Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require each standing committee to hold periodic hearings on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Government programs which that committee may authorize, and for other purposes.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jan 14, 2009
Amends Rule XI (Procedures of Committees and Unfinished Business) of the Rules of the House of Representatives to require each standing committee or subcommittee to hold: (1) periodic hearings on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in government programs which that committee may authorize; (2) at least one hearing in any session to hear from federal agency representatives testimony on auditor disclaimers of audited agency financial statements; and (3) at least one hearing on issues raised by Comptroller General reports indicating that federal programs or operations that the committee may authorize are at high risk for waste, fraud, and mismanagement, known as the "high-risk list" or the "high-risk series."
Requires the oversight activities section of a committee's biennial report to the House on its legislative and oversight activities (required by Rule XI) also to delineate any such hearings held.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 423 - 0 (Roll no. 18). (text: CR H268)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 423 - 0 (Roll no. 18).(text: CR H268)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H281)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 40.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H268-273)
Mr. Cardoza moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.Res.40 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.40 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.40 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.40 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.