PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Passed House pursuant to H. Res. 241. (consideration: CR H2625-2626; text: CR H2625-2626)
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Apr 27, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends rule XI (Procedures of Committees and Unfinished Business) of the Rules of the House of Representatives to revise the procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official conduct to reinstate the requirement that the chairman and ranking minority member establish jointly an investigative subcommittee for consideration of a complaint if it is not disposed of within 45 days (or a 45-day extension). Allows establishment of an investigative subcommittee at any time during such applicable period if either the chairman or the ranking minority member has placed on the agenda the issue of whether to establish such a subcommittee. Requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee to establish the subcommittee.
Repeals the requirement that a complaint be dismissed if an investigative subcommittee has not been established within such applicable period after the complaint is filed (Automatic Dismissal Rule).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Repeals the requirement that the Committee adopt rules providing that: (1) whenever notification of the Committee's decision to either dismiss a complaint or to create an investigative subcommittee is transmitted to a respondent, the individual shall have seven calendar days to submit his or her views in writing; or (2) if the notification references the conduct of another Member other than the respondent, such individual shall be notified and given seven calendar days to submit his or her views in writing (which shall be appended to the notice and made part of the record), or to request in writing that the Committee establish an adjudicatory subcommittee as if the notice constituted an adopted statement of alleged violation (in which case the Committee shall establish an adjudicatory subcommittee).
Repeals the mandate that: (1) a respondent be informed of the right to be represented by counsel of his or her choice (even if such counsel represents another respondent or a witness) to be provided at his or her own expense; and (2) a witness be afforded a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Committee or subcommittee to prepare for an appearance before an investigative subcommittee or for an adjudicatory hearing and to obtain counsel of his or her choice, even if such counsel represents a respondent or another witness. (Thus allows the Committee to adopt a rule that prohibits a counsel from representing more than one respondent or witness).
Requires an investigative subcommittee, when it does not adopt a statement of alleged violation, to transmit a report to that effect to the Committee in lieu of the respondent. Authorizes the Committee by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members to transmit such report to the House.
People & committees
Rep. Hastings, Doc [R-WA-4] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Passed House pursuant to H. Res. 241. (consideration: CR H2625-2626; text: CR H2625-2626)
Passed/agreed to in House: Passed House pursuant to H. Res. 241.(consideration: CR H2625-2626; text: CR H2625-2626)
Rule H. Res. 241 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 241 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 240. Upon the adoption of H. Res. 241, H. Res. 240 is considered to be adopted.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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.240 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.240 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.240 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.240 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.