H. Res. 1015 recommends that the House of Representatives find 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.
The resolution declares each named individual in contempt and prescribes a $5,000 per‑day fine for continued noncompliance "after the date of the approval of this Resolution." The resolution further directs the Speaker to take "all appropriate action" to enforce the subpoena and the Resolution.
This is a House resolution (not a statute) that uses the chamber's asserted "inherent power" to impose daily monetary penalties and to direct enforcement. Practically, the text creates a formal congressional finding and a stated penalty rate but leaves the mechanics of collection and any criminal or judicial follow‑up unspecified.
That combination of blunt political signal plus vague enforcement authority raises legal and practical questions for compliance officers, counsel, and officials who might be asked to execute enforcement steps on the House's behalf.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution formally finds William J. Clinton and Hillary R. Clinton in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena and imposes a $5,000 per‑day fine on each for each day they continue to refuse after the resolution's approval. It invokes the House's "inherent power" as the statutory source for those penalties and directs the Speaker to enforce the measure.
Who It Affects
The named individuals are the direct targets of the finding and daily fines; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the issuing committee. Operationally, House entities (the Speaker's office, Sergeant at Arms, and any offices tasked with carrying out enforcement) plus counsel for the named parties are the actors who would face new obligations or requests for action.
Why It Matters
The resolution signals an escalated enforcement posture by the House while relying on nonstatutory authority and leaving collection and adjudication details open. For compliance and legal teams, the measure may trigger litigation, enforcement coordination, and questions about how the House will operationalize monetary sanctions against private individuals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H. Res. 1015 is short and tightly focused: it directs the House to find two named private individuals—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.
The resolution does not create a new statute; it is the chamber itself declaring a finding and prescribing specific penalties as a matter of internal resolution.
The body of the resolution sets out two parallel penalties: each named individual is to be fined $5,000 for each day they continue to fail to comply with the subpoena after the date the resolution is approved. The text frames those fines as imposed "pursuant to the inherent power of the House of Representatives," which means the resolution does not point to a statutory civil‑or‑criminal enforcement mechanism in Title 2 or the criminal contempt statute; instead it relies on the House's asserted constitutional and historical powers to enforce its subpoenas.The resolution then instructs the Speaker to "take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena and this Resolution." That language is broad and unqualified: it does not specify whether enforcement will proceed through internal House mechanisms (sergeant at arms detention, withholding of privileges), referral to the Department of Justice for criminal contempt prosecution, civil action for collection, or some combination.
The resolution therefore creates a formal finding and a daily monetary penalty rate while leaving the enforcement pathway—and the practical steps to convert a $5,000‑per‑day figure into collected funds—open.Because the text is framed as a House resolution rather than a statute, its immediate effect is primarily institutional and political (a formal contempt finding and a stated penalty). The lack of detailed enforcement instructions or an express mechanism for collecting fines means that any real financial impact on the named individuals will likely depend on subsequent actions by House officials, potential referrals to other branches or courts, or voluntary compliance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
H. Res. 1015 is a House resolution that formally finds 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.
The resolution prescribes a monetary fine of $5,000 for each named individual for each day they continue to refuse to comply, with the daily fines running only after the date the resolution is approved.
The resolution invokes the House's "inherent power" as the stated legal authority for imposing the fines rather than citing a specific statutory penalty or criminal contempt provision.
The measure directs the Speaker of the House to "take all appropriate action" to enforce the subpoena and the resolution but does not enumerate what enforcement actions the Speaker may pursue or the mechanisms for collecting fines.
The text does not specify any judicial or executive‑branch process for adjudicating or collecting the fines, leaving actual enforcement and collectibility open to later procedural steps or legal challenge.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Formal finding of contempt for both named individuals
This opening operative provision declares that William J. Clinton and Hillary R. Clinton "shall be found to be in contempt of Congress" for failure to comply with the subpoena. That language creates an explicit institutional finding by the House (via resolution) rather than initiating a criminal prosecution or civil lawsuit by itself. The practical effect is to record a formal congressional judgment of noncompliance that can be used as the basis for further House actions.
Per‑day fine for William J. Clinton
This provision states that, "pursuant to the inherent power of the House of Representatives," William J. Clinton shall be fined $5,000 for each day he fails to comply with the subpoena after the resolution's approval. The clause pins both the amount and the trigger date ("after the date of the approval of this Resolution") but does not define how days are counted, who certifies noncompliance each day, or how the fine is to be asserted or collected.
Per‑day fine for Hillary R. Clinton
Mirroring the prior paragraph, this section imposes a $5,000 per‑day fine on Hillary R. Clinton under the House's inherent power for each day of continued noncompliance after approval. The symmetry makes the penalties identical for both named individuals while repeating the same open questions about day‑counting, notice, and collection procedures.
Speaker directed to enforce the subpoena and resolution
The final operative clause tasks the Speaker with taking "all appropriate action" to enforce both the subpoena and the resolution. That broad delegation gives the Speaker discretion to select enforcement tools but the text does not constrain or prioritize options (internal enforcement, Sergeant at Arms measures, referrals to other authorities, or civil remedies). The absence of prescribed mechanisms means downstream procedural decisions will determine whether the stated fines translate into enforceable financial obligations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Gains a formal House finding that supports its subpoena power and increases leverage to obtain compliance or justify further enforcement steps.
- House members who support the contempt action: Receive a concrete institutional vote and a clear, public mechanism (daily fines) to demonstrate accountability and pressure the named individuals.
- Media organizations and public watchdogs: Obtain a formal congressional determination that can be cited in reporting and advocacy, which amplifies public scrutiny even if financial collection is uncertain.
Who Bears the Cost
- William J. Clinton and Hillary R. Clinton: Face the direct financial liability in the text—$5,000 for each day of continued noncompliance after the resolution's approval—which could impose significant nominal penalties if the fines are ever enforced or collected.
- House administrative offices (Speaker, Sergeant at Arms): May absorb operational and legal costs to implement enforcement, certify daily noncompliance, and coordinate any referrals or collection efforts the Speaker directs.
- Judicial system and outside counsel: Could see increased workload and fees if the resolution triggers litigation over the validity of the fines, disputes about enforcement authority, or challenges to the House's asserted inherent power.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus enforceability: the House can issue a sharp, public finding and set daily monetary penalties to deter noncompliance, but without an explicit statutory enforcement mechanism or adjudicative process the chamber risks creating a symbolic sanction that is legally vulnerable and operationally difficult to collect—pitting the desire for powerful oversight tools against constraints of due process and interbranch enforcement.
The resolution sets a clear penalty rate but leaves open how those penalties become enforceable obligations. It relies on the House's "inherent power" rather than a statutory enforcement mechanism; courts have historically treated congressional inherent powers as politically cognizable but sometimes judicially nonjusticiable, which creates uncertainty about whether a private individual could be compelled by courts to pay fines imposed by a chamberal resolution.
The text does not establish certification procedures, notice requirements, or a collection mechanism, so the $5,000 figure may remain declaratory unless followed by discrete procedural steps (internal enforcement, civil collection, or criminal referral).
There are also practical and constitutional risks. Imposing daily monetary penalties on private individuals via a chamberal resolution raises questions about due process (notice, opportunity to be heard, and procedures for contesting a finding).
The resolution's instruction that the Speaker take "all appropriate action" provides wide latitude but transfers the burden of operational design to congressional offices that may lack statutory authority or budgeted resources for civil enforcement. Finally, if the Speaker seeks executive or judicial assistance (for example, a DOJ criminal contempt prosecution or a court order enforcing a subpoena), the case law and separation‑of‑powers considerations will shape whether and how the stated fines are collected.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.