    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
    [104th Congress]
    [House Document 103-342]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 353-365]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                    Rule IX.

                             QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.

    Sec. 661. Definition of questions of privilege.

      1.  Questions
    of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House
    collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings;
    and second, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of
    Members, individually, in their representative capacity only.

    [[Page 354]]
    questions except motions to adjourn. A resolution offered from the
    floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader
    as a question of the privileges of the House shall have precedence of
    all other questions except motions to adjourn only at a time or place,
    designated by the Speaker, in the legislative schedule within two
    legislative days after the day on which the proponent announces to the
    House his intention to offer the resolution and the form of the
    resolution.

    Sec. 661a. Precedence of questions of privilege.

      2.  (a)(1) A
    resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the House, or
    offered from the floor by the majority leader or the minority leader as
    a question of the privileges of the House, or offered as privileged
    under article I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, shall have
    precedence of all other

      (2) The time allotted for debate on a resolution offered from the
    floor as a question of the privileges of the House shall be equally
    divided between (A) the proponent of the resolution, and (B) the
    majority leader or the minority leader or a designee, as determined by
    the Speaker.

      (b) A question of personal privilege shall have precedence of all
    other questions except motions to adjourn.

      This rule was adopted in 1880 (III, 2521). It merely put in form of
    definition what had been long established in the practice of the House
    but what the House had hitherto been unwilling to define (II, 1603). It
    was amended in the 103d Congress to authorize the Speaker to designate a
    time within a period of two legislative days for the consideration of a
    resolution to be offered from the floor by a Member other than the
    Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges
    of the House after that Member has announced to the House his intention
    to do so and the content of the resolution, and to divide the time for
    debate on a resolution offered from the floor as a question of the
    privileges of the House (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. ----).

    [[Page 355]]
    but may announce his designation at a later time (Feb. 11, 1994, p. --
    --). The Speaker does not rule on the privileged status of a resolution
    at the time that resolution is noticed, but only when the resolution is
    called up within two legislative days (Feb. 11, 1994, p. ----; Sept. 13,
    1994, p. ----; Feb. 3, 1995, p. ----).

      Under the form of the rule adopted in the 103d Congress, the Speaker
    may in his discretion recognize a Member other than the Majority or
    Minority Leader to proceed immediately on a resolution offered as a
    question of the privileges of the House without first designating a
    subsequent time or place in the legislative schedule within two
    legislative days (Speaker Foley, Feb. 3, 1993, p. ----); and he is not
    required to announce the time designated to consider a resolution at the
    time the resolution is noticed

    Sec. 662. Privilege of the House.

      The  privileges of the
    House, as distinguished from that of the individual Member, include
    questions relating to its constitutional prerogatives in respect to
    revenue legislation and appropriations (II, 1480-1501; VI, 315; Nov. 8,
    1979, pp. 31517-18; Oct. 1, 1985, p. 25418; June 16, 1988, p. 14780;
    June 21, 1988, p. 15425; Aug. 12, 1994, p. ----), when the House is in
    possession of the papers (June 20, 1968, Deschler's Precedents, vol. 3,
    ch. 13, sec. 14.2; Aug. 19, 1982, p. 22127), but not otherwise (Apr. 6,
    1995, p. ----); including revenue and other treaties (II, 1502-1537);
    impeachments and matters incidental thereto (Sec. 604, supra); the
    constitutional prerogatives of the House with respect to bills ``pocket
    vetoed'' during an intersession adjournment (Nov. 21, 1989, p. 31156);
    its power to punish for contempt, whether of its own Members (II, 1641-
    1665), of witnesses who are summoned to give information (II, 1608,
    1612; III, 1666-1724), or of other persons (II, 1597-1640). However,
    neither the enumeration of legislative powers in article I, section 8 of
    the Constitution nor the prohibition in the seventh clause of section 9
    of that article against any withdrawal from the Treasury except by
    enactment of an appropriation renders a measure purporting to exercise
    or limit the exercise of those powers a question of the privileges of
    the House, because rule IX is concerned not with the privileges of the
    Congress, as a legislative branch, but only with the privileges of the
    House, as a House (Speaker Gingrich, Feb. 7, 1995, p. ----).

    [[Page 356]]
    porary seating of a certified Member-elect pending determination of
    final right notwithstanding prior House action declining to seat either
    claimant (Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2220; Mar. 4, 1985, p. 4277).
      The privileges of the House also include questions relating to its
    organization (I, 22-24, 189, 212, 290), and the title of its Members to
    their seats (III, 2579-2587), which may be raised as questions of the
    privileges of the House even though the subject has been previously
    referred to committee (I, 742; III, 2584; VIII, 2307), such as
    resolutions to declare prima facie right to a seat, or to declare a
    vacancy, where the House has referred the questions of prima facie and
    final rights to an elections committee for investigation (H. Res. 1,
    Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381; H. Res. 52, Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2220; H. Res. 97,
    Mar. 4, 1985, p. 4277; H. Res. 121, Apr. 2, 1985, p. 7118; H. Res. 148,
    Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9801); various questions incidental to the right to a
    seat (I, 322, 328, 673, 742; II, 1207; III, 2588; VII, 2316), such as a
    resolution declaring a vacancy in the House because a Member-elect is
    unable to take the oath of office and to serve as a Member or to
    expressly resign the office due to an incapacitating illness (H. Res.
    80, Feb. 24, 1981, p. 2916); a resolution declaring neither of two
    claimants seated pending a committee report and decision of final right
    to the seat by the House (Jan. 3, 1961, pp. 23-25; Jan. 3, 1985, p.
    381), including incidental provisions providing compensation for both
    claimants and office staffing by the Clerk (Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381), and
    resolutions directing tem

      The privileges of the House include questions relating to the conduct
    of officers and employees (I, 284, 285; III, 2628, 2645-2647; VI, 35),
    in addition to that of Members, such as a resolution directing the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate illegal
    solicitation of political contributions in the House Office Building by
    unnamed sitting Members (July 10, 1985, p. 18397); a resolution
    establishing an ad hoc committee to investigate allegations of ``ghost''
    employment in the House (Apr. 9, 1992, p. ----); a resolution to further
    investigate the conduct of a Member on which it has reported to the
    House (Aug. 5, 1987, p. 22458); resolutions making allegations
    concerning the propriety of responses by officers of the House to court
    subpoenas for papers of the House without notice to the House, and
    directions to a committee to investigate such allegations (Feb. 13,
    1980, pp. 2768-69), or allegations of improper representation by counsel
    of the legal position of Members in a brief filed in the Court and
    directions for withdrawal of the brief (Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4996), or
    allegations of unauthorized actions by a committee employee to intervene
    in judicial proceedings (Feb. 5, 1992, p. ----); a resolution directing
    the Clerk to notify interested parties that the House regretted the use
    of official resources to present to the Supreme Court of Florida a legal
    brief arguing the unconstitutionality of Congressional term limits, and
    that the House had no position on that question (Nov. 4, 1991, p. ----);
    and a resolution alleging a chronology of litigation relating to the
    immunity of a Member from civil liability for bona fide official acts
    and expressing the views of the House thereon (May 12, 1988, p. 10574).

    [[Page 357]]
    the Special Counsel (May 28, 1992, p. ----). The latter category
    included resolutions: directing the Committee on House Administration to
    conduct a thorough investigation of the operation and management of the
    Office of the Postmaster in light of recent press allegations of
    wrongdoing (Feb. 5, 1992, p. ----); to create a select committee to
    investigate the same matter (Feb. 5, 1992, p. ----); requiring an
    explanation of a reported interference with authorized access to a
    committee investigation of that matter (Apr. 9, 1992, p. ----); to
    redress a perception of obstruction of justice by recusing the General
    Counsel to the Clerk from matters relating to the investigation of that
    matter (Apr. 9, 1992, p. ----); directing the Speaker to explain the
    lapse of time before the House received notice that several Members and
    an officer of the House had received subpoenas to testify before a
    Federal grand jury investigating that matter (May 14, 1992, p. ----);
    directing the Committee on House Administration to transmit to the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and to the Department of
    Justice all records obtained by its task force to investigate that
    matter (July 22, 1992, p. ----); directing the Committee on Standards of
    Official Conduct to investigate violations of confidentiality by staff
    engaged in the investigation of that matter (July 22, 1992, p. ----);
    directing the Committee on House Administration to release transcripts
    of the proceedings of its task force to investigate that matter, where
    the investigation was ordered as a question of privilege and its results
    had been ordered reported to the House (July 22, 1992, p. ----; July 23,
    1992, p. ----); directing the Committee on House Administration to
    redress the inaccurate naming of a Member in minority views accompanying
    a report on that matter (July 23, 1992, p. ----); directing the public
    release of official papers of the House relating to an investigation by
    the Committee on House Administration's Task Force to investigate the
    operation and management of the Office of the Postmaster (July 22, 1993,
    p. ----); directing the public release of transcripts and other relevant
    documents relating to an investigation by the Committee on House
    Administration's Task Force to investigate the operation and management
    of the Office of the Postmaster unless two designees of the bipartisan
    leadership agree to the contrary (June 9, 1994, p. ----); and directing
    the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to defer any
    investigation relating to the operation of the former Post Office until
    assured that its inquiry would not interfere with an ongoing criminal
    investigation, as well as a resolution directing the Committee on
    Standards of Official Conduct to proceed with the investigation (Mar. 2,
    1994, p. ----).
      In the 102d and 103d Congresses, a large number of resolutions
    relating to the operation of the ``bank'' in the Office of the Sergeant-
    at-Arms and the management of the Office of the Postmaster were
    presented as questions of the privileges of the House. The former
    category included resolutions: terminating all bank and check-cashing
    operations in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and directing the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to review GAO audits of such
    operations (Oct. 3, 1991, p. ----); instructing the Committee on
    Standards of Official Conduct to disclose the names and pertinent
    account information of Members and former Members found to have abused
    the privileges of the ``bank'' in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms
    (Mar. 12, 1992, p. ----); instructing the Committee on Standards of
    Official Conduct to disclose further account information respecting
    Members and former Members having checks held by that entity (Mar. 12,
    1992, p. ----); mandating full and accurate disclosure of pertinent
    information concerning the operation of that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p.
    ----); responding to a subpoena for records of that entity (Apr. 29,
    1992, p. ----); responding to a contemporaneous ``request'' for such
    records from a Special Counsel (Apr. 29, 1992, p. ----); and authorizing
    an officer of the House to release certain documents in response to
    another such request from

    [[Page 358]]
    ing the appointment of a select committee to inquire into alleged fire
    safety deficiencies in the environs of the House (May 10, 1988, p.
    10286).
      The privileges of the House include questions relating to the comfort
    and convenience of Members and employees (III, 2629-2636), such as
    resolutions concerning the proper attire for Members in the Chamber when
    the temperature is uncomfortably warm (July 17, 1979, p. 19008); as well
    as questions relating to safety, such as resolutions requiring an
    investigation into the safety of Members in view of alleged structural
    deficiencies in the West Front of the Capitol (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-
    64); and direct

    [[Page 359]]
    a printed transcript of joint subcommittee hearings contained
    unauthorized alterations of the statements of subcommittee members in
    the prior Congress and that unauthorized alterations may have occurred
    in other committee hearing transcripts, and proposing the creation of a
    select committee to investigate and requiring the select committee to
    report back not later than a date certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18279); a
    resolution alleging that the Chair had improperly ordered the
    interruption of audio broadcast coverage of certain House proceedings
    (Mar. 17, 1988, p. 4180); a resolution requesting the Senate to return a
    House-passed bill and accompanying papers to the House if an error has
    been made by the Clerk in preparing the message to the Senate (Oct. 1,
    1982, p. 27172); a resolution seeking a determination whether there had
    been an unreasonable delay in transmitting an enrolled bill to the
    President (Oct. 8, 1991, p. ----); and a concurrent resolution directing
    the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate to produce
    official duplicates of certain legislative papers (Oct. 5, 1992, p. ----
    ).
      The privileges of the House include questions relating to the
    integrity of its proceedings, including the processes by which bills are
    considered (III, 2597-2601, 2614; IV, 3383, 3388, 3478), such as the
    constitutional question of the vote required to pass a joint resolution
    extending the State ratification period of a proposed Constitutional
    Amendment (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, pp. 26203-04); a resolution
    responding to a court challenge to the prerogatives of the House to
    establish a chaplain and asserting the Constitutional doctrine of
    separation of powers (where a United States Court of Appeals had
    determined that the Constitution did not prohibit judicial determination
    whether establishment of the Chaplain violated the establishment clause
    of the First amendment to the Constitution) (Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890);
    the resignation of a Member from a select or standing committee (Speaker
    Albert, June 16, 1975, p. 19054; Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 8, 1977, pp.
    6579-82); admission to the floor of the House (III, 2624-2626); the
    accuracy and propriety of reports in the Congressional Record (V, 7005-
    7023; VIII, 3163, 3461, 3463, 3464, 3491, 3499; Apr. 20, 1936, p. 5704;
    May 11, 1936, p. 7019; May 7, 1979, pp. 10099-10100), including a
    resolution asserting that a Member's remarks spoken in debate were
    omitted from the printed Record, directing that the Record be corrected
    and requiring the Clerk to report on the circumstances and possible
    corrective action (July 29, 1983, p. 21685), and resolutions directing
    the Committee on Rules to investigate and report to the House within a
    time certain on alleged alterations of the Congressional Record (Jan.
    24, 1984, p. 250), and whether the Record should constitute a verbatim
    transcript (May 8, 1985, p. 11072; Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1515); the conduct
    of representatives of the press (II, 1630, 1631; III, 2627; VI, 553);
    newspaper charges affecting the honor and dignity of the House (VII,
    911); the protection of papers in its files, especially when demanded by
    the courts and the protection of its constitutional prerogatives when
    directly questioned in the courts (III, 2604, 2660-2664; VI, 587;
    Sec. 291, supra), including a resolution furnishing certain requested
    information to an Independent Counsel investigating covert arms
    transactions with Iran (June 4, 1992, p. ----), and including a
    resolution responding to a request of a law enforcement official
    regarding the timing of the public release of official papers of the
    House (July 22, 1993, p. ----); the integrity of its Journal (II, 1363;
    III, 2620); the protection of its records (III, 2659; Sept. 18, 1992, p.
    ----), including directions to a committee to investigate press
    publication of a report that the House had ordered not to be released
    (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 1976, p. 3914), and including directions for
    the public release of transcripts and other relevant documents relating
    to an investigation by the Committee on House Administration's Task
    Force to investigate the operation and management of the Office of the
    Postmaster unless two designees of the bipartisan leadership agree to
    the contrary (June 9, 1994, p. ----); the accuracy of its documents (V,
    7329) and messages (III, 2613); a resolution asserting that

      While a motion to correct the Congressional Record based on improper
    alterations or insertions may be raised as a question of privilege, mere
    typographical errors or ordinary revisions of a Member's remarks do not
    form the basis for privileged motions to correct the Record (Apr. 25,
    1985, p. 9419; see Sec. 927, infra).

      The privileges of the House also include questions relating to the
    impact on the safety, dignity and integrity of House proceedings, and on
    the comfort and convenience of Members, of an experiment for the
    telecasting and broadcasting of House proceedings (Speaker O'Neill, Mar.
    15, 1977, pp. 7607-08); and a resolution authorizing and directing the
    Speaker to provide for the audio and visual broadcast coverage of the
    chamber while Members are voting, since clause 9 of rule I requires
    complete and unedited audio and visual coverage of House proceedings but
    coverage of rollcall votes had not been implemented (Apr. 30, 1985, p.
    9821).

    [[Page 360]]
    been drawn between charges made by one Member against another in a
    newspaper or in a press release (July 28, 1970, p. 26002) or in a ``Dear
    Colleague'' letter (Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19139), and the same when made on
    the floor (III, 1827, 2961, 2717). Charges made in newspapers against
    Members in their representative capacities involve privilege (III, 1832,
    2694, 2696-2699, 2703, 2704; VI, 576, 621; VIII, 2479), even though the
    names of individual Members be not given (III, 1831, 2705, 2709; VI,
    616, 617). Speaker Wright utilized a question of personal privilege to
    respond to a ``statement of alleged violations'' pending in the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct; and, pending the Committee's
    disposition of his motion to dismiss, announced his intention to resign
    as Speaker and as a Member (May 31, 1989, p. 10440). But vague charges
    in newspaper articles (III, 2711; VI, 570), criticisms (III, 2712-2714;
    VIII, 2465), or even misrepresentations of the Member's speeches or acts
    or responses in an interview (III, 2707, 2708; Aug. 3, 1990, p. ----),
    have not been entertained. While a question of personal privilege may
    not ordinarily be based merely on words spoken in debate (July 23, 1987,
    p. 20861; Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4085; Nov. 16, 1989, p. ----), a Member may
    raise a question of personal privilege based upon press accounts of
    another Member's remarks, in debate or off the floor, which impugned his
    character or motives (May 15, 1984, pp. 12207 and 12211; May 31, 1984,
    p. 14620), or based upon newspaper accounts of televised press coverage
    of a committee hearing at which he was criticized derogatorily (Mar. 3,
    1988, p. 3196). While questions of personal privilege normally involve
    matters touching on a Member's reputation, a Member may be recognized
    for a question of personal privilege based on a violation of his rights
    as a Member, such as unauthorized printed alterations in his statements
    made during a subcommittee hearing in a prior Congress (since the second
    phrase of this clause speaks to the ``rights, reputation, and conduct of
    Members, individually'') (June 28, 1983, p. 17674). A printed
    characterization by an Officer of the House of a Member's proposed
    amendments as ``dilatory and frivolous'' may give rise to a question of
    personal privilege (Aug. 1, 1985, p. 22542) as may the fraudulent use of
    a Member's official stationery as a ``dear colleague'' letter (Sept. 17,
    1986, p. 23605). While a Member may be recognized on a question of
    personal privilege to complain about an abuse of House rules as applied
    to debate in which he was properly participating, he may not raise a
    question of personal privilege merely to complain that microphones had
    been turned off during disorderly conduct following expiration of his
    recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4085).

    Sec. 663. Privilege of the Member.

      The  privilege of the
    Member rests primarily on the Constitution, which gives to him a
    conditional immunity from arrest (Sec. 90) and an unconditional freedom
    of debate in the House (III, 2670, Sec. 92, supra). A menace to the
    personal safety of Members from an insecure ceiling in the Hall was held
    to involve a question of the highest privilege (III, 2685); and an
    assault on a Member within the Capitol when the House was not in
    session, from a cause not connected with the Member's representative
    capacity, was also held to involve a question of privilege (II, 1624).
    But there has been doubt as to the right of the House to interfere for
    the protection of Members, who outside the Hall, get into difficulties
    not connected with their official duties (II, 1277; III, 2678;
    footnote). Charges against the conduct of a Member are held to involve
    privilege when they relate to his representative capacity (III, 1828-
    1830, 2716; VI, 604, 612; VIII, 2479); but when they relate to conduct
    at a time before he became a Member they have not been entertained as of
    privilege (II, 1287; III, 2691, 2723, 2725). A distinction has

    [[Page 361]]
    necessary to give certain important matters a precedence by rule, and
    such matters are called ``privileged questions.'' But as they relate
    merely to the order of business under the rules, they are to be
    distinguished from ``questions of privilege'' which relate to the safety
    or efficiency of the House itself as an organ for action (III, 2718). It
    is evident, therefore, that a question of privilege takes precedence
    over a matter merely privileged under the rules (III, 2526-2530; V,
    6454; VIII, 3465). Certain matters of business, arising under provisions
    of the Constitution mandatory in nature, have been held to have a
    privilege which superseded the rules establishing the order of business,
    as bills providing for census or apportionment (I, 305-308), bills
    returned with the objections of the President (IV, 3530-3536),
    propositions of impeachment (III, 2045-2048, 2051, 2398; July 22, 1986,
    p. 17294), and questions incidental thereto (III, 2401, 2418; V, 7261;
    July 22, 1986, p. 17306; Dec. 2, 1987, p. 33720; Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84;
    Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726), matters relating to the count of the electoral
    vote (III, 2573-2578), resolutions relating to adjournment and recess of
    Congress (V, 6698, 6701-6706), and a resolution declaring the office of
    Speaker vacant (VI, 35); but under later decisions certain of these
    matters which have no other basis in the Constitution or in the rules
    for privileged status, such as bills relating to census and
    apportionment, have been held not to present questions of privilege, and
    the effect of such decisions is to require all questions of privilege to
    come within the specific provisions of this rule (VI, 48; VII, 889; Apr.
    8, 1926, p. 7147). The ordinary rights and functions of the House under
    the Constitution are exercised in accordance with the rules without
    precedence as matters of privilege (III, 2567) but an extraordinary
    question relating to the House vote required by the Constitution to pass
    a joint resolution extending the ratification period of a proposed
    Constitutional amendment was raised as a question of privilege where the
    House had not otherwise made a separate determination on that procedural
    question and where consideration of the joint resolution had been made
    in order (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, pp. 26203-04).

    Sec. 664. General principles as to precedence of questions
    of privilege.

      The  clause of the rule giving questions of privilege
    precedence of all other questions except a motion to adjourn is a
    recognition of a principle always well understood in the House, for it
    is an axiom of the parliamentary law that such a question ``supersedes
    the consideration of the original question, and must be first disposed
    of'' (III, 2522, 2523; VI, 595). As the business of the House began to
    increase it was found

    [[Page 362]]
    the order of precedence of motions) (Speaker Wright, Aug. 3, 1988, p.
    20281). A resolution collaterally challenging the validity or fairness
    of an adopted rule of the House by delaying its implementation was held
    not to give rise to a question of the privileges of the House (Speaker
    Foley, sustained by tabling of appeal, Feb. 3, 1993, p. ----).
      A motion to amend the rules of the House does not present a question
    of privilege [Speaker Cannon sustained by the House by a vote of 235 to
    53, thereby overruling the decision of March 19, 1910 (VIII, 3376),
    which held such motion privileged (VIII, 3377)], and a question of the
    privileges of the House may not be invoked to effect a change in the
    rules of the House or their interpretation (Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 6,
    1977, pp. 38470-73; Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23298; July 30, 1992, p. ----),
    including directions to the Speaker infringing upon his discretionary
    power of recognition under clause 2 of rule XIV (July 25, 1980, pp.
    19762-64), for example, by requiring that he give priority in
    recognition to any Member seeking to call up a matter highly privileged
    pursuant to a statutory provision, over a member from the Committee on
    Rules seeking to call up a privileged report from that Committee
    (Speaker Wright, Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403), or by requiring that he state
    the question on overriding a veto before recognizing for a motion to
    refer (thereby overruling prior decisions of the Chair to change

    [[Page 363]]
    nal standards of accounting but alleging no deviation from duly
    constituted procedure was held not to give rise to a question of the
    privileges of the House (Speaker Foley, sustained by tabling of appeal,
    May 20, 1992, p. ----).

      A resolution that presents a proper question of the privileges of the
    House (alteration of subcommittee hearing transcripts) may propose the
    creation of a select investigatory committee with subpoena authority to
    report back to the House by a date certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18104),
    but may not appropriate funds for the investigating committee from the
    contingent fund (VI, 395). A resolution directing that the party ratios
    of all standing committees, subcommittees, and staffs thereof be changed
    within a time certain to reflect overall party ratios in the House was
    held to constitute a change in the rules of the House and not to
    constitute a proper question of the privileges of the House (the
    standing rules already providing mechanisms for selecting committee
    members and staff) (Jan. 23, 1984, p. 78). Although the rules of the
    House establish a procedure for fixing the ratio of majority to minority
    members on full committees, and also provide that subcommittees are
    subject to the direction and control of the full committee (clause 1(b)
    of rule XI), where it is alleged that subcommittee ratios should reflect
    full committee ratios established by the House, based upon denial of
    representational rights at the subcommittee level, a question of the
    privileges of the House is raised (Oct. 4, 1984, p. 30042). A
    legislative proposition presented as a question of constitutional
    privilege under the provisions of the 14th amendment was held not to
    involve a question of privilege (VI, 48). A Member may not by raising a
    question of the privileges of the House under rule IX thereby attach
    privilege to a question (directing the Committee on Rules to consider
    reporting a special order) not otherwise in order under the rules of the
    House (Speaker Albert, June 27, 1974, p. 21596; July 31, 1975, p.
    26250). A resolution alleging that a recitation of the pledge of
    allegiance at the start of each legislative day would enhance the
    dignity and integrity of the proceedings of the House and directing that
    the Speaker implement such a recitation as the practice of the House was
    held to propose a rules change and therefore not to give rise to a
    question of the privileges of the House (Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23298).
    Alleged improprieties in committee procedures, including charges of
    committee inaction (III, 2610), secret committee conferences (VI, 578),
    refusal to make staff study available to certain Members and to the
    public (Feb. 14, 1939, p. 1370), refusal to give hearings or allow
    petitions to be read (III, 2607), refusal to permit committee member to
    take photostatic copies of committee files (Aug. 14, 1957, p. 14739),
    and a determination whether a committee violated House rules by voting
    to take allegedly defamatory testimony in open session (June 30, 1958,
    pp. 12690-91), were all held not to give rise to a question of the
    privileges of the House. A resolution directing that the reprogramming
    process established in law for Legislative Branch appropriations be
    subjected to third-party review for conformity with exter

    [[Page 364]]
    standing rules of the House relating to the order of business (Speaker
    O'Neill, July 10, 1985, p. 18394; Feb. 6, 1989, pp. 1676-82).

    Sec. 665. Precedence of questions of privilege as related to
    pending business.

      A  question of privilege which relates to a breach of
    privilege (an assault) occurring during the reading of the Journal may
    interrupt its reading (II, 1630). A question of privilege may interrupt
    the reading of the Journal (II, 1630; VI, 637), the consideration of a
    bill under a special order (III, 2524, 2525), a rule providing for a
    vote ``without intervening motion'' (VI, 560), a proposition to suspend
    the rules (III, 2553; VI, 553, 565), the consideration of certain
    matters on which the previous question has been ordered (III, 2532; VI,
    561; VIII, 2688), business in order on Calendar Wednesday (VI, 394; VII,
    908-910), reports from the Rules Committee before debate has begun
    (VIII, 3491; Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403), call of the Consent Calendar on
    Monday (VI, 553), before that Calendar was repealed in the 104th
    Congress (H. Res. 168, June 20, 1995, p. ----), and motions to resolve
    into Committee of the Whole (VI, 554; VIII, 3461). A question of the
    privileges of the House takes precedence over unfinished business,
    privileged under clauses 1 and 3 of rule XXIV (Speaker Albert, June 4,
    1975, p. 16860). Since a resolution raising a question of the privileges
    of the House takes precedence over a motion to suspend the rules, it may
    be offered and voted on between motions to suspend the rules on which
    the Speaker has postponed record votes until after debate on all
    suspensions (May 17, 1983, p. 12486). While a question of privilege is
    pending a message of the President is received (V, 6640-6642), but is
    read only by unanimous consent (V, 6639). A motion to reconsider may
    also be entered but may not be considered (V, 5673-5676). It has been
    held that only one question of privilege may be pending at a time (III,
    2533), but having presented one question of privilege, a Member, before
    discussing it, may submit a second question of privilege related to the
    first and discuss both on one recognition (VI, 562). In general one
    question of privilege may not take precedence over another (III, 2534,
    2552, 2581), and the Chair's power of recognition determines which of
    two matters of equal privilege is considered first (July 24, 1990, p. --
    --). While a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the
    House has precedence over all other questions, it is nevertheless
    subject to disposition by the ordinary motions permitted under clause 4
    of rule XVI, and by the motion to refer under clause 1 of rule XVII
    (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 1976, p. 3914; Apr. 28, 1983, p. 10423; Mar.
    22, 1990, p. 4996). While under rule IX a question of the privileges of
    the House takes precedence over all other questions except the motion to
    adjourn, the Speaker may, pursuant to his power of recognition under
    clause 2 of rule XIV, entertain unanimous consent requests for ``one-
    minute speeches'' pending recognition for a question of privilege, since
    such unanimous consent requests, if granted, temporarily waive the

    Sec. 666. Precedence of questions of personal
    privilege.

      When  a Member proposes merely to address the House on a question
    of personal privilege, and does not bring up a resolution affecting the
    dignity or integrity of the House for action, the practice as to
    precedence is somewhat different. Thus, a Member rising to a question of
    personal privilege may not interrupt a call of the yeas and nays (V,
    6051, 6052, 6058, 6059; VI, 554, 564), or take from the floor another
    Member who has been recognized for debate (V, 5002; VIII, 2459, 2528;
    Sept. 29, 1983, p. 26508; July 23, 1987, p. 20861), but he may interrupt
    the ordinary legislative business (III, 2531). A Member may address the
    House on a question of personal privilege even after the previous
    question has been ordered on a pending bill (VI, 561; VIII, 2688). Under
    modern practice, a question of personal privilege may not be raised in
    Committee of the Whole (Sept. 4, 1969, p. 24372; Dec. 13, 1973, p.
    41270), the proper remedy being that a demand that words uttered in the
    Committee of the Whole be taken down pursuant to clause 5 of rule XIV;
    yet a breach of privilege occurring in Committee of the Whole relates to
    the dignity of the House and is so treated (II, 1657). A question of
    personal privilege may not be raised while a question of the privileges
    of the House is pending (Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9808; May 1, 1985, p. 10003).

    <>   Whenever it is
    asserted on the floor that the privileges of the House are invaded, the
    Speaker entertains the question (II, 1501), and may then refuse
    recognition
    if the resolution is not admissible as a question of privilege under the
    rule. Although the early custom was for the Speaker to submit to the
    House the question whether a resolution involved the privileges of the
    House (III, 2718), the modern practice is for the Speaker to rule
    directly on the question (VI, 604; Speaker Wright, Mar. 11, 1987, p.
    5404; Feb. 3, 1995, p. ----; Feb. 7, 1995, p. ----), subject to appeal
    where appropriate (Speaker Albert, June 27, 1974, p. 21596). Under the
    form of the rule adopted in the 103d Congress, the Speaker does not rule
    on the privileged status of a resolution at the time that resolution is
    noticed, but only when the resolution is called up within two
    legislative days (Feb. 11, 1994, p. ----; Sept. 13, 1994, p. ----; Feb.
    3, 1995, p. ----). Common fame has been held sufficient basis for
    raising a question (III, 2538, 2701); a telegraphic dispatch may also
    furnish a basis (III, 2539). A report relating to the contemptuous
    conduct of a witness before a committee gives rise to a question of the
    privileges of the House and may, under this rule, be considered on the
    same day reported notwithstanding the requirement of clause 2(l)(6) of
    rule XI that reports from committees be available to Members for at
    least

    [[Page 365]]
    3 calendar days prior to their consideration (Speaker Albert, July 13,
    1971, pp. 24720-23). But a Member may not, as matter of right, require
    the reading of a book or paper on suggesting that it contains matter
    infringing on the privileges of the House (V, 5258). In presenting a
    question of personal privilege the Member is not required in the first
    instance to offer a motion or resolution, but he must take this
    preliminary step in raising a question of general privileges (III, 2546,
    2547; VI, 565-569; VII, 3464). A proposition of privilege may lose its
    precedence by association with a matter not of privilege (III, 2551; V,
    5890; VI, 395). Debate on a question of privilege is under the hour rule
    (V, 4990; VIII, 2448), but the previous question may be moved (II, 1256;
    V, 5459, 5460; VIII, 2672). Consideration of a resolution as a question
    of the privileges of the House has included an hour of debate on a
    motion to refer under clause 4 of rule XVI; a separate hour of debate on
    the resolution, itself, under clause 2 of rule XIV; and a motion to
    commit (not debatable after the ordering of the previous question) under
    clause 1 of rule XVII (Mar. 12, 1992, p. ----). Debate on a letter of
    resignation is controlled by the Member moving the acceptance of the
    resignation (Mar. 8, 1977, pp. 6579-82) if the resigning Member does not
    seek recognition (June 16, 1975, p. 19054). Debate on a question of
    personal privilege must be confined to the statements or issues which
    gave rise to the question of privilege (V, 5075-77; VI, 576, 608; VIII,
    2448, 2481; May 31, 1984, p. 14623).

    Sec. 667. Questions of privilege in the absence of a
    quorum.

      During  a call of the House in the absence of a quorum, only such
    questions of privilege as relate immediately to those proceedings may be
    presented (III, 2545). See also Sec. 771a, infra.