PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 24, 1994
Instructs the House Committees on Agriculture; Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; Government Operations; the Judiciary; and Small Business to commence hearings on issues within their jurisdiction relating to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corporation, Capital Management Services Inc., Ray E. Friedman and Company, Lasater and Company, and such appropriate related issues by August 15, 1994, and to submit written findings concerning such matter to the House by the sine die adjournment of the Congress. Directs the respective committees to work to accommodate the work of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr., and to not grant immunity, under specified provisions of the Federal criminal code, over the objection of the Special Counsel to any witness called to testify at these hearings. Instructs the Speaker and the majority and minority leaders to meet to determine the appropriate timetable, procedures, and other relevant issues relating to congressional oversight.
People & committees
Rep. Doolittle, John T. [R-CA-4] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
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: Feb 7, 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.437 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.437 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.437 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.437 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.