Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
This resolution is a House-only action that declares William J. Clinton and Hillary R. Clinton in contempt for failing to comply with a House subpoena. It states the House will impose a $5,000 per-day fine on each person for each day they fail to comply after the resolution is approved and directs the Speaker to take steps to enforce the subpoena and this resolution. As a resolution of one chamber, it does not become law or require the President's signature. Any additional enforcement or legal consequences beyond the House's internal actions would require further steps outside this resolution.
This is a simple resolution handled only by the House of Representatives and is not sent to the President. The resolution was referred to the House Rules Committee and governs only House internal actions.
This House resolution declares William J.
Clinton and Hillary R.
Clinton in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Likely to remain a chamber messaging action; passage depends on House dynamics, enforcement and legal durability are uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a specific House disciplinary action and delegates enforcement responsibility to the Speaker, but it provides only minimal procedural detail. The resolution sets an explicit penalty amount and start condition yet omits many implementation, legal-integration, fiscal, and accountability elements that would ordinarily be expected for an enforceable disciplinary/penal action.
Progressives emphasize partisan weaponization and norm erosion
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize partisan weaponization and norm erosion
Likely views the resolution as a partisan, punitive action aimed at political opponents rather than a neutral law‑enforcement measure.
Concern will focus on selective targeting, precedent for weaponizing congressional power, and due process for the individuals involved.
Mixed view: supports enforcing lawful subpoenas but worries about legal authority, due process, and politicization.
Prefers a clear legal pathway and bipartisan backing before imposing daily fines.
Likely views the resolution favorably as necessary accountability for high-profile figures who ignored congressional subpoenas.
Sees fines as an appropriate enforcement tool to compel compliance.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Likely to remain a chamber messaging action; passage depends on House dynamics, enforcement and legal durability are uncertain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize partisan weaponization and norm erosion
Likely to remain a chamber messaging action; passage depends on House dynamics, enforcement and legal durability are uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a specific House disciplinary action and delegates enforcement responsibility to the Speaker, but it provides only minimal procedural detail. The resol…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.