PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · May 7, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Resolves that Lois G. Lerner, former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), be found in contempt of Congress for failure to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as required by a congressional subpoena.
Directs the Speaker of the House of Representatives to certify the Committee's report detailing the refusal of Ms. Lerner to testify before the Committee as directed by the subpoena to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to the end that Ms. Lerner be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law, and to otherwise take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49] · R–CA
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: 231 - 187 (Roll no. 203). (text: CR H3902)
House roll call 203 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 231 - 187 (Roll no. 203).(text: CR H3902)
House roll call 203 · Individual votesOn motion to refer Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 191 - 224 (Roll no. 202). (consideration: CR H3922)
House roll call 202 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to refer was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H3921)
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 568, the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Cummings motion to refer.
Mr. Cummings moved to refer to Oversight and Government Reform.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3919-3922)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - Pursuant to clause 1(c) of Rule 19, the Speaker postponed further proceedings on H.Res. 574.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 568, the House proceeded with 50 minutes of debate on H. Res. 574, the resolution accompanying House Report 113-415.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 568. (consideration: CR H3482-3909)
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: 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.574 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.574 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.574 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.574 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.