dante Fascell said that it “has
proven to be a catalyst for the executive branch to be more forthcoming with the
Congress in providing necessary and appropriate information in order to satisfy the
oversight responsibilities of the Congress.”149
Mexico Rescue Package
A recent use of a resolution of inquiry occurred in 1995, after the Clinton
Administration offered a multibillion dollar rescue package for the Mexican peso.
As initially introduced by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, the resolution (H.Res. 80) did not
contain discretion for the Administration. It requested the President, within 14 days
after the adoption of the resolution, “to submit information to the House of
Representatives concerning actions taken through the exchange stabilization fund to
strengthen the Mexican peso and stabilize the economy of Mexico.”150
The House Banking and Financial Services Committee voted 37 to 5 to report
the resolution favorably, but with a substitute directing the President to submit the
documents “if not inconsistent with the public interest.”151 The committee explained
that its requests for documents “should not be construed to include drafts of
documents provided in final form, nor any notes of any individual.”152 On March 1,
the House adopted the committee substitute and agreed to the resolution, 407 to 21.153
Although the resolution established a deadline of 14 days, White House Counsel
Abner J. Mikva sent a letter to Speaker Newt Gingrich that the Administration would
not be able to provide the documentary material until May 15, or two months after
the date set in the resolution.154 By April 6, the Treasury Department had supplied
144 Id.
145 Id. at 3903.
146 Id. at 3904.
147 Id. at 3906-07.
148 Id. at 3907-11.
149 Id. at 3909.
150 H. Res. 80, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (February 10, 1995).
151 H.Rept. No. 104-53, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995).
152 Id. at 5.
153 141 Cong. Rec. 6422 (1995).
154 “House GOP Considers Stance on Bailout of Mexico,” CQ Weekly Report, March 25,
(continued...)

CRS-24
Congress with 3,200 pages of unclassified documents and 475 pages of classified
documents, with additional materials promised.155 The White House said it was in
“substantial compliance” with the resolution.156
Iraq’s Declaration on WMD
On February 12, 2003, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced a resolution of inquiry
to give the House access to the 12,000-page Iraqi declaration on its weapons of mass
destruction. The declaration had been provided to the UN Security Council on
December 7, 2002. In his floor statement on H.Res. 68, Kucinich said that if the
Administration was intent on going to war against Iraq, “I believe it is incumbent
upon them to make the document which was portrayed as evidence of an Iraqi threat
available for all to evaluate.” He asked that “the primary documents be transmitted
in their complete and unedited form.”157
The Administration gave a copy of the declaration to the House on March 7,
after which the House International Relations Committee voted to report H.Res. 68
adversely.158 Rep. Doug Bereuter, who chaired the committee markup, said that the
Administration’s release of the document rendered the resolution moot: “I would say,
in short, Mr. Kucinich has won his point.”159 When the declaration reached the
House on March 7, the Speaker directed the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence to retain custody because of its facilities for handling classified
documents. The declaration is available for review by Members and to House staff
“with appropriate security clearances who have executed a nondisclosure oath or
affirmation.”160
154 (...continued)
1995, at 880.
155 “Treasury Says Congress Given Papers on Mexico,” Washington Post, April 7, 1995,
at F1.
156 1995 CQ Almanac 10-17.
157 149 Cong. Rec. H396 (daily ed. February 12, 2003).
158 CQ Today, March 13, 2003, at 16.
159 Id.
160 H.Rept. No. 108-38, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (2003). As of May 9, 2003, no other
House resolution of inquiry had been introduced during the 108th Congress.

CRS-25
Conclusions
House resolutions of inquiry have been an effective means of obtaining factual
material from the executive branch. Even when committees report the resolutions
adversely or succeed in tabling them on the House floor, a substantial amount of
information is usually released to Congress. In fact, arguments that the
Administration has complied with a resolution are frequently the reason for reporting
a resolution adversely and tabling it. On occasion, a resolution of inquiry is reported
adversely because it competes with other investigations (either in Congress or in the
executive branch) that are considered the more appropriate avenue for inquiry. In
some situations, resolutions of inquiry have been instrumental in triggering other
congressional methods of obtaining information, such as through supplemental
hearings or alternative legislation.
Members turn to resolutions of inquiry for different reasons. A Member may
introduce such a resolution if he or she has been unable to do so through other
channels (e.g., committee investigations and hearings). The committee of
jurisdiction might have advised the lawmaker that it had no intention of investigating
the matter. Also, a resolution of inquiry is often a useful way for a Member to bring
attention to an issue, receive basic information from the Administration, and perhaps
trigger more extensive legislative investigations. There generally has been broad
support within Congress whenever a Member seeks factual information from the
Administration, and only in exceptional cases has an Administration taken the
position of refusing to Congress facts that are readily available within the executive
branch.