    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 108th Congress]
    [108th Congress]
    [House Document 107-284]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 406-423]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                     Rule IX

                             questions of privilege

    Sec. 698. 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, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their
    representative capacity only.

    [[Page 407]]

    leged under clause 1, section 7, article I of the Constitution, shall
    have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn. A
    resolution offered from the floor by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
    Commissioner 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. Oral announcement of the form of the resolution may be
    dispensed with by unanimous consent.

    Sec. 699. 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 privi

      (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, 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.

    [[Page 408]]

    announcement of the form of the resolution to be dispensed with by
    unanimous consent, and clerical and stylistic changes were effected when
    the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. ----).

      This rule was adopted in 1880 (III, 2521). It merely defined 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. 49). Clause 2 was amended in the
    106th Congress to permit the

    Sec. 700. 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. The rule was adopted ``to
    prevent the large consumption of time which resulted from Members
    getting the floor for all kinds of speeches under the pretext of raising
    a question of privilege'' (III, 2521). In a landmark decision on
    constitutional assertions of privilege, Speaker Gillett placed
    significant reliance on the history of rule IX by observing that it
    ``was obviously adopted for the purpose of hindering the extension of
    constitutional or other privilege'' (VI, 48). Under House practice, a
    resolution offered as a question of the privileges of the House is read
    in full by the Clerk (Oct. 10, 1998, p. ----).

    Sec. 701. Questions relating to organization.

      The  privileges
    of the House 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 resolutions include those: (1) 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);
    (2) to raise various questions incidental to the right to a seat (I,
    322, 328, 673, 742; II, 1207; III, 2588; VII, 2316), such as a
    resolution to declare 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); (3) to declare 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 to
    direct 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); and (4) to propose directly to dispose of a contest over the
    title to a seat in the House (Nov. 8, 1997, p. ----; Nov. 9, 1997, p. --
    --; Jan. 28, 1998, p. ----) or to dispose of such contest upon the
    expiration of a specified day (Oct. 23, 1997, p. ----; Oct. 29, 1997, p.
    ----; Oct. 30, 1997, p. ----; Nov. 5, 1997, p. ----).

    [[Page 409]]

    and the title of its Members to seats, see Sec. Sec. 18-30, 46-51, 56,
    and 58-60, supra.

      A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of
    privilege (July 31, 1997, p. ----). A resolution declaring vacant the
    Office of the Speaker is presented as a matter of high constitutional
    privilege (VI, 35). For further discussion with respect to the
    organization of the House

    Sec. 702. 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, p. 31517; Oct. 1, 1985, p.
    25418; June 16, 1988, p. 14780; June 21, 1988, p. 15425; Aug. 12, 1994,
    p. 21655). 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, ch. 13, Sec. 14.2; Aug. 19, 1982, p. 22127), but not
    otherwise (Apr. 6, 1995, p. 10701). Such a question of privilege
    includes a resolution asserting that a conference report accompanying a
    House bill originated revenue provisions in derogation of the sole
    constitutional prerogative of the House and resolving that such bill be
    recommitted to conference (July 27, 2000, p. ----). The constitutional
    prerogatives of the House also include its function with respect to:
    (1) impeachment and matters incidental thereto (see
    Sec. 604, supra); (2) bills ``pocket vetoed'' during an
    intersession adjournment (Nov. 21, 1989, p. 31156); (3)
    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
    (4) 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). A resolution laying on the table a message from the President
    containing certain averments inveighing disrespect toward Members of
    Congress was considered as a question of the privileges of the House
    asserting a breach of privilege in a formal communication to the House
    (VI, 330). For a discussion of the relationship of the House and its
    Members to the courts, see Sec. Sec. 290-291b, supra.

    [[Page 410]]

    of constitutional privileges of the House: (1) a resolution requiring a
    committee inquiry into the extent to which the right to vote was denied
    under the provisions of the 14th amendment (VI, 48); and
    (2) a resolution alleging an unconstitutional abrogation of a treaty by
    the President, and calling on the President to seek the approval of
    Congress prior to such abrogation (June 6, 2002, 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, p. 26203).

      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). 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 (Feb. 7,
    1995, p. 3905; Dec. 22, 1995, p. 38501; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 40; Jan. 24,
    1996, p. 1248; Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2245; Oct. 10, 1998, p. ----; Nov. 4,
    1999, pp. ----, ----, ----; June 6, 2002, p.----; Oct. 2, 2002,
    pp. ----, ----, ----, ----; Oct. 3, 2002, pp. ----, ----). For example,
    the following legislative propositions have been held not to involve a
    question

    [[Page 411]]

    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.

    Sec. 703. 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 Buildings 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. 9029); (3) a resolution directing a committee 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. 33846; Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35075); (5) a resolution appointing an
    outside counsel (Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23851; Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24525);
    (6) a resolution to commit other matters to an outside counsel already
    appointed by the committee (June 27, 1996, p. 15917); (7) a resolution
    directing the committee to release the report of an outside counsel
    (Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23852; Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24526); (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, p. 2768); (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. 1601); (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

    [[Page 412]]

    (July 22, 1992, p. 18796; July 23, 1992, p. 19125); (9) 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. 19121); (10) 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. 16634); (11)
    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. 12437); and (12) 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. 3672).
      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: (1) 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); (2) 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. 5519); (3) 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. 5534); (4) mandating full and accurate disclosure of pertinent
    information concerning the operation of that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p.
    5551); (5) responding to a subpoena for records of that entity (Apr. 29,
    1992, p. 9453); (6) responding to a contemporaneous request for such
    records from a Special Counsel (Apr. 29, 1992, p. 9763); and (7)
    authorizing an officer of the House to release certain documents in
    response to another such request from the Special Counsel (May 28, 1992,
    p. 12790). The latter category included resolutions: (1) 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. 1589); (2)
    creating a select committee to investigate the same matter (Feb. 5,
    1992, p. 1599); (3) requiring an explanation of a reported interference
    with authorized access to a committee investigation of that matter (Apr.
    9, 1992, p. 9024); (4) redressing 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. 9076); (5) 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. 11309); (6) 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. 18786); (7)
    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. 18795); (8) 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

      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 reported from the Committee on Rules and were adopted with certain
    amendments (H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. ----).

    Sec. 704. 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, p. 26203). 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).

    [[Page 413]]

    of a contested election to which he was party (H. Res. 233, Sept. 18,
    1997, p. ----).
      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

      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, p. 10099), including a resolution: (1)
    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) 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)
    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 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. 690, supra).

      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. 25750;
    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. 13664); (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. 16624); (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); (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. 12437); and (5) a resolution alleging that a Member willfully
    abused his power as chairman of a committee by unilaterally releasing
    records of the committee in contravention of its rules (adopted
    ``protocol''), and expressing disapproval of such conduct (May 14, 1998,
    p. ----). However, a resolution directing a standing committee to
    release executive-session material referred to it as such by special
    rule of the House was held to propose a change in the rules and,
    therefore, not to constitute a question of the privileges of the House
    under rule IX (Sept. 23, 1998, p. ----).

    [[Page 414]]

    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. 29373); 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. 32064).
      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

      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, p. 7607). Similarly, a resolution authorizing and directing
    the Speaker to provide 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 rule V (former clause 9 of rule
    I), which requires complete and unedited audio and visual coverage of
    House proceedings and coverage of record votes, had not been implemented
    (Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9821).

    [[Page 415]]

    ing the facts as described in the previous resolution, resolving that
    the House disapproves of the manner in which the chairman summoned the
    Capitol Police as well as the manner in which he conducted the markup,
    finding that the bill considered at that markup was not validly ordered
    reported, and calling for a police report to be placed in the Record
    (July 23, 2003 p. ----).

      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,
    p. 12690), were all held not to give rise to a question of the
    privileges of the House. However, the following resolutions were
    held to give rise to questions of the privileges of the House: (1) a
    resolution alleging that the chairman of a committee directed his staff
    to request the Capitol Police to remove minority party members from a
    committee room where they were meeting during the reading of an
    amendment, alleging that the chairman deliberately and improperly
    refused to recognize a legitimate and timely objection by a member of
    the committee to dispense with the reading of that amendment, resolving
    that the House disapproves of the manner in which the chairman conducted
    the markup, and finding that the bill considered at that markup was not
    validly ordered reported (July 18, 2003, p. ----) and (2) a resolution
    alleg

    Sec. 705. 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 416]]

    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 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 (May 20, 1992, p. 12005 (sustained
    by tabling of appeal)). A resolution to permit the
    Delegate of the District of Columbia to vote on articles of impeachment
    of the President in contravention of statutory law and the Rules of the
    House was held to be tantamount to change in the rules and therefore not
    to constitute a question of the privileges of the House (Dec. 18, 1998,
    p. ----). A resolution directing a standing committee to release
    executive-session material referred to it as such by special rule of the
    House was held to propose a change in the rules and, therefore, not to
    constitute a question of the privileges of the House (Sept. 23, 1998, p.
    ----). A resolution expressing Congressional sentiment that the
    President should take specified action to achieve a desired public
    policy, even though involving executive action under a treaty (under
    which the Senate had exercised its prerogative to ratify), does not
    present a question of the privileges of the House, but rather is a
    legislative matter to be considered under ordinary rules relating to
    priority of business (June 6, 2002, p. ----).

    Sec. 706. 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, 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. 20339; Jan. 31, 1996, p. 1887),
    including directions to the Speaker infringing upon his discretionary
    power of recognition under clause 2 of rule XVII (former 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 refrain 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. 1887). 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 (Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1974
    (sustained by tabling of appeal)). A

    [[Page 417]]

    example, the following resolutions have been held not to give rise to a
    question of the privileges of the House: (1) a resolution directing a
    committee to meet and conduct certain business (June 27, 1974, p. 21596;
    July 31, 1975, p. 26250); (2) 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 (Jan. 3, 1996, p.
    40; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248); and (3) a resolution
    precluding an adjournment of the House until a specified legislative
    measure is considered (Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2247). See also Sec. 702, 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 (June 27, 1974, p. 21596; Feb. 7, 1995,
    p. 3905; Dec. 22, 1995, p. 38501; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 40; Jan. 24,
    1996, p. 1248; Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2245; Oct. 10, 1998, p. ----;
    Nov. 4, 1999, pp. ----, ----, ----; June 6, 2002, p.----; Oct. 2, 2002,
    pp. ----, ----, ----, ----; Oct. 3, 2002, pp. ----, ----). For

    Sec. 707. As distinct from privileged questions.

      The  clause
    of the rule giving questions of privilege precedence
    over all other questions except a motion to adjourn is a
    recognition of a well-established principle 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 (see Sec. 604,
    supra), 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; Nov. 13, 1997, p. ----), and a resolution
    declaring the Office of the 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. 702,
    supra).

    [[Page 418]]

    appropriate funds for the investigating committee from the contingent
    fund (now referred to as ``applicable accounts of the House described in
    clause 1(i)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 395).

      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

    Sec. 708. 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 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).

    [[Page 419]]

      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. ----). Speaker Hastert rose to a question of
    personal privilege to discuss the process for selecting a Chaplain,
    which question was based on press accounts (Mar. 23, 2000, 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. 6074).

      A Member rose to a question of personal privilege based on
    press accounts concerning allegations by other Members that he, as a
    committee chairman, had been ``buying votes'' (Mar. 26, 1998, p. ----).
    A committee chairman rose to a question of personal privilege based on
    press accounts containing statements impugning his character and motive
    by alleging intentional violation of rules as chairman of a committee
    conducting an investigation (May 12, 1998, p. ----). A committee
    chairman rose to a question of personal privilege to discuss his own
    official conduct, which question was based on a letter of reproval
    reported by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Oct. 5,
    2000, p. ----). A committee chairman rose to a question of
    personal privilege based on press accounts impugning his character to
    discuss his decision to direct his staff to request the Capitol Police
    to remove minority party members from a committee room where they were
    meeting during the reading of an amendment at a committee markup (July
    23, 2003, p. ----).

      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. 11081), 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 responses 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. 24807; Sept. 21, 2001, p. ----)
    or conveyed by an exhibit in debate (June 28, 2000, 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, 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).

    Sec. 709. Precedence of questions 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 420]]

    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), even where the rule thereon provides 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 consideration 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. 16574), and motions to resolve into the 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 XIV (former 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). 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
    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 XVII (former
    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).
      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,

      A Member's announcement of intent to offer a resolution as a question
    of privilege may take precedence over a special order reported from the
    Committee on Rules; but, where a special order is pending, such
    announcements are counted against debate on the resolution absent
    unanimous consent to the contrary (Oct. 28, 1997, p. ----).

    [[Page 421]]

    rule XVII) (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 1976, p. 3914; Apr. 28, 1983, p.
    10423; Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4996).

      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). 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 commit under clause 2
    of rule XIX (former clause 1 of

    Sec. 711. 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
    the 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 4 of rule XVII
    (former clause 5 of rule XIV); yet a breach of privilege occurring in
    the 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. 33846). 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. 3571; Feb. 7, 1995, p. 3905),
    subject to appeal where appropriate (Speaker Albert, June 27, 1974, p.
    21596).

    Sec. 712. 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. 1024, infra.

    [[Page 422]]

    time that resolution is noticed, but only when the resolution is called
    up within two legislative days (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2209; Sept. 13, 1994,
    p. 24389; Feb. 3, 1995, p. 3571).
      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. 1974); 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. 2209). The Speaker does not rule on the
    privileged status of a resolution at the

    [[Page 423]]

      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 4(a) of rule XIII (former
    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 XVII (former clause 2 of rule XIV); and a motion to commit (not
    debatable after the ordering of the previous question) under clause 2 of
    rule XIX (former clause 1 of rule XVII) (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5557). 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).