To establish the Congressional Office of Inspector General.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1820-1821)
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 16, 1993
Creates the Congressional Office of Inspector General (Office), independent of the executive departments and under the control and direction of the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives. Sets forth the functions of the Office. Makes an Inspector General (Inspector), to be appointed by the Speaker and minority leader, head of the Office for a seven-year term, unless removed by the Speaker and minority leader for cause. Makes the Inspector ineligible for reappointment. Requires the Inspector to appoint: (1) an Assistant Inspector General for Auditing to supervise the auditing of the office procedures and operations of each Member or committee of the House and any other House office whose employees are paid by the Clerk; and (2) an Assistant Inspector General for Investigations to supervise investigations of such office procedures and operations. Sets forth the duties and responsibilities of the Inspector. Requires each Inspector General to report annually to the Speaker and minority leader of the House. Authorizes the Inspector to receive and investigate complaints or information from a House employee concerning the possible existence of a violation of law or the Rules of the House, mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse or authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety. Prohibits the Inspector, upon receiving the complaint or information, from disclosing the complainant's identity without the employee's consent, unless such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation. Prohibits any employee who has authority to take, directs others to take, or recommends or approves any personnel action from taking action against an employee as reprisal for making a complaint or disclosing information to an Inspector, unless the complaint was false and the complainant knew this or willfully disregarded truth or falsity. Repeals a provision of the Rules of the House which establishes and outlines the duties of an Inspector General.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.1368 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.1368 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.1368 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.1368 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.