PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to refer Agreed to by recorded vote: 235 - 157, 17 Present (Roll no. 202). (text: CR H2553)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 14, 2010
Directs the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate fully which House Democratic leaders and members of their respective staffs had knowledge before March 3, 2010, of the allegations concerning former Representative Eric Massa, and what actions each leader and staffer having any such knowledge took after learning of the allegations.
Requires the Committee to establish an Investigative Subcommittee regarding such matter, or report to the House of Representatives the reasons for its failure to do so.
Requires the Chief Administrative Officer immediately to take all steps necessary to secure and prevent the alteration or deletion of any e-mails, text messages, voicemails, and other electronic records resident on House equipment that have been sent or received by Members and staff who are the subjects of such investigation until advised by the Committee that it has no need of any portion of such records.
Requires the Committee to issue a final report by July 31, 2010.
People & committees
Rep. Boehner, John A. [R-OH-8] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to refer Agreed to by recorded vote: 235 - 157, 17 Present (Roll no. 202). (text: CR H2553)
House roll call 202 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to refer was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H2553)
DEBATE - The Chair recognized Mr. McGovern to proceed with one hour of debate on the motion to refer H. Res. 1249 to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Mr. McGovern moved to refer to Standards of Official Conduct.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2553-2554)
QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE - Mr. Boehner rose to a question of the privileges of the House and offered a privileged resolution. The Chair announced that the resolution qualified and directed the Clerk to report the resolution to the House.
Referred to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Feb 6, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.1249 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.1249 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.1249 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.1249 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.