[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[E. Privileged Business]
[Â§ 28. Authority and Scope Under Constitution, Statutes, and Rules]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4368-4390]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         E. PRIVILEGED BUSINESS
 
Sec. 28. Authority and Scope Under Constitution, Statutes, and Rules

    As discussed in the preceding sections of this chapter, the regular 
order of business in the House of Representatives is governed by those 
provisions of the rules of the House establishing the order of business 
and making in order, at certain times, specific methods for bringing 
measures before the House. It has been noted that the regular order of 
business may be varied by unanimous consent, by suspension of the 
rules, and by special orders reported from the Committee on Rules and 
called up as privileged propositions.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 8, supra (varying order of business generally), Sec. 9, 
        supra (use of motions to suspend rules), Sec. 20, supra 
        (varying order of business by resolutions from Committee on 
        Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By rule and by practice, the House has also determined that a 
variety of matters of immediate importance should have precedence over 
the regular order of business, to the extent of interrupting or 
superseding the consideration of other business. Because of the power 
of privileged questions to interrupt the regular order of business, 
only such propositions as fall strictly within the scope and definition 
of preferential matters may be raised as privileged.
    The grant of precedence to certain questions arises from three 
sources: the United States Constitution, the rules of the House, and 
statutes enacted pursuant to the rulemaking power of the House (and of 
the Senate).
    Under contemporary practice, only two types of propositions are 
privileged for consideration solely

[[Page 4369]]

because of constitutional provisions: veto messages and resolutions 
relating to the impeachment power. A veto message is privileged for 
consideration when received by the House and on a day certain to which 
postponed, and both the report of a committee on a vetoed bill referred 
to the committee, and a motion to discharge a committee from the 
further consideration of a vetoed bill, are highly privileged. The 
privilege of a veto message arises from article I, section 7, clause 2 
of the Constitution:

        Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives 
    and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the 
    President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but 
    if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in 
    which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at 
    large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider 
    it.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 28.2-28.8, infra, for the privilege of veto messages. 
        For further discussion of the relative priority of veto 
        messages and other business, see Sec. 31, infra. A distinction 
        may be drawn between the receipt of a Presidential message, 
        returning a vetoed bill, and the consideration of such message. 
        For example, a question of privilege may supersede the 
        disposition of the message but not its receipt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The constitutional power of the House in the impeachment of civil 
officers under the United States government arises from article I, 
section 2, clause 5 of the Constitution:

        . . . and [the House of Representatives] shall have the sole 
    power of impeachment.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, clauses 6, 7 and U.S. Const. 
        art. II, Sec. 4.

The House has determined that propositions to impeach, and reports from 
the committee investigating charges of impeachment, are highly 
privileged for consideration in the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 1. See Sec. Sec. 28.9-28.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two other duties of the House arising specifically under the United 
States Constitution take precedence over other matters but their 
privilege does not stem from constitutional provisions alone. Article 
I, section 5, clause 1 provides that the House shall be the sole judge 
of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its Members. Reports 
and resolutions on contested-election cases are privileged, pursuant to 
provisions of the House rules giving the Committee on House 
Administration the power to report at any time on the right of a Member 
to his seat.(2) Contested-election
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule X.1 clause 22, House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973). [Now 
        Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4370]]

cases were formerly brought up as questions of constitutional 
privilege, and were held to take precedence over other highly 
privileged questions, such as veto messages and questions of the 
privileges of the House.(3) But in the later practice, 
reports and resolutions relating to contested elections are called up 
by the Committee on House Administration as privileged under Rule XI, 
as cited above.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See, for example, 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6641, 6642; and 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2276.
 4. See Ch. 17, supra, for privileged committee reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Article VI, clause 3 provides that Representatives shall take an 
oath. The administration of the oath to Members is highly privileged, 
as a question of the privileges of the House. The oath is administered 
to Members-elect en masse at the convening of Congress. But a Member-
elect appearing during a session may be administered the oath as a 
matter of the highest privilege which may interrupt other 
business.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 28.20, 28.21, infra. See also Sec. 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain other actions which the House may take under the 
Constitution are privileged for consideration, but do not represent 
``business'' within the context of this discussion. Examples are 
concurrent resolutions for adjournment sine die or to a day 
certain,(6) concurrent resolutions for joint sessions to 
hear the President and to conduct the electoral count,(7) 
and motions incident to establishing a quorum.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 29.17, 29.18, infra, for concurrent resolutions on 
        adjournment.
 7. See Sec. 29.19, infra.
 8. See Ch. 20, supra, on quorums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some other prerogatives of the House, arising from constitutional 
provisions, may be presented as questions of the privileges of the 
House. For example, the arrest or subpena of a Member may involve the 
privilege from arrest specified in the Constitution, and a subpena for 
records of the House may involve the principle of separation of powers. 
In both situations, the subpena is laid before the House as a question 
of the privileges of the House, and a resolution asserting the 
privileges of the House is offered from the floor as a question of the 
privileges of the House.
    But in order to constitute a question of the privileges of the 
House, the matter asserted and the resolution offered must fall within 
the definition specified in Rule IX (9) and within the scope 
of the past rulings of the Chair on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 661 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4371]]

whether such a question has been properly presented.

    It is not sufficient that a question arises from the Constitution 
or that a question contemplates action by the House or is one committed 
to the House under the United States Constitution. For example, a 
resolution to confirm the nomination of the Vice President, a duty 
commited to the House under the 25th amendment to the Constitution, is 
not privileged for consideration. In earlier precedents, it was held 
that actions directed by the Constitution were privileged for 
consideration, such as taking the census (under article I, section 2, 
clause 3). But under later decisions and under the current practice of 
the House, matters arising and powers conferred under the Constitution 
are not privileged for consideration (except those enumerated above) 
unless also constituting a question of the privileges of the House 
under Rule IX or a privileged matter under other House 
rules.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 28.1, infra. See generally Ch. 11, supra, for the nature 
        and scope of questions of the privileges of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules of the House (11) enumerate a variety of 
bills, reports, resolutions, and motions (relating to the order of 
business) which are privileged for consideration. For example, certain 
committees are given the power to report to the House at any time on 
certain subjects. The Committee on Rules may submit privileged reports 
to the House on the order of business and may obtain consideration of 
such reports as privileged matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See, for example, Rule XI clauses 4(a), 4(b), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. Sec. 726, 729 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain kinds of reports are privileged for consideration when 
reported by any committee, such as reports on resolutions of inquiry, 
on the contempt of witnesses, and on vetoed bills.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 29, infra, for reports on resolutions of inquiry. For 
        reports on contempt of witnesses, see Sec. Sec. 28.15-28.18, 
        infra. For reports on vetoed bills, see Sec. 28.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conference reports are highly privileged for consideration under 
the rules.(13) A very few resolutions may be immediately 
considered as privileged when offered as original propositions and 
without reference to committee, such as concurrent resolutions for 
adjournment for more than three days or sine die, and resolutions 
brought up under a question of the privileges of the 
House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For conference reports and their privilege, see Sec. 29, infra; Ch. 
        33, infra.
14. For examples of such resolutions and concurrent resolutions, see 
        Sec. 29, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4372]]

    It should be noted that all propositions given precedence for 
immediate consideration under the rules of the House must fall strictly 
within the penumbra of the privilege. Nonprivileged provisions included 
in a measure otherwise privileged, may destroy the precedence of the 
entire proposition.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain resolutions are privileged for consideration pursuant to 
statute. Congress has passed a number of laws containing so-called 
``legislative veto'' provisions, which allow the House (and/or the 
Senate) to prevent the implementation of a specific project or plan by 
the President, or executive agency, by adopting a resolution of 
disapproval. Sometimes such statutes contain provisions, enacted under 
the rulemaking power of the House and Senate, giving a certain 
precedence to resolutions of disapproval when reported from committee 
or if not reported from committee within a certain time 
period.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For the relevant texts of various statutes providing privileged 
        procedures for congressional disapproval powers, see House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 1013 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the adoption (since 1936) of certain requirements in the 
rules as to the time period before reports of committees could be 
considered in the House, privileged reports could be considered as soon 
as reported to the House. Now, however, with certain exceptions, 
reported measures may not be considered until the third calendar day, 
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, on which the 
report has been available [as provided under Rule XI of the House rules 
(1979). For further discussion, see Sec. 29, infra]. A similar 
requirement is placed on the consideration of general appropriation 
bills [see Sec. 29, infra]. The requirement does not apply to: 
privileged reports from the Committee on Rules [as discussed in 
Sec. 17, supra]; committee expense resolutions from the Committee on 
House Administration, which must be available for one day before 
consideration under Rule XI clause 5 [see Sec. 29, infra]; declarations 
of war or of national emergencies; disapproval of executive decisions 
where compliance with the layover rule would prevent congressional 
disapproval; matters brought to the floor without committee reports; or 
certain reported measures called up as questions of privilege of the 
House or of constitutional privilege.(17) [Prior to

[[Page 4373]]

the 94th Congress, all privileged reports from the Committees on House 
Administration and Standards of Official Conduct were also exempted 
from the rule.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For a detailed discussion of time requirements before considering 
        committee reports, see Ch. 17, supra.
            For the ruling of the Chair that a report and resolution 
        offered from the floor and constituting a question of the 
        privileges of the House was not required to lay over under Rule 
        XI, see Sec. 28.19. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conference reports are not privileged for consideration until the 
third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) 
after being filed and printed in the Congressional 
Record.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
As to privileged matters at the convening of Congress, see Chs. 1, 2, 
    supra.
As to the administration of the oath at the convening of Congress, see 
    Ch. 2, supra.
As to election contests and privileged propositions related thereto, 
    see Ch. 9, supra.
As to questions of privilege, their nature and precedence, see Ch. 11, 
    supra.
As to questions of privilege arising from powers and prerogatives of 
    the House, see Ch. 13, supra.
As to impeachment and privileged matters relating thereto, see Ch. 14, 
    supra.
As to the call of the House in relation to privileged matters, see Ch. 
    20, supra.
As to motions and their privilege, see Ch. 23, infra.
As to motions and resolutions for adjournment and their privilege, see 
    Ch. 40, infra.
As to the privilege of reports from the Committee on Rules, see 
    Sec. 17, supra.
As to the effect of resolutions from the Committee on Rules relating to 
    precedence, see Sec. 20, supra.

Scope of Constitutional Privilege

Sec. 28.1 The Committee on Rules reported a resolution making in order 
    and providing for the consideration of a nonprivileged resolution 
    reported from the Committee on the Judiciary confirming the 
    nomination of the Vice President, pursuant to the 25th amendment to 
    the U.S. Constitution.

    On Dec. 6, 1973, there was called up by the direction of the 
Committee on Rules the following resolution, which was adopted by the 
House: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 39807, 39813, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 738

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move, clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the resolution (H. Res. 735) confirming the nomination of Gerald 
    R. Ford, of the State of Michigan, to be Vice President of the 
    United States. After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    resolution and shall continue not to exceed six hours, to be

[[Page 4374]]

    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee shall rise 
    and report the resolution to the House, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final passage.

    House Resolution 735 whose consideration was made in order by the 
special order was reported as a nonprivileged resolution by the 
Committee on the Judiciary on Dec. 4 and read as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 39419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the House of Representatives confirm the 
    nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of the State of Michigan, to be Vice 
    President of the United States.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution confirming the nomination of 
the Vice President was not construed as being privileged. Under 
contemporary practice and rulings, only vetoed bills and impeachment 
proposals are privileged business directly under the Constitution, 
because of their unique nature and the language of the relevant 
constitutional provisions. Other functions committed to the House under 
the United States Constitution have no inherent precedence over other 
business.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For earlier practice, where duties entrusted to the House under the 
        Constitution were held privileged for consideration, see 1 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 305-308 (census and apportionment 
        privileged, overruled in 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 48). See 
        Ch. 8, Sec. 1.2, supra, for another occasion where 
        reapportionment legislation was held by the House to have no 
        inherent privilege for consideration.
            Contested-election cases were formerly brought up as 
        questions of constitutional privilege but are now considered as 
        privileged reports of the Committee on House Administration 
        under Rule XI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a question arising from the express or implied prerogatives of 
the House under the Constitution constitutes a question of the 
privileges of the House, under Rule IX, it may be raised in that manner 
by presenting a resolution for immediate consideration in the 
House.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 28.12-28.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain types of concurrent resolutions relating to the procedures 
of the House and Senate, such as adjournment and joint sessions to hear 
the President and to conduct the electoral count, are also privileged 
under the Constitution.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 29.17, 29.18, infra (adjournment); Sec. 29.19, infra 
        (joint sessions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vetoed Bills Privileged Under Constitution

Sec. 28.2 The motion to postpone further consideration of a veto 
    message to a day certain

[[Page 4375]]

    is privileged and takes precedence over the question of passing the 
    bill notwithstanding the objections of the President.

    On Jan. 27, 1970, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
laid before the House a veto message from the President on H.R. 13111, 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, 
and Welfare, and related agencies. George H. Mahon, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, was recognized for a preferential 
motion: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 1365-68, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The objections of the President will 
    be spread at large upon the Journal, and the message and bill will 
    be printed as a House document.
        The question is: Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the 
    bill H.R. 13111, the objections of the President to the contrary 
    notwithstanding?
        The Speaker: (5) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I move that further consideration of 
    the veto message from the President be postponed until tomorrow.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) 
    is recognized on his motion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Veto messages are not considered before the 
approval of the Journal but take precedence over all other business 
except questions of the privileges of the House, the administration of 
the oath to Members, contested election cases, impeachment 
propositions, and unfinished business from a previous day on which the 
previous question has been ordered.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 31, infra, for the relative precedence of privileged 
        questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.3 The consideration of a veto message is in order on Calendar 
    Wednesday.

    On May 11, 1932,(7) the House agreed to the motion to 
dispense with Calendar Wednesday business on that day, a veto message 
having been laid before the House. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
indicated that the motion was not necessary, due to the constitutional 
privilege of a veto message:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 75 Cong. Rec. 10035 40, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair lays before the House the following 
    message from the President of the United States.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, this 
    being Calendar Wednesday, ought not further business be dispensed 
    with before we consider any other business?
        The Speaker: Not necessarily.
        Mr. Stafford: This is holy Wednesday.

[[Page 4376]]

        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Is there any other 
    business under Calendar Wednesday?
        Mr. Stafford: No.
        Mr. Crisp: Mr. Speaker, to save any question, I move that 
    further business under Calendar Wednesday be dispensed with.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: Let the Chair say, however, in connection with 
    this Calendar Wednesday rule, that it does not suspend the 
    Constitution of the United States, which provides that a veto 
    message of the President shall have immediate consideration. The 
    Clerk will read the message.

Sec. 28.4 Consideration of a veto message on the day to which postponed 
    is highly privileged and becomes the unfinished business.

    On Jan. 27, 1970, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
laid before the House a message from the President, returning without 
his approval a bill (H.R. 13111) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related 
agencies. The Speaker pro tempore then recognized George H. Mahon, of 
Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who moved to 
postpone the further consideration of the veto message until the 
following day. The Speaker pro tempore answered a parliamentary inquiry 
on the status of the message in the order of business on the following 
day: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 1365-68, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Mahon: I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Speaking for our side of the aisle, the 
    gentleman is accurate. We are in full concurrence with the motion 
    made by the gentleman from Texas.
        I should like to ask this: Is our understanding correct that 
    this will be the first order of business tomorrow?
        Mr. Mahon: That is my understanding.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state, this is highly 
    privileged business and it will be the first order of legislative 
    business tomorrow.

    On the following day, Jan. 28, the Journal was approved, a quorum 
call was had, and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
announced the unfinished business: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 1483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The unfinished business is: Will the House, on 
    reconsideration, pass the bill, H.R. 13111, an act making 
    appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
    and Welfare, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 
    30, 1970, and for other purposes, the objections of the President 
    to the contrary notwithstanding?
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) for 1 
    hour.

[[Page 4377]]

Sec. 28.5 Consideration of a veto message on the day to which it has 
    been postponed is highly privileged and becomes the unfinished 
    business following the approval of the Journal.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 14, 1948; 116 Cong. 
        Rec. 1483, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 28, 1970; and 119 Cong. 
        Rec. 36202, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 7, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.6 Where the House had postponed to a day certain a veto message 
    and for the same day created a special order for the reading of 
    Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, the veto message was 
    first considered.

    On Apr. 14, 1948, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
stated, following the approval of the Journal, the order of business: 
(1) the unfinished business, a veto message postponed to that day by 
motion; (2) the reading of Jefferson's First Inaugural Address by a 
Member designated by the Speaker pursuant to a special order for that 
day; and (3) unanimous-consent requests and one-minute 
speeches.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.7 A report from a committee, to which a vetoed bill has been 
    referred, recommending the passage of such bill over a veto is 
    privileged for consideration.

    On Aug. 17, 1951, a privileged report was filed by a committee to 
which a vetoed bill had been referred: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 10197, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I submit a 
    privileged report from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on the 
    bill (H.R. 3193) to establish a rate of pension for aid and 
    attendance under part III of Veterans' Regulation No. 1 (a), as 
    amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Your Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to whom was referred 
        the bill, H.R. 3193, entitled ``A bill to establish a rate of 
        pension for aid and attendance under part III of Veterans' 
        Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended,'' together with the 
        objections of the President thereto, having reconsidered said 
        bill and the objections of the President thereto, reports the 
        same back to the House with the unanimous recommendation that 
        said bill do pass, the objections of the President to the 
        contrary notwithstanding.

    The vetoed bill was immediately considered and, after debate, the 
veto was overridden by the House.

Sec. 28.8 A motion to discharge a committee from further consideration 
    of a vetoed bill presents a question of the highest privilege.

[[Page 4378]]

    On Sept. 7, 1965, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized for a privileged motion to discharge a committee from the 
further consideration of a vetoed bill (referred to the committee on 
Aug. 23): (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 22958, 22959, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hale [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the highest privilege of the House, based directly on 
    the Constitution and precedents, and offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion by Mr. Hall:
            Resolved, That the Committee on Armed Services be 
        discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 8439, 
        for military construction, with the President's veto thereon, 
        and that the same be now considered.

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker pro tempore 
stated that a motion was in order to table the motion to discharge. The 
House agreed to a motion to table offered by Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of 
South Carolina.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Armed Services, to which 
had been referred the vetoed bill, had reported, previous to the motion 
to discharge, a similar bill (H.R. 10775) containing a revision of the 
language to which the President had objected in his veto message.

Impeachment Propositions Privileged Under Constitution

Sec. 28.9 Charges of impeachment presented on the floor by a Member 
    constitute a question of high constitutional privilege.

    On Jan. 14, 1936, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized 
for one hour a Member who rose to state a question of constitutional 
privilege: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 404, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Green [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I realize that 
    the time of adjournment has almost arrived, and I dislike to ask 
    the indulgence of my colleagues for a few minutes, but I shall be 
    just as brief as possible. I rise to a question of constitutional 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of constitutional 
    privilege. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, on my own 
    responsibility, as a Member of this House, I impeach Halsted L. 
    Ritter, a United States district judge for the southern district of 
    Florida, for high crimes and misdemeanors. In substantiation of 
    this impeachment I specify the following charges: . . .

    By motion, the charges were referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
    Similarly on Jan. 24, 1939, Mr. J. Parnell Thomas, of New Jersey,

[[Page 4379]]

rose to a question of constitutional privilege and offered a resolution 
impeaching the Secretary of Labor and various other officials of the 
federal government. The House referred the resolution by motion to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 702-11, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: An impeachment proposition which is 
constitutionally privileged under the precedents may even supersede 
election cases and the approval of the Journal.(16) A direct 
proposition to impeach a federal civil officer is a question of high 
privilege in the House, but a resolution proposing an investigation of 
charges, with the view towards impeachment, is not a privileged matter 
under the precedents.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See the discussion at Sec. 31, infra; 3 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2045-2048; and 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 468, 
        469.
17. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2050, 2546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.10 A committee to which has been referred privileged 
    resolutions for the impeachment of a federal civil officer may 
    report and call up as privileged resolutions of impeachment and 
    resolutions incidental to the impeachment question.

    On Mar. 2, 1936, Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, called up for immediate consideration as a 
privileged matter House Resolution 422, impeaching U.S. District Court 
Judge Halsted Ritter. Charges of impeachment had been referred to the 
committee in the 74th Congress.(18) The House adopted the 
resolution impeaching Judge Ritter, who was later convicted of the 
impeachment charges by the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 80 Cong. Rec. 3066, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A committee to which has been referred 
privileged resolutions for the impeachment of a federal civil officer 
may report and call up as privileged resolutions incidental to 
consideration of the impeachment question, such as resolutions 
authorizing the taking of testimony and the defrayment of investigatory 
expenses from the contingent fund of the House,(19) and 
resolutions providing for the selection of managers to prosecute the 
impeachment before the Senate.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 549.
20. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The report of the committee, to which charges have been referred, 
recommending against impeachment or recommending that the impeachment 
trial be abated, are also privileged.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 514; 84 Cong. Rec. 3273, 76th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4380]]

Sec. 28.11 The consideration of a conference report may be interrupted 
    by a question of constitutional privilege involving the impeachment 
    of a federal civil officer.

    On Jan. 17, 1933, the House had agreed to a conference report and 
had not yet taken action on an amendment reported in disagreement by 
the conferees. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled that a highly 
privileged constitutional question on impeachment took precedence over 
the further consideration of the amendment in disagreement: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 76 Cong. Rec. 1953, 1954, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The conference report has been agreed to, but the 
    amendment in disagreement has not been acted upon. It is the 
    understanding of the Chair that a question of constitutional 
    privilege may intervene between the agreement to the conference 
    report and consideration of an amendment in disagreement. There is 
    a hiatus there when the conference report has been agreed to and 
    the House may go on, indefinitely, without considering the 
    amendments in disagreement.
        Mr. [Carl, R.] Chindblom [of Illinois]: May I suggest to the 
    Chair that the amendment in question is included in the conference 
    report to the extent that the conferees report to the House that 
    they have been unable to agree or have not agreed upon the 
    amendment. Of course, it comes up as a part of the conference 
    report. If it is not a part of the conference report, I 
    respectfully submit to the Chair it has no privilege whatever and 
    may not be called up at all except under a special rule, or until 
    reached on the calendar.
        The Speaker: The Chair is inclined to think that the philosophy 
    of the rule would be that the conference report having been 
    disposed of, the other question with respect to completing the 
    consideration of the report may be delayed a day or two days if the 
    House is disposed to do so and, in the meantime, a question of 
    constitutional privilege can intervene.
        Mr. Chiindblom: May I add the further suggestion to the Chair 
    that that might well be so if the gentleman in charge of the 
    conference report waived his right?
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Byrns [of Tennessee]: Of course I do not do 
    that.
        The Speaker: Let the Chair call the attention of the gentleman 
    from Illinois to the rule with respect to questions of privilege:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
        integrity of its proceedings; second, the rights, reputation, 
        and conduct of Members individually, in their Representative 
        capacity only, and shall have precedence of all other 
        questions, except motions to adjourn.

        It seems to the Chair this language is clear and that a 
    question of constitutional privilege is undoubtedly in order at any 
    time and only a motion to adjourn could interfere with it.

[[Page 4381]]

Questions of Privilege of the House

Sec. 28.12 A question of the privileges of the House arising under the 
    Constitution, relating to the sole power of the House to originate 
    revenue measures and alleging that the Senate, by its amendment to 
    a House bill, has violated article I, section 7 of the United 
    States Constitution, may be raised at any time when the House is in 
    possession of the papers, and the question may even be presented 
    pending the motion to call up the conference report on the bill.

    On June 20, 1968, Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, called up a 
conference report on H.R. 15415, the Revenue and Expenditure Act of 
1968. Pending his request that the statement of the managers be read in 
lieu of the report, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, rose to a question of the 
privileges of the House and was recognized by Speaker pro tempore 
Charles M. Price, of Illinois: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 114 Cong. Rec. 17970, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege of 
    the House and offer a resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1222

            Resolved, That Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 15414, 
        in the opinion of the House, contravene the first clause of the 
        seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the 
        United States, and are an infringement of the privileges of 
        this House, and that the said bill, with amendments, be 
        respectfully returned to the Senate with a message 
        communicating this resolution.
            The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
        Gross] is recognized for 1 hour.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A question of the privileges of the House 
has the highest privilege for consideration in the House, superseding 
the approval of the Journal, although it has been held in the past that 
the consideration of a contested election case (considered at that time 
as a question of constitutional privilege) took precedence over such a 
question.(3) In presenting a question of the privileges of 
the House, however, the Member raising the question must present a 
resolution before being recognized, and must satisfy the Chair that the 
resolution properly constitutes a question of privilege under Rule IX 
and the precedents relating thereto.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 31, infra.
 5. See Ch. 11, supra, for a complete discussion of questions of the 
        privileges of the House ( and of the Member).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4382]]

Sec. 28.13 A question involving a question of the privileges of the 
    House under Rule IX takes precedence over District of Columbia 
    business under Rule XXIV clause 8.

    On Dec. 14, 1970, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, to present a resolution 
under a question of the privileges of the House (asserting the 
privileges of the House with respect to the printing and publishing of 
a committee report which had been enjoined by a federal court) before 
recognizing the Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia 
for business reported from that committee. Under Rule XXIV clause 8, 
the regular order of business was the consideration of District of 
Columbia business.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 41355-74, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.14 A subpena duces tecum served upon the Clerk of the House and 
    transmitted by the Clerk to the Speaker was held to be a matter of 
    the highest privilege (as a question of the privileges of the 
    House) and to supersede the continuation of the call of committees 
    under the Calendar Wednesday rule.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
overruled a point of order against the consideration of highly 
privileged business on Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 1695, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, this is Calendar Wednesday, and I 
    ask that the business of Calendar Wednesday proceed. I submit that 
    the regular order is the continuation of the call of committees by 
    the Clerk.
        The Speaker: The Chair at this time is going to lay before the 
    House a matter of highest privilege.

    The Speaker laid before the House a communication from the Clerk 
transmitting a subpena issued to him by a federal district court and 
directing the production of committee executive session material. There 
was offered and adopted a resolution in response to the subpena.

Resolutions and Reports on Contempt of Witnesses (Privilege of House)

Sec. 28.15 It is in order to call up at any time, as a question of the 
    privileges of the House, a resolution directing the Speaker to 
    certify an indi

[[Page 4383]]

    vidual in contempt of the House or its committees.

    On Aug. 2, 1946, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry that calling up a resolution, 
directing the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the 
refusal of a witness to testify, was a matter of the highest privilege: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 10746, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Proceeding Against Richard Morford

        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi rise?
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I send to 
    the Clerk's desk a privileged resolution and ask that it be read.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the resolution.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, has not the Speaker the power to 
    determine the order of business by recognizing or not recognizing 
    gentlemen requesting the consideration of various pieces of 
    legislation? I make that parliamentary inquiry because there is 
    very important business pending before the House--social security, 
    appropriations for terminal-leave pay, and for automobiles for 
    amputees--and I see no reason why this resolution should be given 
    preference.
        The Speaker: It would not be given preference if it were an 
    ordinary resolution, but this is a resolution of high privilege.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A Member may make a point of order that a 
quorum is not present during the reading of a privileged report 
relating to the refusal of a witness to testify before a 
committee.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 10592, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 31, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the power to deal directly with the contempts of witnesses 
is implied in the United States Constitution, Congress has provided by 
statute for a criminal penalty and for a procedure whereby contempts 
are certified to the United States Attorney.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. For the power of the House to punish for contempt, see Ch. 13, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.16 Reports from a committee on testimony which has purged a 
    witness of contempt based upon his previous refusal to testify, and 
    resolutions providing that the Speaker certify such reports to the 
    United States Attorney, are privileged.

    On July 23, 1954, a privileged report and resolution were submitted 
and immediately considered in the House: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 100 Cong. Rec. 11650, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4384]]

        Mr. [Harold H.] Velde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Un-American Activities, I submit a privileged 
    report (Rept. No. 2472).
        The Clerk read as follows:

                   In the Matter of Francis X. T. Crowley

        Mr. Velde, from the Committee on Un-American Activities, 
    submitted the following report: . . .
        Mr. Velde: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 681) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
        certify the report of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
        of the House of Representatives concerning the action of 
        Francis X. T. Crowley in purging himself of contempt of the 
        House of Representatives of the United States, together with 
        all the facts in connection therewith, under seal of the House 
        of Representatives, to the United States Attorney for the 
        District of Columbia, to the end that legal proceedings based 
        upon the matter certified by the Speaker pursuant to H. Res. 
        541, 83d Congress, second session, against the said Francis X. 
        T. Crowley may be withdrawn and dropped in the manner and form 
        provided by law.

        Mr. Velde: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may desire to 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Jackson].

Sec. 28.17 Reports from committees on the refusal of witnesses to 
    testify, and resolutions providing that the Speaker certify a 
    report on the refusal of a witness to testify to a United States 
    Attorney are privileged for consideration.

    On Apr. 9, 1952,(12) the Committee on Ways and Means 
submitted a privileged report which was immediately considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 98 Cong. Rec. 3853, 3854, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Doughton [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, I submit a privileged 
    report (H. Rept. No. 1748).
        The Speaker: (13) The Clerk will read the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the report.
        (For House Report No. 1748, see proceedings of the House of 
    Tuesday, April 8, 1952, pp. 3756-3773.)
        Mr. Doughton: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 602) and ask for it immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
        certify the report of the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
        House of Representatives as to the willful and deliberate 
        refusals of Henry W. Grunewald to answer questions and his 
        willful and deliberate failures to produce books, records, and 
        documents before the said Committee on Ways and Means, together 
        with all of the facts in connection therewith, under seal of 
        the House of Representatives, to the United States Attorney for 
        the District of Columbia, to the end that the said Henry

[[Page 4385]]

        W. Grunewald may be proceeded against in the manner and form 
        provided by law.

        Mr. Doughton: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may care to 
    use to the gentleman from California [Mr. King], chairman of the 
    subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means on the 
    Administration of the Internal Revenue Laws.

Sec. 28.18 A report of the Committee on Un-American Activities dealing 
    with the contempt of a witness was considered on a Calendar 
    Wednesday.

    On June 26, 1946,(14) which was Calendar Wednesday under 
the rule, Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, called up a privileged report 
from the Committee on Un-American Activities, dealing with the contempt 
of a witness before the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 92 Cong. Rec. 7589-91, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.19 A report relating to the refusal of a witness to respond to 
    a subpena duces tecum issued by a committee gives rise to a 
    question of the privileges of the House and, under Rule IX, may be 
    considered on the same day reported notwithstanding the requirement 
    of Rule XI clause 27(d)(4) [Rule XI clause 2(l)(6) in the 1979 
    House Rules and Manual] that reports from committees be available 
    to Members for at least three calendar days prior to their 
    consideration.

    A resolution directing the Speaker to verify to the U.S. Attorney 
the refusal of a witness to respond to a subpena issued by a House 
committee may be offered from the floor as privileged, and a committee 
report to accompany the resolution may therefore be presented to the 
House without regard to the three-day availability requirement for 
other reports.
    On July 13, 1971, Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, the 
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, rose to a 
question of the privileges of the House (relating to the refusal of a 
witness to respond to a subpena issued by said committee) and submitted 
a privileged report from the committee (H. Rept. No. 92-349). Mr. Sam 
M. Gibbons, of Florida, made a point of order against the consideration 
of the report and the accompanying resolution (H. Res. 534, directing 
the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the refusal of the 
witness to comply with the subpena). Mr. Gibbons' point of order was 
based on Rule XI clause 27(d)(4), which requires

[[Page 4386]]

committee reports to be available for at least three calendar days 
before being considered in the House. After hearing extensive argument 
on the point of order, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, overruled the 
point of order as follows: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 24720-23, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair appreciates the fact that the gentleman from Florida 
    has furnished him with a copy of the point of order which he has 
    raised and has given the Chair an opportunity to consider it.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) makes a point of order 
    against the consideration of the report from the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce on the grounds that it has not been 
    available to Members for at least 3 days as required by clause 
    27(d) (4) of rule XI. The Chair had been advised that such a point 
    of order might be raised and has examined the problems involved.
        The Chair has studied clause 27(d) (4) of rule XI and the 
    legislative history in connection with its inclusion in the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. That clause provides that 
    ``a matter shall not be considered in the House unless the report 
    has been available for at least 3 calendar days.''
        The Chair has also examined rule IX, which provides that:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
        integrity of its proceedings . . . and shall have precedence of 
        all other questions, except motions to adjourn.

        Under the precedents, a resolution raising a question of the 
    privileges of the House does not necessarily require a report from 
    a committee. Immediate consideration of a question of privilege of 
    the House is inherent in the whole concept of privilege. When a 
    resolution is presented, the House may then make a determination 
    regarding its disposition.
        When a question is raised that a witness before a House 
    committee has been contemptuous, it has always been recognized that 
    the House has the implied power under the Constitution to deal 
    directly with such conduct so far as is necessary to preserve and 
    exercise its legislative authority. However, punishment for 
    contemptuous conduct involving the refusal of a witness to testify 
    or produce documents is now generally governed by law--Title II, 
    United States Code, sections 192-194--which provides that whenever 
    a witness fails or refuses to appear in response to a committee 
    subpena, or fails or refuses to testify or produce documents in 
    response thereto, such fact may be reported to the House. Those 
    reports are of high privilege.
        When a resolution raising a question of privilege of the House 
    is submitted by a Member and called up as privileged, that 
    resolution is also subject to immediate disposition as the House 
    shall determine.
        The implied power under the Constitution for the House to deal 
    directly with matters necessary to preserve and exercise its 
    legislative authority; the provision in rule IX that questions of

[[Page 4387]]

    privilege of the House shall have precedence of all other 
    questions; and the fact that the report of the committee has been 
    filed by the gentleman from West Virginia as privileged--all refute 
    the argument that the 3-day layover requirement of clause 27(d)(4) 
    applies in this situation.
        The Chair holds that the report is of such high privilege under 
    the inherent constitutional powers of the House and under rule IX 
    that the provisions of clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI are not 
    applicable .
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
        The Clerk will continue to read the resort.

Administration of Oath (Question of Privileges of House)

Sec. 28.20 Administration of the oath to a Member-elect is a matter of 
    high privilege and is in order after the previous question is 
    ordered on the pending question (a bill reported back from the 
    Committee of the Whole to the House).

    On Oct. 3, 1969, the Committee of the Whole rose and reported back 
to the House, with sundry amendments, a bill (H. R. 14000) authorizing 
appropriations for military procurement. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated that under the rule the previous question was 
ordered. Further proceedings were interrupted for the administration of 
the oath to a Member-elect: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 28487, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Michael J. 
    Harrington, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His 
    certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, 
    and no question has been raised with regard to his election.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Harrington appeared at the bar of the House and took the 
    oath of office.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The oath was administered at such time as 
to allow the new Member to vote on the pending bill. (The 
administration of the oath to Members arises under the United States 
Constitution [art. VI, clause 3] but is presented as a question of the 
privileges of the House, which takes precedence over even the approval 
of the Journal.) (17)
    It should be noted that most of the Members-elect are sworn in on 
the day on which the House convenes for a new Congress, and that the 
administration of the oath at that time has, by tradition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4388]]

and statute, a place in the order of business on opening day. For 
example, the election of the Speaker precedes the administration of the 
oath to Members.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 212, 214. For business and 
        procedure at the convening of the House generally, see Chs. 1, 
        2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.21 Debate on a privileged resolution reported from the 
    Committee on Rules was interrupted to allow a new Member to take 
    the oath of office.

    On Dec. 24, 1963, there was under consideration in the House a 
resolution from the Committee on Rules making a special order of 
business (H. Res. 600, waiving points of order against a conference 
report). Debate on the resolution was interrupted for the privileged 
question of the administration of the oath to a new Member: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 25526, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the gentleman from Texas, Mr. James Jarrel Pickle, be 
    permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of 
    election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question 
    has been raised with regard to this election.
        The Speaker: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, and I am not going to object, I just wanted to 
    observe that I have checked with our Texas people on this side and 
    they tell me there is no contest about the gentleman's election.
        Mr. Speaker, I do not know how he is going to vote today. I 
    rather assume he will vote against us. But I hope, with the 
    indulgence of the Members on our side, if he has come up here from 
    Texas to be here the day before Christmas, I think we ought to let 
    him vote.
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, may I observe that the charity of our 
    beloved minority leader becomes not only himself but the season.
        Mr. Pickle appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath 
    of office.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The request for unanimous consent that the 
oath be administered was necessary not to bring up the question of oath 
administration (which is highly privileged) but to actually allow the 
administration of the oath, the Member's-elect certificate of election 
not having arrived.

Question of Personal Privilege

Sec. 28.22 A question of personal privilege (as opposed to a question 
    of the privileges of the House) cannot be raised before the 
    approval of the Journal.

[[Page 4389]]

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(1) before the reading and approval of 
the Journal, on a day when the House had ordered locked the doors to 
the Chamber (various calls of the House and privileged motions having 
interrupted the reading of the Journal) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, declined to recognize a Member on a question of personal 
privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214-16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Taft [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio 
    rise?
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker. That is not in order until the reading of the Journal has 
    been completed.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state his privileged 
    motion?
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, my motion is on a point of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state whether it is a 
    point of personal privilege or a privileged motion?
        Mr. Taft: It is a privileged motion, and a motion of personal 
    privilege.
        Under rule IX questions of personal privilege are privileged 
    motions, ahead of the reading of the Journal.
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a 
    question of personal privilege should be made later after the 
    Journal has been disposed of.
        If the gentleman has a matter of privilege of the House, that 
    is an entirely different situation.

    When Mr. Taft again sought recognition and sought to raise a 
question of the privileges of the House, the Speaker heard the question 
and ruled that no question of the privileges of the House was stated. 
An appeal from the Speaker's ruling was laid on the table.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Questions of personal privilege may not be 
raised in Committee of the Whole.
    In presenting a question of personal privilege the Member does not 
submit a resolution but is recognized to discuss the issue presented, 
if the Chair finds that a question of personal privilege has been 
properly stated under Rule IX.(2) Questions of personal 
privilege take precedence over other business except contested electian 
cases, impeachment propositions, questions of the privileges of the 
House, and approval of the Journal, but may not be presented while 
another Member has the floor.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Ch. 11, supra, for a discussion of questions of personal 
        privilege.
 3. See Sec. 31, infra. A question of personal privilege may supersede 
        the consideration (or disposition) but not the presentation of 
        a message from the President or the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.23 While a question of privileges of the House is pending, the 
    Chair does not recognize a Member to present a question of personal 
    privilege.

[[Page 4390]]

    On Apr. 20, 1936, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that 
a question of personal privilege could not be raised while another 
question of privilege (of the House) was pending: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 5704, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privilege of the whole House and offer a privileged 
    resolution, which I ask the Clerk to read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 490

            Whereas during the House proceedings on April 17, 1936, the 
        gentleman from Washington [Mr. Zioncheck] attempted to speak 
        out of order and to indulge in personalities, when he was 
        admonished by the Chair, as follows--

        Mr. [Marion A.] Zioncheck [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I rise 
    to a point of personal privilege.
        The Speaker: The gentleman cannot do that while another 
    question of privilege is pending.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although highly privileged, a question of 
privilege may not be presented while another Member has the 
floor.(6) And a point of order, such as a point of order 
that a quorum is not present, or a point of order that the Member 
rising to a question of privilege has not presented a question of 
privilege, may interrupt a Member stating a question of 
privilege.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 80 Cong. Rec. 3720, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1936; 91 
        Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 5, 1945; 92 
        Cong. Rec. 5216, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., May 17, 1946.
 6. See 84 Cong. Rec. 8468, 8469, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A question of privilege is not entertained pending a vote on a 
motion to adjourn.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 11940, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 15, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------