PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST - Ms. Scanlon asked unanimous consent that Mr. Cole of Oklahoma be permitted to insert the text of the amendment he would have offered had the House rejected the previous question on H. Res. 660, along with extraneous material, into the Record immediately prior to the vote on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 660. Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Oct 30, 2019
This resolution directs the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to impeach President Trump.
The resolution authorizes (1) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to conduct investigative proceedings, and (2) the chair of any committee having custody of materials relating to the inquiry to transfer the materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The House authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry. The committee shall report to the House such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
People & committees
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST - Ms. Scanlon asked unanimous consent that Mr. Cole of Oklahoma be permitted to insert the text of the amendment he would have offered had the House rejected the previous question on H. Res. 660, along with extraneous material, into the Record immediately prior to the vote on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 660. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 232 - 196 (Roll no. 604). (text: CR H8683)
House roll call 604 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 232 - 196 (Roll no. 604).(text: CR H8683)
House roll call 604 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 231 - 196 (Roll no. 603). (consideration: CR H8697)
House roll call 603 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 660.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H8683-8698)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 52.
Reported by the Committee on Rules. H. Rept. 116-266.
Reported by the Committee on Rules. H. Rept. 116-266.
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: 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.660 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.660 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.660 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.660 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.