Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the failure of the Executive to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 4, 1997
Declares that the following conduct by the Attorney General constitutes a failure to take care that the laws are faithfully executed: (1) refusal to seek application for an independent counsel pursuant to a House Committee on the Judiciary request in letters dated March 12, 1997, and September 3, 1997; and (2) failure to send to the Senate a nomination for the now vacant office of Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, while allowing the functions of such office to be carried out by a person acting in apparent violation of the Vacancies Act, resulting in the absence of prosecutors accountable to the Congress as well as the executive branch with respect to criminal-law-related investigations of executive branch officials.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Nov 21, 2018. 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.Res.220 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.Res.220 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.Res.220 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.Res.220 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.