[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 Printing 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).