PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Dec 13, 2023
This resolution directs specified committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach President Biden. The resolution also adopts H. Res. 917, which, related to the inquiry, authorizes initiation of or intervention in certain judicial proceedings by the committees and continues the committees' subpoena authority.
Specifically, the Committees on Oversight and Accountability, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary must continue their investigations, as set forth in the memorandum issued by the chairs of such committees entitled Impeachment Inquiry, dated September 27, 2023.
The resolution also sets forth additional committee authorities for conducting proceedings related to the inquiry.
People & committees
Rep. Armstrong, Kelly [R-ND-At Large] · R–ND
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 recorded vote: 221 - 212 (Roll no. 720). (text: CR H6877-6878)
House roll call 720 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 221 - 212 (Roll no. 720). (text: CR H6877-6878)
House roll call 720 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 220 - 212 (Roll no. 719). (consideration: CR H6922)
House roll call 719 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6922-6923)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 918, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question and by voice vote announced that the ayes prevailed. Mr. McGovern demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 918.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H6877-6889)
By direction of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Cole called up H. Res. 918 and asked for its immediate consideration.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 54.
Reported by the Committee on Rules. H. Rept. 118-314.
Reported by the Committee on Rules. H. Rept. 118-314.
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.
Source last updated: May 27, 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.918 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.918 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.918 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.918 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.