[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 109th Congress]
[109th Congress]
[House Document 108-241]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 407-424]
[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 408]]

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 privileged 
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


  (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.


  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 privilege (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). Clause 2 was amended in the 106th Congress to 
permit the 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. 47).



[[Page 409]]




Sec. 700. Questions of privileges of the House.

  The  body of 
precedent relating to questions of the privileges of the House 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 privilege is read in full by the 
Clerk (Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420).




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. 25294; Nov. 9, 1997, p. 
25721; Jan. 28, 1998, p. 175) or to dispose of such contest upon the 
expiration of a specified day (Oct. 23, 1997, p. 23231; Oct. 29, 1997, 
p. 23695; Oct. 30, 1997, p. 23959; Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24645).



  A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of 
the privileges of the House (July 31, 1997, p. 17021). 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 and the title of its Members to 
seats, see Sec. Sec. 18-30, 46-51, 56, and 58-60, supra.


[[Page 410]]

resolving that such bill be recommitted to conference (July 27, 2000, p. 
16565). 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).


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


  For a discussion of the relationship of the House and its Members to 
the courts, see Sec. Sec. 290-291b, supra. For examples of Senate 
messages requesting the return of Senate measures that intruded on the 
constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures, 
see Sec. 565, supra. For a discussion of the prerogatives of the House 
with respect to treaties affecting revenue, see Sec. 597, supra.


[[Page 411]]

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. 25420; Nov. 4, 1999, pp.28528-33; 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 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 before 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


[[Page 412]]

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); 
(12) a resolution alleging a chronology of litigation relating to the 
immunity of a Member from civil liability for bona fide official acts 
and expressing the views of the House thereon (May 12, 1988, p. 10574); 
(13) a resolution directing the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct to establish an investigative subcommittee and appoint outside 
counsel to investigate certain allegations against a Member (Oct. 8, 
2004, p. ----); (14) a resolution alleging, among other things, the 
improper and unilateral firing of nonpartisan staff of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct and directing the Speaker to appoint a 
bipartisan task force to address the efficacy of that committee so as to 
restore public confidence in the ethics process (Mar. 15, 2005, p. ----; 
Apr. 14, 2005, p. ----) and directing the committee to appoint 
nonpartisan professional staff (June 9, 2005, p. ----). For a discussion



[[Page 413]]

mittee 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 (July 22, 1992, p. 18796; July 23, 1992, p. 
19125); (9) directing the Com


  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. 2058). The moratorium was extended through September 10, 
1997 (July 30, 1997, p. 16958). 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. 19340).



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 414]]

of a contested election to which he was party (H. Res. 233, Sept. 18, 
1997, p. 19340).
  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 constitute 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). A resolution directing the placement of an 
asterisk in the Congressional Record to note alleged inaccuracies in the 
State of the Union address (but not alleging improper transcription of 
that address) was held not to constitute a question of privilege (Oct. 
20, 2003, p. ----).


[[Page 415]]

  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 resolutions: (1) furnishing certain requested information 
to an Independent Counsel investigating covert arms transactions with 
Iran (June 4, 1992, p. 13664); (2) 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) 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) 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) 
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. 9279). 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. 21562).

  A question regarding the accuracy of House documents constitutes a 
question of privileges of the House (V, 7329), including resolutions: 
(1) asserting that a printed transcript of joint subcommittee hearings 
contained unauthorized alterations of the statements of subcommittee 
members in the prior Congress and that unauthorized alterations may have 
occurred in other committee hearing transcripts, and proposing the 
creation of a select committee to investigate and report back by a date 
certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18279); (2) 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); (3) alleging that a committee report contained descriptions 
of recorded votes (as required by clause 3(b) of rule XIII) that 
deliberately mischaracterized certain amendments and directing the 
chairman of the committee to file a supplemental report to change those 
descriptions (May 3, 2005, p. ----). 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). For a discussion of the privileged status of a 
request of one House for the return of a measure messaged to the other, 
see Sec. 565, supra.

  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 (formerly 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).

  A resolution alleging intentional abuse of House practices and customs 
in holding a vote open for approximately three hours for the sole 
purpose of circumventing the initial will of the House and directing the 
Speaker to take such steps as necessary to prevent further abuse 
constitutes a question of the privileges of the House (Dec. 8, 2003, p. 
----).


[[Page 416]]

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) 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 
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. ----); (2) alleging, among other things, 
the improper and unilateral firing of nonpartisan staff of the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct and directing the Speaker to appoint a 
bipartisan task force to address the efficacy of that committee so as to 
restore public confidence in the ethics process (Mar. 15, 2005, p. ----; 
Apr. 14, 2005, p. ----) and directing the committee to appoint 
nonpartisan professional staff (June 9, 2005, p. ----); (3) alleging 
that the chairman of a committee intentionally violated House rules and 
abused his power as chairman during a minority day of hearings under 
clause 2(j) of rule XI and directing the chairman to schedule a further 
day of hearings (June 16, 2005, 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




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 417]]

clause 2 of rule XVII (formerly 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 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

[[Page 418]]

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. 27825). 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. 21562). 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



  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. 25420; Nov. 4, 1999, pp.28528-33; June 
6, 2002, p. ----; Oct. 2, 2002, pp. ----, ----, ----, ----; Oct. 3, 
2002, pp. ----, ----). For 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.


[[Page 419]]

stitution 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. 26538), 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).


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 Con



  A resolution that presents a proper question of the privileges of the 
House (alteration of subcommittee hearing transcripts) may propose the 
creation of a select investigatory committee with subpoena authority to 
report back to the House by a date certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18104), 
but may not appropriate funds for the investigating committee from the 
contingent fund (now referred to as ``applicable accounts of the House 
described in clause 1(j)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 395).


[[Page 420]]

ber's proposed amendments as ``dilatory and frivolous'' may give rise to 
a question of personal privilege (Aug. 1, 1985, p. 22542) as may the 
fraudulent use of a Member's official stationery as a ``Dear Colleague'' 
letter (Sept. 17, 1986, p. 23605). While a Member may be recognized on a 
question of personal privilege to complain about an abuse of House rules 
as applied to debate in which he was properly participating, he may not 
raise a question of personal privilege merely to complain that 
microphones had been turned off during disorderly conduct following 
expiration of his recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4085).


Sec. 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 Mem


  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. 5834). 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. 3478).

  A Member rose to a question of personal privilege to discuss: (1) 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); (2) reflections on his character in pointed 
descriptions of recorded votes taken in committee on a Member's 
amendments, included in a committee report under clause 3(b) of rule 
XIII, which question was based on the report and on certain media 
coverage thereof (May 5, 2005, p. ----; May 10, 2005, p. ----).

  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. 4851). 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. 8838). 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. 21048). 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. ----).


[[Page 421]]

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. ----; Mar. 31, 2004, 
p. ----) or conveyed by an exhibit in debate (June 28, 2000, p. 12723). 
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).

  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,



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 422]]

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 (formerly 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 may interrupt: (1) the reading of the Journal 
(II, 1630; VI, 637); (2) the consideration of a bill (or series of 
measures) that had been made in order by a special rule (III, 2524, 
2525); (3) in an exceptional decision, where the rule thereon ordered 
the previous question to final passage without intervening motion, after 
consideration of the measure in the Committee of the Whole but before 
passage in the House (VI, 560); (4) under antiquated drafting 
conventions for special orders of business that ordered the previous 
question after debate, the consideration of certain matters on which the 
previous question has been ordered (III, 2532; VI, 561; VIII, 2688). A 
question of privilege takes precedence over (1) business in order on 
Calendar Wednesday (VI, 394; VII, 908-910), a ``suspension day'' (III, 
2553; VI, 553), or over certain motions given precedence under a special 
rule (VI, 565); (2) reports from the Rules Committee before 
consideration has begun (VIII, 3491; Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403); (3) 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); 
(4) motions to resolve into the Committee of the Whole (VI, 554; VIII, 
3461); (5) unfinished business, privileged under clauses 1 and 3 of rule 
XIV (formerly rule XXIV) (Speaker Albert, June 4, 1975, p. 16860). 
Because 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

  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, pp. 23525, 23527).


  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 (formerly clause 1 of rule XVII) (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 
1976, p. 3914; Apr. 28, 1983, p. 10423; Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4996).


[[Page 423]]

sonal 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).



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 
(formerly 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 per



<>   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.


  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 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).


[[Page 424]]

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 (formerly 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 (formerly 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).



  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 (formerly 
clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI) that reports from committees be available to 
Members for at least three calendar days before 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