Relating to questions of privilege in the House of Representatives during the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress.

Bill Number

H.Res. 1034

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

Congress

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-02-03: Referred to the House Committee on Rules.

Last Updated

2026-02-06T16:50:44Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This House Resolution (H. Res. 1034) aims to establish stricter procedural requirements for offering certain resolutions in the House of Representatives that address the conduct of its members, delegates, or resident commissioners during the remainder of the 119th Congress (2025–2026). It seeks to prevent such resolutions from being introduced without significant bipartisan or widespread support, promoting stability in House proceedings.

Key Provisions

• Scope and Duration: The rules apply only to the rest of the 119th Congress and override a specific existing House rule (clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, which normally allows certain privilege questions to be raised without delay).
• Restrictions on Offering Resolutions:
• The Speaker (referred to as the "Chair") cannot consider a resolution on member conduct if offered by the Majority Leader or Minority Leader unless it has at least one-fifth (about 87) of the House's total membership (435 members) as cosponsors at the time of offering.
• The Chair cannot allow a member, delegate, or resident commissioner to announce their intent to offer such a resolution unless it has kept at least one-fifth of the House as cosponsors for a full legislative day (a day when the House is in session) after introduction.
• Dispensing with Oral Announcement: Members do not need to verbally announce the exact wording of these resolutions before offering them.
• Definition of Covered Resolutions: These are floor resolutions raised as "questions of privilege" (a procedural tool to address urgent House matters) specifically about the conduct of a member, delegate, or resident commissioner. It excludes resolutions related to House officers or employees under another rule (clause 2(a)(3) of rule IX).

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Under current House rules (rule IX), questions of privilege can typically be raised quickly by leaders or members without needing cosponsors, allowing for rapid debate on issues like member misconduct.
• This resolution introduces a cosponsorship threshold (one-fifth of members) and a holding period (one legislative day), making it harder to bring these matters to the floor impulsively. It does not alter rules for other types of privilege resolutions.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Minimal direct impact, as this is an internal House procedural rule affecting only legislative operations.
• On Citizens: Indirectly affects public oversight of Congress by potentially slowing investigations or censures of members' conduct, which could influence accountability for actions impacting public trust or policy.
• On International Relations: No apparent impact, as this is a domestic procedural matter unrelated to foreign affairs.
• Overall, it could reduce floor disruptions but might delay addressing serious ethical issues, affecting the efficiency of congressional self-governance.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Members of the House of Representatives: Directly impacted, as it raises the bar for resolutions targeting their conduct, potentially shielding them from politically motivated attacks but also hindering quick accountability.
• House Leadership (Majority and Minority Leaders): Limited in their ability to initiate such resolutions without broad support, shifting power toward requiring more cosponsors.
• The House as an Institution: Benefits from fewer procedural interruptions, but risks perceptions of reduced transparency in handling internal disputes.
• Delegates and Resident Commissioners: Included in the conduct-related protections alongside full members.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal/Constitutional: As a House rule change, it operates within Congress's constitutional authority to set its own procedures (Article I, Section 5). It does not create enforceable law outside the House but could influence how internal discipline (e.g., censures) is applied, potentially affecting members' rights under the Speech or Debate Clause (which protects legislative actions from external interference).
• Political: This may foster bipartisanship by requiring widespread support, reducing partisan "gotcha" resolutions, but critics might see it as protecting incumbents from scrutiny during an election cycle. Introduced by Republican members, it could signal efforts to control the legislative agenda amid internal party dynamics in the 119th Congress. No broader legal challenges are anticipated, as House rules are self-enforced.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

Cosponsors (11)

Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9], Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1], Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4], Rep. Downing, Troy [R-MT-2], Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3], Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10], Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2], Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7], Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2], Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2], Rep. McDowell, Addison P. [R-NC-6]

Recent Actions

• 2026-02-03: Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
• 2026-02-03: Submitted in House
• 2026-02-03: Submitted in House

Bill Versions

• Relating to questions of privilege in the House of Representatives during the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress. — issued 2026-02-03 — PDF (2 pages)