BURSTJust when you thought it was safe to go near order-of-business resolutions, (also known as rules or special rules from the Rules Committee), the Rules committee pulled another snark attack.
Like the elusive creature in the Lewis Carroll poem, a Rules snark is a crafty beast, tucked in obscurity, cloaked in mystery, and feeding on ambiguity. The snark shows up unannounced, fast, furious and voracious.
Last week a special rule was scheduled to consider just five matters, all resolutions to disapprove regulations promulgated during the Biden administration. All were expected to be considered with one hour of floor debate each and no amendments. The actual text of the rule passed out to members just before the vote to report it contained this additional language, “Each day during the period from April 29, 2025 through September 30, 2025, shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of Rule XIII.”
Unless you have memorized all House rules by Roman numerals and clause numbers, you would have no idea that clause 7 of rule 13 covers “resolutions of inquiry” which request the president or an executive department head only for factual information, not opinions or investigations. If the committee to which the resolution is referred has not reported it back to the House within 14 legislative days, either favorably or unfavorably, it is in order on the floor to move to discharge the committee from consideration and bring the request directly to the floor.
The procedural gimmick to upend this process included in last week’s rule is considered to be automatically adopted upon passage of the rule (a self-executing rule), meaning it is not separately debated or voted by the House as are the other matters made in order for floor consideration.
According to the footnotes to the rule, the House has exercised this right of inquiry “from its earliest days,” dating back to 1796. The first written resolution of inquiry rule was adopted in 1820.
Although the current freeze applies to any and all resolutions of inquiry for the rest of this fiscal year, the majority leadership was especially concerned about two ripening resolutions of inquiry introduced by Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Steven Lynch (D-Mass.), respectively. These requested information from the executive on the controversy surrounding the inadvertent leak in advance of scheduled U.S. airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen — the so-called Signalgate scandal.
Republicans say they need to bar resolutions of inquiry this year to clear the decks for considering the massive budget reconciliation bill. House Democrats used the same procedural gimmick during the COVID-19 pandemic when they last controlled the House (2019 through 2022) while it was in partial lockdown and members were allowed to cast their floor votes remotely by proxy.
The Senate has been more assertive on the need to get the facts on Signalgate. Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and his minority party counterpart, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) were quick to request the Defense Department’s inspector general to investigate and report on the matter, and the inspector general promptly agreed. Other Senate committees have raised questions about the Signalgate issue during administration confirmation hearings.
Banning resolutions of inquiry deprives the House of even its limited means of gleaning information. Granted, it is more often used by the minority party in the House which has no control over committee scheduling of legislative business or the launching of oversight investigations.
The advantage of a resolution of inquiry is that it pressures committee chairs, the majority leadership, and administration officials to be more responsive to important matters being publicly raised that are too often ignored. The other side of the coin is that resolutions of inquiry are also a way for the minority to slow down the majority’s floor momentum and score partisan points by shaming the other party.
Even the majority party manager of last week’s special rule debate, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), expressed regret that the freeze on inquiry resolutions had to be employed: “With respect to resolutions of inquiry…I have said multiple times on the floor of the House that we [should] come up with a system that allows the body to work its will and that we allow individuals to be able to move forward in good faith to get information and ask questions of the executive branch, no matter who is in power.” Nevertheless, the special rule was adopted on a straight party-line vote of 216-208.
Resolutions of inquiry have not been relegated to the ash heap of history. They have just been sidelined to the dustless bench of political expedience.
Don Wolfensbeger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief-of-staff to the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000), and, “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018).