PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 10, 1998
Provides for a review by the House Committee on the Judiciary of the communication received on September 9, 1998, from an independent counsel, transmitting a determination that substantial and credible information received by the independent counsel in carrying out his mandated responsibilities may constitute grounds for an impeachment of the President, and related matters, to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced. Provides for certain portions of such transmitted material to be printed as a House document. Deems the balance of such material to have been received in executive session and requires its release from such status on September 28, 1998, except as otherwise determined by the Committee. Requires the released material to immediately be printed as a House document. Deems additional material compiled by the Committee during the review as received in executive session unless it is received in an open session of the Committee. Restricts access to executive-session material of the Committee relating to the review to members of the Committee, and to such employees of the Committee that are designated by the chairman after consultation with the ranking minority member. Requires each meeting, hearing, or deposition of the Committee relating to the review to be conducted in executive session unless otherwise determined by an affirmative vote of the Committee, a majority being present. Limits attendance at such session to members of the Committee and to such employees of the Committee that are designated by the chairman after consultation with the ranking minority member.
People & committees
Rep. Solomon, Gerald B. H. [R-NY-22] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 363 - 63 (Roll No. 425).
House roll call 425 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 363 - 63 (Roll No. 425).
House roll call 425 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the order of the House of Sept. 10, 1998, the House proceeded with two hours of debate on the resolution.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H7587-7607)
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 105-703, by Mr. Solomon.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 245.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 105-703, by Mr. Solomon.
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H7581)
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: 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.525 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.525 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.525 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.525 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.