    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 105th Congress]
    [105th Congress]
    [House Document 104-272]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 359-372]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 359]]

                                    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.

    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 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.

    [[Page 360]]

    (B) the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader or a designee, as determined
    by the Speaker.
      (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) 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. ----).

    Sec. 662. Questions of privileges of the House.

      The  body of
    precedent relating to questions of privilege includes rulings that span
    the adoption of standing rule IX in 1880.

    [[Page 361]]

    resolution declaring vacant the office of Speaker is presented as a
    matter of high constitutional privilege (VI, 35). For further discussion
    with respect to the organization of the House and the title of its
    Members to seats, see Sec. Sec. 18-30, 46-51, 56, and 58-60, supra.

    Sec. 662a. Questions relating to
    organization.

      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 temporary 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). A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a
    question of privilege (July 31, 1997, p. ----). A

    Sec. 662b. Questions relating to constitutional
    prerogatives.

      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 (see,
    e.g., 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. ----). For a more thorough record of revenue bills returned to
    the Senate, see Sec. 102, supra. Such a question of privilege may be
    raised at any time 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. ----). The
    constitutional prerogatives of the House also include its function with
    respect to treaties (II, 1502-1537); impeachments and matters incidental
    thereto (see Sec. 604, supra); 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); and questions relating to legal
    challenges involving the prerogatives of the House (Jan. 29, 1981, p.
    1304; Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890), including a resolution responding to a
    court challenge to the prerogative of the House to establish a Chaplain
    (Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890). For a discussion of the relationship of the
    House and its Members to the courts, see Sec. Sec. 290-291b, supra.

    [[Page 362]]

      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). For example, 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). Similarly, neither the enumeration of legislative powers in
    article I 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.
    ----; Dec. 22, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 3, 1996, p. ----; Jan. 24, 1996, p.
    ----; Feb. 1, 1996, p. ----). On the other hand, 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. 662c. Questions relating to official
    conduct.

      The  privileges of the House include certain questions relating to
    the conduct of Members, officers, and employees (see, e.g., I, 284, 285;
    III, 2628, 2645-2647). Under that standard, the following resolutions
    have been held to constitute questions of the privileges of the House:
    (1) 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); (2) a resolution establishing an ad hoc committee to
    investigate allegations of ``ghost'' employment in the House (Apr. 9,
    1992, p. ----); (3) a resolution to further investigate the conduct of a
    Member on which it has reported to the House (Aug. 5, 1987, p. 22458);
    (4) a resolution directing the Committee on Standards of Official
    Conduct to report to the House the status of an investigation pending
    before the committee (Nov. 17, 1995, p. ----; Nov. 30, 1995, p. ----);
    (5) a resolution appointing an outside counsel (Sept. 19, 1996, p. ----;
    Sept. 24, 1996, p. ----); (6) a resolution to commit other matters to an
    outside counsel already appointed by the committee (June 27, 1996, p. --
    --); (7) a resolution directing the committee to release the report of
    an outside counsel (Sept. 19, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 24, 1996, p. ----);
    (8) a resolution 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); (9) a
    resolution making 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); (10) a
    resolution making allegations of unauthorized actions by a committee
    employee to intervene in judicial proceedings (Feb. 5, 1992, p. ----);
    (11) 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. 29968); and (12) 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). For a discussion of disciplinary
    resolutions meting out punishment for violations of standards of
    official conduct, which constitute questions of the privileges of the
    House, see Sec. Sec. 62-66, supra.

    [[Page 363]]

    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 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

    [[Page 364]]

    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. 25435); instructing the Committee on
    Standards of Official Conduct to disclose

      In the 105th Congress a 12-member bipartisan task force appointed by
    the Majority and Minority Leaders conducted a comprehensive review of
    the House ethics process. During the deliberations of the task force,
    the House imposed a moratorium on raising certain questions of privilege
    under this rule with respect to official conduct and on the filing or
    processing of ethics complaints. The moratorium was imposed in the
    expectation that the recommendations of the task force would include
    rules changes relating to establishment and enforcement of standards of
    official conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the House (Feb.
    12, 1997, p. ----). The moratorium was extended through September 10,
    1997 (July 30, 1997, p. ----). The task force recommendations ultimately
    were adopted with certain amendments (H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. --
    --).

    Sec. 662d. Questions relating to integrity of
    proceedings.

      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). Privileges of
    the House also include: (1) 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); (2) newspaper charges affecting the
    honor and dignity of the House (VII, 911); and (3) the conduct of
    representatives of the press (II, 1630, 1631; III, 2627; VI, 553).

      Admission to the floor of the House constitutes a question of
    privilege (III, 2624-2626), including a resolution alleging indecorous
    behavior of a former Member and instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban
    the former Member from the floor, and rooms leading thereto, until the
    resolution of a contested election to which he was party (H. Res. 233,
    Sept. 18, 1997, p. ----).

    [[Page 365]]

    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 accuracy and propriety of reports in the Congressional Record also
    constitute a question of privileges of the House (V, 7005-7023; VIII,
    3163, 3461, 3463, 3464, 3491, 3499; Apr. 20, 1936, p. 5704; May 11,
    1936, p. 7019; May 7, 1979, pp. 10099-100), including: (1) 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); (2) 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 (3) resolutions addressing whether the Record should constitute a
    verbatim transcript (May 8, 1985, p. 11072; Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1515).
    Although a motion to correct the Congressional Record based on improper
    alterations or insertions may

      The protection of House records constitutes a question of the
    privileges of the House, especially when records are demanded by the
    courts (III, 2604, 2659, 2660-2664; VI, 587; Sept. 18, 1992, p. ----;
    see also Sec. 291, supra). Privileges of the House involving records
    also include: (1) a resolution furnishing certain requested information
    to an Independent Counsel investigating covert arms transactions with
    Iran (June 4, 1992, p. ----); (2) 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. ----); (3) a
    resolution directing 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 (4) a resolution 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 agreed to the contrary
    (June 9, 1994, p. ----).

      A question regarding the accuracy of House documents constitutes a
    question of privileges of the House (V, 7329), including: (1) a
    resolution asserting that 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
    report back by a date certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18279); (2) a
    resolution alleging the unauthorized creation and falsification of
    documents distributed to the general public at a committee hearing and
    resolving that the Speaker take appropriate measures to ensure the
    integrity of the legislative process and report his actions and
    recommendations to the House (Oct. 25, 1995, p. ----); and (3) a
    resolution requesting the Senate to return a House-passed bill and
    accompanying papers to the House if an error had been made by the Clerk
    in preparing the message to the Senate (Oct. 1, 1982, p. 27172). The
    privileges of the House also include: (1) the integrity of its Journal
    (II, 1363; III, 2620) and messages (III, 2613); (2) unreasonable delay
    in transmitting an enrolled bill to the President (Oct. 8, 1991, p.
    25761); and (3) 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. ----).

    [[Page 366]]

    for the audio and visual broadcast
    coverage of the Chamber while Members are voting has been held to
    present a question of the privileges of the House, because clause 9 of
    rule I requires complete and unedited audio and visual coverage of House
    proceedings and coverage of rollcall votes had not been implemented
    (Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9821).
      A resolution alleging that the Chair had improperly ordered the
    interruption of audio broadcast coverage of certain House proceedings
    constitutes a question of privileges of the House (Mar. 17, 1988, p.
    4180), as does a resolution providing for an experiment in the
    telecasting and broadcasting of House proceedings (Speaker O'Neill, Mar.
    15, 1977, pp. 7607-08). Similarly, a resolution authorizing and
    directing the Speaker to provide

      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.

    Sec. 662e. Questions relating to comfort and
    convenience.

      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 directing the appointment of a select committee to inquire into
    alleged fire safety deficiencies in the environs of the House (May 10,
    1988, p. 10286).

    [[Page 367]]

    frain from similar invitations, was held not to present
    a question of the privileges of the House because it proposed a
    collateral change in an order of the House previously adopted (that the
    House recess for the purpose of receiving the President of France) and a
    new rule for future cases (Jan. 31, 1996, p. ----). 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 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). On the other hand, 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), a question of the privileges of the
    House is raised where it is alleged that subcommittee ratios should
    reflect full committee ratios established by the House and failure to do
    so denies representational rights at the subcommittee level (Oct. 4,
    1984, p. 30042). 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 change in the rules and therefore not to give rise to
    a question of the privileges of the House (Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23298). A
    resolution directing that the reprogramming process established in law
    for Legislative Branch appropriations be subjected to third-party review
    for conformity with external 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. ----).

    Sec. 662f. May not effect change in rules.

      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 or standing orders of
    the House or their interpretation (Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 6, 1977, pp.
    38470-73; Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23298; July 30, 1992, p. ----; Jan. 31,
    1996, 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 the
    order of precedence of motions) (Speaker Wright, Aug. 3, 1988, p.
    20281). Similarly, a resolution alleging that, in light of an
    internationally objectionable French program of nuclear test
    detonations, for the House to receive the President of France in a Joint
    Meeting would be injurious to its dignity and to the integrity of its
    proceedings, and resolving that the Speaker withdraw the pending
    invitation and re-

    [[Page 368]]

    See also Sec. 662a, supra, for a discussion of legislative propositions
    purporting to present questions of the privileges of the House.
      A question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to
    prescribe a special order of business for the House, because otherwise
    any Member would be able to attach privilege to a legislative measure
    merely by alleging impact on the dignity of the House based upon House
    action or inaction (Speaker Albert, June 27, 1974, p. 21596; July 31,
    1975, p. 26250; Dec. 22, 1996, p. ----; Jan. 3, 1996, p. ----; Jan. 24,
    1996, p. ----). For example, a resolution alleging that the inability of
    the House to enact certain legislation constituted an impairment of the
    dignity of the House, the integrity of its proceedings, and its place in
    public esteem, and resolving that the House be considered to have passed
    such legislation, does not give rise to a question of the privileges of
    the House (Jan. 3, 1996, p. ----; Jan. 24, 1996, p. ----). Similarly, a
    resolution precluding an adjournment of the House until a specified
    legislative measure is considered does not constitute a question of the
    privileges of the House (Feb. 1, 1996, p. ----).

    Sec. 662g. As distinct from privileged questions.

      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
    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) (see Sec. 662b, supra).

      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 (now referred to as ``applicable accounts of the House
    described in clause 1(h)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 395).

    [[Page 369]]

    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). 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. Questions of personal privilege.

      The  privilege of
    the Member rests primarily on the Constitution, which gives to him a
    conditional immunity from arrest (Sec. 90, supra) 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

      Speaker Wright rose to 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). Speaker Gingrich rose to a
    question of personal privilege to discuss his own official conduct
    previously resolved by the House, which question was based upon press
    accounts (Apr. 17, 1997, p. ----). A Member rose to a question of
    personal privilege to discuss his own official conduct relative to his
    account with the ``bank'' operated by the Sergeant-at-Arms, which
    question was based on press accounts (Mar. 19, 1992, p. ----).

    [[Page 370]]

    sponses in an interview (III, 2707, 2708; Aug. 3,
    1990, p. 22135), have not been entertained. 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.
    29569; Sept. 25, 1996, p. ----). However, 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 impugn 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).

      A distinction has 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; May
    14, 1996, p. ----), and the same when made on the floor (III, 1827,
    2691, 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 are not given (III, 1831, 2705, 2709; VI, 616, 617).
    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 re-

    Sec. 665. Precedence of privileges of the House.

      The  body of
    precedent relating to the precedence of questions of privilege spans
    both the adoption of standing rule IX in 1880 and its amendment to
    require notice in certain cases in 1993.

    [[Page 371]]

    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 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. 665a. Precedence of questions of privileges of
    House.

      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. 18916). While a
    resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House has
    precedence over all other questions, it is nevertheless

    Sec. 665b. 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. A proper question of privilege may be renewed
    (Nov. 17, 1995, p. ----). 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).

    [[Page 372]]

    Sec. 665c. Questions of privilege in relation to
    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.

      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 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. ----).

      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 three
    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); since the 103d Congress, however, the rule
    has provided for divided control of the hour in the case of a resolution
    offered from the floor. 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).