PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.QUESTION OF PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE - Mrs. Norton of the District of Columbia submitted a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House. The Speaker pro tempore heard debate on the question and subsequently ruled that the resolution did not constitute a question of the privileges of the House on the grounds that a question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to effect a change in the rules or standing orders of the House.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 18, 1998
Mandates that the Delegate to the Congress from the District of Columbia be permitted to vote in any resolution of the House of Representatives impeaching the President or Vice President of the United States.
People & committees
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large] · D–DC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE - Mrs. Norton of the District of Columbia submitted a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House. The Speaker pro tempore heard debate on the question and subsequently ruled that the resolution did not constitute a question of the privileges of the House on the grounds that a question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to effect a change in the rules or standing orders of the House.
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: Jan 2, 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.613 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.613 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.613 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.613 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.