    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 111th Congress]
    [111st Congress]
    [House Document 110-162]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 406-425]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                     Rule IX

                             questions of privilege

    Sec. 698. Definition of questions of privilege.

      1.  Questions
    of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House
    collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings;
    and second, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of
    Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their
    representative capacity only.

    [[Page 407]]

    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 which
    the proponent announces to the House an 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

      (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]]

    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). A
    gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l),
    H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. _).

      This rule was adopted in 1880 (III, 2521) to codify long-established
    practice that 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 after that Member
    has announced to the House an intention to do so and the content of the
    resolution, and to divide the time for debate on the resolution (H. Res.
    5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). Clause 2 was amended in the 106th Congress to
    permit the announcement of the

    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 this rule. 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).

    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 a
    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); (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).

    [[Page 409]]

    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.

      A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of
    the privileges of the House (July 31, 1997, p. 17021; Feb. 6, 2007, 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

    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. 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); (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. 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 410]]

    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. 9492 (sustained by
    tabling of appeal); Oct. 2, 2002, pp. 18932 (sustained by tabling of
    appeal), 18934 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18936 (sustained by
    tabling of appeal), 18938 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Oct. 3,
    2002, pp. 19001 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 19002 (sustained by
    tabling of appeal)). 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); (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.
    9492 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (3) a resolution alleging that
    Congress had been negligent in its oversight responsibilities with
    regard to military involvement in Iraq, and calling on leadership and
    committee chairs to conduct oversight of that matter, but refraining
    from alleging any impropriety (Nov. 3, 2005, p. _ (sustained by tabling
    of appeal)). 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.

    [[Page 411]]

    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) making allegations of unauthorized actions by a
    committee employee to intervene in judicial proceedings (Feb. 5, 1992,
    p. 1601); (11) 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) 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) 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) 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. _); (15) alleging, among other
    things, the improper and unilateral firing of nonpartisan staff of the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and illegal activities
    between a lobbyist and Members, and directing that committee to
    investigate misconduct of Members and staff with that lobbyist (Mar. 30,
    2006, p. _; Apr. 5, 2006, p. _); (16) alleging improper conduct by a
    former Member with regard to the House Page program and insufficient
    response thereto by the House leadership, and directing the Committee on
    Standards of Official Conduct to establish a subcommittee to investigate
    (Sept. 29, 2006, p. _); (17) alleging a violation of the Code of
    Official Conduct and issuing a reprimand (May 22, 2007, p. _); (18)
    directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate
    a Member's conduct and make a recommendation regarding expulsion (June
    5, 2007, p. _); (19) directing the Committee on Standards of Official
    Conduct to review irregularities in the conduct of a vote in the House
    (Aug. 3, 2007, p. _); (20) directing the Committee on Standards of
    Official Conduct and a previously-established select committee to
    investigate whether a vote was held open beyond a reasonable period of
    time for the purpose of circumventing the will of the House, and
    vacating such vote (Mar. 12, 2008, p. _); (21) directing the Committee
    on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate violations of the Code
    of Official Conduct (Mar. 12, 2008, p. _); (22) alleging receipt of
    illegal campaign contributions and gifts and censuring a Member therefor
    (July 31, 2008, p. _); (23) alleging receipt of illegal campaign
    contributions and gifts and violations of federal tax law, directing the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate, and removing
    a Member as chair of a standing committee pending such investigation
    (Sept. 18, 2008, p. _); (24) alleging failure to properly report the
    receipt of gifts in accordance

    [[Page 412]]

    with financial disclosure and tax laws, and removing the Member as chair
    pending an on-going investigation by the Committee on Standards of
    Official Conduct (Feb. 10, 2009, p. _); (25) alleging a quid pro quo
    between legislative activity and campaign contributions to Members, and
    directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate
    that relationship (Feb. 25, 2009, p. _; Mar. 5, 2009, p. _; Mar. 10,
    2009, p. _; Mar. 19, 2009, p. _; Mar. 25, 2009, p. _; Mar. 30, 2009, p.
    _; Apr. 1, 2009, p. _; May 12, 2009, p. _); (26) alleging improper
    involvement of Members with a certain lobbying organization, and
    directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to report any
    action it has taken with respect thereto (June 3, 2009, p. _). On the
    other hand, a resolution alleging inconsistency between statements of
    the Speaker and of an intelligence agency and commissioning an
    investigation of the accuracy of her statements, where such
    investigation would extend beyond the conduct of a Member and
    necessarily involve a review of the agency itself, was held not to
    constitute a question of the privileges of the House (May 21, 2009, p.
    _; June 16, 2009, p. _).

    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) 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) establishing an ad hoc committee to investigate allegations of
    ``ghost'' employment in the House (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9029); (3) 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) 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) appointing an outside counsel
    (Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23851; Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24525); (6) committing
    other matters to an outside counsel already appointed by the committee
    (June 27, 1996, p. 15917); (7) directing the committee to release the
    report of an outside counsel (Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23852; Sept. 24, 1996,
    p. 24526); (8) 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) making
    allegations of improper

      For a discussion of disciplinary resolutions meting out punishment for
    violations of standards of official conduct, which constitute questions
    of the privileges of the House, see Sec. Sec. 62-66, supra.

    [[Page 413]]

    mittee 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 Committee on House Administration to redress the erroneous 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); (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); (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 com

    [[Page 414]]

      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); (3) the conduct of
    representatives of the press (II, 1630, 1631; III, 2627; VI, 553).

      Admission to the floor of the House constitutes a question of
    privilege (III, 2624-2626), including a resolution alleging indecorous
    behavior of a former Member and instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban
    the former Member from the floor, and rooms leading thereto, until the
    resolution of a contested election to which he was party (H. Res. 233,
    Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19340).

      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 Record (Jan. 24, 1984, p. 250); (3) addressing
    whether the Record should constitute a verbatim transcript (May 8, 1985,
    p. 11072; Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1515); (4) alleging impropriety by a
    presiding officer and improper alteration of the Record, and directing
    that a select committee investigate and that the Record be corrected
    (Aug. 4, 2007, p. _). 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 a 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, pp. 25255, 25256).

    [[Page 415]]

    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); (5) alleging that a Member willfully abused
    his power as chair 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).
      The protection of House records constitutes a question of the
    privileges of the House, especially when records are demanded by the
    courts (III, 2604, 2659-2664; VI, 587; Sept. 18, 1992, p. 25750; see
    also Sec. 291a, 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)

    [[Page 416]]

    25761); (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 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 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 chair
    of the committee to file a supplemental report to change those
    descriptions (May 3, 2005, p. _); (4) alleging that known errors in the
    engrossment of a bill were ignored, that matter had been inserted into a
    conference report after conferees had signed it, that material
    information concerning legislation had been withheld for the purpose of
    achieving passage of that measure in a prior Congress, and resolving
    that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct investigate
    inaccuracies in the enrollment of a bill (Feb. 16, 2006, p. _); (5)
    alleging that known errors in the enrollment of a bill were ignored by
    the majority leadership after the President had transmitted to the House
    a return veto of the measure, admonishing the majority leadership for
    their roles therein, and directing the Committee on Standards of
    Official Conduct to investigate the abuse of power surrounding the
    inaccuracies (May 22, 2008, 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.

      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).

      Integrity in the conduct of a vote may involve a question of the
    privileges of the House, including resolutions: (1) 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 (Dec. 8, 2003, p. 32099), or
    alleging such abuse, both in a prior Congress and in the current one,
    and alleging illegal behavior on the House floor during one such vote
    (bribery of a public official) (Dec. 8, 2005, p. _); (2) directing the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to review irregularities in
    the conduct of a vote in the House (Aug. 3, 2007, p. _); (3) alleging
    irregularities in the conduct of a vote, directing House officers to
    preserve all records relating thereto, and establishing a select
    committee of investigation thereof (Aug. 3, 2007, p. _); (4) directing
    the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and a previously-
    established select committee to investigate whether a vote was held open
    beyond a reasonable period of time for the purpose of circumventing the
    will of the House, and vacating such vote (Mar. 12, 2008, p. _).

      A resolution alleging partiality in the manner of presiding by a
    Speaker pro tempore and stating that such actions bring dishonor and
    discredit on the House (Aug. 3, 2007, p. _) or alleging impropriety by a
    presiding officer, as well as alleging improper alteration of the
    Congressional Record and directing an investigation and correction
    thereof (Aug. 4, 2007, p. _), presents a question of the privileges of
    the House.

    [[Page 417]]

    famatory 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 chair 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 chair 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 chair conducted the markup, and finding that the bill considered at
    that markup was not validly ordered reported (July 18, 2003, p. 18698)
    and resolving that the House disapproves of the manner in which the
    chair 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. 19171); (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 chair of a committee intentionally violated House
    rules and abused his power as chair during a minority day of hearings
    under clause 2(j) of rule XI and directing the chair to schedule a
    further day of hearings (June 16, 2005, p. _); (4) alleging that the
    majority members of a committee wrongfully withheld a committee record
    from minority committee members (Jan. 24, 2007, p. _).

      Alleged improprieties in committee procedures, including charges of
    committee inaction (III, 2610), secret committee conferences (VI, 578),
    refusal to make a 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 calling for a determination whether a committee violated House rules
    by voting to take allegedly de

    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) or an insecure ceiling in the Hall (III, 2685); 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); and
    directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure that House personnel are
    alerted to the dangers of electronic security breaches on computer and
    information systems (June 11, 2008, p. _).

    [[Page 418]]

    (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 the
    discretionary power of recognition under clause 2 of rule XVII (formerly
    clause 2 of rule XIV) (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-64), for example, by
    requiring that the Speaker 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 the Speaker 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
    appropria

    [[Page 419]]

    tions 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 a 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. 9492
    (sustained by tabling of appeal)).

    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 House's decision
    of March 19, 1910 (VIII, 3376), which held such motion privileged

    [[Page 420]]

      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. 9492 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Oct. 2, 2002, pp.
    18932 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18934 (sustained by tabling of
    appeal), 18936 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18938 (sustained by
    tabling of appeal); Oct. 3, 2002, pp. 19001 (sustained by tabling of
    appeal), 19002 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). 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) or
    exhorting it to do so (Mar. 11, 2008, p. _ (sustained by tabling of
    appeal)); (3) a resolution precluding an adjournment of the House until
    a specified legislative measure is considered (Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2247;
    Mar. 13, 2008, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal)). See also
    Sec. 702, supra, for a discussion of legislative propositions purporting
    to present questions of the privileges of the House.

    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'' that 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, have been held to have a privilege that 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 that 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).

      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 421]]

    relate to the Member's representative capacity (III, 1828-1830, 2716;
    VI, 604, 612; VIII, 2479), but not when they relate to conduct at a time
    before such person became a Member (II, 1287; III, 2691, 2723, 2725).
    Although 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 (because 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). Although 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 such Member was properly participating, such Member
    may not raise a question of personal privilege merely to complain that
    microphones had been turned off during disorderly conduct following
    expiration of recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4085). A
    Member's mere assertion of general corruption in the House does not
    support a question of personal privilege (Jan. 18, 2007, p. _).

    Sec. 708. Questions of personal privilege.

      The  privilege of
    the Member rests primarily on the Constitution, which grants conditional
    immunity from arrest (Sec. 90, supra) and an unconditional freedom of
    debate in the House (III, 2670, Sec. 92, supra). 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 in
    matters 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

      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. _); (3)
    allegations that he had used procedural tactics to disrupt a memorial
    service in the Rotunda for a late Member (Feb. 14, 2008, p. _); (4) a
    ``Dear Colleague'' alleging willful violation of the rules of the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct by its ranking minority
    member (Mar. 12, 2008, p. _).

    [[Page 422]]

    been ``buying votes'' (Mar. 26, 1998, p. 4851); (2) based on press
    accounts containing statements impugning his character and motive by
    alleging intentional violation of rules governing the conduct of an
    investigation (May 12, 1998, p. 8838); (3) 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);
    (4) 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. 19171); based on press accounts regarding the receipt of illegal
    gifts and campaign contributions (July 31, 2008, p. _) and violations of
    federal tax law (Sept. 10, 2008, p. _).
      A committee chair rose to a question of personal privilege: (1) based
    on press accounts concerning allegations by other Members that he had

      A distinction has been drawn between charges made by one Member
    against another in a newspaper or press release (July 28, 1970, p.
    26002) or in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter (Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19139; May
    14, 1996, p. 11081; Mar. 12, 2008, p. _), and the same when made on the
    floor (III, 1827, 2691, 2717). Charges made in newspapers against
    Members in their representative capacities involve privilege (III, 1832,
    2694, 2696-2699, 2703, 2704; VI, 576, 621; VIII, 2479), even though the
    names of individual Members are not given (III, 1831, 2705, 2709; VI,
    616, 617). But vague charges in newspaper articles (III, 2711; VI, 570),
    criticisms (III, 2712-2714; VIII, 2465), or even misrepresentations of
    the Member's speeches or acts or 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. 17613; 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, that impugn his character or motives (May 15, 1984, pp.
    12207, 12211; May 31, 1984, p. 14620), newspaper accounts of televised
    press coverage of a committee hearing at which he was criticized
    derogatorily (Mar. 3, 1988, p. 3196), or press accounts arraigning
    personally offensive remarks a Member had made in debate regarding the
    President (Oct. 23, 2007, p. _).

    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 this rule in 1880 and its amendment
    to require notice in certain cases in 1993.

    [[Page 423]]

    ders 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; June 5, 2007,
    p. _), 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 (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 (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). Although 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 the
    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, because 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 or

      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, if 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).

    [[Page 424]]

      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). Although 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).

    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 offer 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 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 a demand that words be taken down
    pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI; 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). The Chair may require a Member to
    submit for examination the material upon which the Member would rely
    before conferring recognition for a question of personal privilege (Jan.
    18, 2007, p. _).

    <>   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). In raising a question of personal privilege, a Member in the
    first instance must apprise the Chair of the grounds on which
    recognition may be conferred (Deschler, ch. 11, Sec. 21.1; Sept. 10,
    2008, p. _).

    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 425]]

    does not rule on the privileged status of a resolution at the time that
    resolution is noticed, but only when called up (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
    has discretion to 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 (Speaker Foley, Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1974); and
    is not required to announce the time designated to consider a resolution
    at the time the resolution is noticed (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2209). The
    Speaker

      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 consideration (Speaker
    Albert, July 13, 1971, pp. 24720-23). But a Member may not, as a matter
    of right, require the reading of a book or paper by 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 must take
    this preliminary step in raising a question of the privileges of the
    House (III, 2546, 2547; VI, 565-569; VII, 3464). Such a resolution is
    read in full by the Clerk (Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420), and a parliamentary
    inquiry regarding its content, in the discretion of the Chair, should
    await the conclusion of the reading (Dec. 8, 2005, p. _). 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 may include
    recognition for an hour of debate on a motion to refer under clause 4 of
    rule XVI (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5557; Sept. 29, 2006, p. _); 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; June 8, 2006, p. _).
    Debate on a question of personal privilege must be confined to the
    statements or issues that gave rise to the question of privilege (V,
    5075-77; VI, 576, 608; VIII, 2448, 2481; May 31, 1984, p. 14623). A
    Member recognized only on the question of whether a resolution qualifies
    as a question of privilege is not recognized to debate such resolution
    (Nov. 3, 2005, p. _). Remarks uttered while not under recognition for
    debate do not render untimely a motion before debate to lay on the table
    a resolution offered under this rule (Aug. 3, 2007, p. _).