    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 112th Congress]
    [112nd Congress]
    [House Document 111-157]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 409-429]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 409]]

                                     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 410]]

    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 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.

      (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) 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 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. _).

    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).

    [[Page 411]]

    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).

    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,

      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 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 412]]

    ing 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 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), includ

      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 413]]

      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. 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, pp. 24757 0959 (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).

    [[Page 414]]

    (Mar. 30, 2006, p. 4445; Apr. 5, 2006, pp. 4993, 4994);
    (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. 21334);
    (17) alleging a violation of the Code of Official Conduct and issuing a
    reprimand (May 22, 2007, p. 13525); (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. 14600); (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.
    22746); (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 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. _; Oct. 7, 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. _;
    July 22, 2009, p. _) and alleging an inadequate investigation into such
    allegations by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now
    Ethics), and directing the committee to report on the extent of said
    investigation (Mar. 18, 2010, p. _; Mar. 25, 2010, p. _; Apr. 15, 2010,
    p. _; Apr. 22, 2010, 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. _); (27) alleging improper
    conduct by a former Member with regard to various House staff and
    insufficient response thereto by House leadership, and directing the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to establish a
    subcommittee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the former
    Member's misconduct and the responses thereto and to issue a report
    thereon (Mar. 11, 2010, p. _; April 14, 2010, p. _). On the other hand,
    a resolution alleging inconsistency between statements of the Speaker
    and of an intelligence agency and commissioning an investigation of

    [[Page 415]]

    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 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.
    22734); (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, pp. 4657, 4658; Apr.
    14, 2005, pp. 6399, 6400) and directing the committee to appoint
    nonpartisan professional staff (June 9, 2005, pp. 12025, 12026); (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

      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 416]]

    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 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

      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).

    [[Page 417]]

    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).
      Admission to the floor of the House constitutes a question of
    privilege (III, 2624-2626), including a resolution alleging indecorous
    behavior of a

      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. 23194). 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 418]]

    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) 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

      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, pp. 8417, 8418); (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.
    1948); (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. 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.

    [[Page 419]]

    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 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

      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, pp. 27811, 27812); (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.
    22746); (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. 22768); (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. 22783) 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. 23194), presents a question of the privileges
    of the House.

    [[Page 420]]

    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. 12994); (4) alleging that the majority members of a
    committee wrongfully withheld a committee record from minority committee
    members (Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2139); (5) alleging that staff of the House
    Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards willfully applied
    different standards to submitted material on the basis of party and
    disapproving of the failure of the majority Members of that commission
    to ensure that staff executed their duties in a professional, fair, and
    impartial manner (July 29, 2009, p. _). However, 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 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.
      Alleged improprieties in committee procedures may give rise to
    questions of the privileges of the House, including resolutions: (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, pp. 4657, 4658; Apr. 14, 2005, pp. 6399,
    6400) and directing the committee to appoint nonpartisan professional
    staff (June 9, 2005, pp. 12025, 12026); (3) alleging that the chair

      A resolution alleging that a Member had interrupted an address by the
    President to a joint session of Congress by interjecting remarks, and
    disapproving of that behavior, presents a question of the privileges of
    the House (Sept. 15, 2009, p. _).

    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 421]]

    ognition 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 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 422]]

    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 (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 rec

    [[Page 423]]

      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; June 25, 2009, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal);
    July 9, 2009, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal); July 23, 2009, p. _
    (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (2) a resolution amending a special
    order of business resolution (July 17, 2009, p. _ (sustained by tabling
    of appeal); July 24, 2009, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (3) 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)); (4) 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)) or precluding an assembly during a
    specified post-election period (Aug. 10, 2010, p. _ (sustained by
    tabling of appeal); Sept. 23, 2010, 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(k)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 395).

    [[Page 424]]

    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. 1625).

    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).

    [[Page 425]]

    Standards of Official Conduct of her, including disciplinary action
    taken by the committee against professional staff assigned to the case
    (Dec. 9, 2010, p. _).
      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. 8691; May 10, 2005, p. 9094); (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. _); (5) allegations that he accepted an
    appointment from the administration in exchange for certain votes (Mar.
    19, 2010, p. _); (6) a pending investigation by the Committee on

      A committee chair rose to a question of personal privilege: (1) based
    on press accounts concerning allegations by other Members that he had
    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); (5) 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. _) and a statement of alleged
    violations by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct regarding
    those accusations (Aug. 10, 2010, p. _).

      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. 5763; July 21, 2009, 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. 27967).

    [[Page 426]]

    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.

      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; June 5, 2007, p. 14600), 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 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 427]]

    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).

      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,

    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. 1625).

    <>   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. _).

    [[Page 428]]

    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
    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 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).

    [[Page 429]]

    to debate such resolution (Nov. 3, 2005, pp. 24757,
    24758). 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. 22783). end segment .006
    segment .007 -- rule X

      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. 27812). 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. 21334); 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. 10498). 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