[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.