    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 115th Congress]
    [115th Congress]
    [House Document 114-192]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 420-441]
    [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 421]]

    gate, 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 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, Dele

      (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 422]]

      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. 7).

    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). Thus a resolution merely
    asserting the position of the House with regard to an external issue
    does not qualify (Oct. 6, 2011, pp. 14941, 14942). A proposition of
    privilege may lose its precedence by association with a matter not of
    privilege (III, 2551; V, 5890; VI, 395; Oct. 7, 2015, p. _).

    Sec. 701. Questions relating to organization.

      The  privileges
    of the House include questions relating to its organization (I, 22-24,
    189, 212, 290), and the title of its Members to their seats (III, 2579-
    2587), which may be raised as questions of the privileges of the House
    even though the subject has been previously referred to committee (I,
    742; III, 2584; VIII, 2307). Such resolutions include those: (1) to
    declare prima facie right to a seat, or to declare a vacancy, where the
    House has referred the questions of prima facie and final rights to 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 423]]

      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.
    3156). A resolution declaring vacant the Office of 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.

    Sec. 702. Questions relating to constitutional
    prerogatives.

      The  privileges of the House, as distinguished from those 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) or that Senate
    amendments agreed to in conference be returned to the Senate (Aug. 19,
    1982, p. 22127). 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 424]]

    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. 24757-59 (sustained by
    tabling of appeal)); (4) a resolution alleging that the President, an
    actor entirely extramural to the House, might be in violation of clause
    8, section 9, article I of the Constitution (``Foreign Emoluments
    Clause''), and directing the House to immediately request the
    President's tax returns for a review of such potential violation (Mar.
    28, 2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal)). 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 425]]

    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 (now
    Ethics) 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 (now Ethics) 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 (now Ethics) 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. 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 (now Ethics) 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 (now Ethics) 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 (now Ethics) 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 (now Ethics)
    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. 3855); (21) directing the Committee on Standards of Official
    Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate violations of the Code of Official
    Conduct (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3864); (22)

    [[Page 426]]

    alleging receipt of illegal campaign contributions and gifts and
    censuring a Member therefor (July 31, 2008, p. 17463); (23) alleging
    receipt of illegal campaign contributions and gifts and violations of
    Federal tax law, directing the Committee on Standards of Official
    Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate, and removing a Member as chair of a
    standing committee pending such investigation (Sept. 18, 2008, p.
    19600); (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 (now Ethics) (Feb. 10, 2009, p. 3508; Oct.
    7, 2009, pp. 23770, 23771); (25) alleging a quid pro quo between
    legislative activity and campaign contributions to Members, and
    directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to
    investigate that relationship (Feb. 25, 2009, p. 5759; Mar. 5, 2009, p.
    6561; Mar. 10, 2009, p. 6765; Mar. 19, 2009, p. 8106; Mar. 25, 2009, p.
    8743; Mar. 30, 2009, p. 9097; Apr. 1, 2009, p. 9542; May 12, 2009, p.
    12213; July 22, 2009, p. 18588) 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. 3846; Mar. 25, 2010, p. 5033; Apr.
    15, 2010, pp. 5659, 5660; Apr. 22, 2010, pp. 6083, 6084); (26) alleging
    improper involvement of Members with a certain lobbying organization,
    and directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now
    Ethics) to report any action it has taken with respect thereto (June 3,
    2009, p. 13841); (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, pp.
    3157, 3158; April 14, 2010, p. 5518). 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. 13175; June 16, 2009, p. 15272).

    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 (now
    Ethics) 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 (now
    Ethics) 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,

      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 427]]

    Conduct (now Ethics) 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 (now Ethics) 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. 9753); (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 (now Ethics) 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
    (now Ethics) 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);

    [[Page 428]]

    (12) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now
    Ethics) 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 (now Ethics) 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 (now Ethics) to review
    GAO audits of such operations (Oct. 3, 1991, p. 25435); (2) instructing
    the Committee on Standards of Official

      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).

    [[Page 429]]

    (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).
      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

      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 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).

    [[Page 430]]

    ommendations 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 (now Ethics) 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
    (now Ethics) to investigate the abuse of power surrounding the
    inaccuracies (May 22, 2008, p. 10522). 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.
      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 rec

      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).

    [[Page 431]]

    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 (now Ethics) 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. 3855).
      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 (now Ethics) to
    review irregularities in the conduct of a vote in the House (Aug. 3,
    2007, p. 22746); (3) alleging irregularities in the conduct

      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 432]]

    tigation (June 29, 2012, p. _); (7) alleging that the chair of a
    committee violated House rules during a hearing and condemning his
    actions as offensive and disrespectful (Mar. 6, 2014, p. _) and
    requiring him to apologize in the well of the House (Mar. 13, 2014, 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
    hold hearings or allow petitions to be read (III, 2607), refusal to
    permit a 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 (now
    Ethics) 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 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, pp. 19687, 19688); (6)
    disapproving the actions of a committee chair for alleged impropriety in
    interfering with a criminal inves

      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. 21662).

    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),
    the arrangement of furnishings in the Chamber (III, 2631), and the
    removal of state flags containing confederate battle flag imagery from
    the House wing of the Capitol and the House Office Buildings (June 25,
    2015, p. _; July 9, 2015, p. _); 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.
    12233).

    [[Page 433]]

    mittee 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
    providing that the House recess at a time certain to receive a petition
    for redress of grievances and to permit the petitioner floor access
    during that time was held not to give rise to a question of the
    privileges of the House (May 24, 1972, pp. 18675, 18676). 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)), as was a resolution dismantling a
    select committee (Oct. 7, 2015, p. _ (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 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 Com

      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).

    [[Page 434]]

    dure 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)).
      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 proce

    [[Page 435]]

    11, 2008, p. 3707 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Dec. 13, 2011, pp.
    19859, 19860), expressing its willingness to do so (Oct. 8, 2013, p. _)
    or directing the Speaker to schedule such legislation for a vote (Dec.
    10, 2015, 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, pp. 4075,
    4076 (sustained by tabling of appeal)) or precluding an assembly during
    a specified post-election period (Aug. 10, 2010, pp. 15438, 15439
    (sustained by tabling of appeal); Sept. 23, 2010, pp. 16374-76
    (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (5) a resolution prohibiting the
    House from considering a measure alleged to violate a House rule and to
    be unconstitutional (May 21, 2013, p. _). See also Sec. 702, supra, for
    a discussion of legislative propositions purporting to present questions
    of the privileges of the House.

      A question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to
    prescribe a special order of business for the House, because otherwise
    any Member would be able to attach privilege to a legislative measure
    merely by alleging impact on the dignity of the House based upon House
    action or inaction (June 27, 1974, p. 21596; Feb. 7, 1995, p. 3905; Dec.
    22, 1995, p. 38501; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 40; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248; Feb. 1,
    1996, p. 2245; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 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. 16440 (sustained by tabling of
    appeal); July 9, 2009, p. 17242 (sustained by tabling of appeal); July
    23, 2009, p. 18853 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Feb. 27, 2017, p. _
    (sustained by tabling of appeal); Mar. 7, 2017, p. _ (sustained by
    tabling of appeal); Mar. 15, 2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of
    appeal); Mar. 22, 2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal); Apr. 5,
    2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal); May 17, 2017, p. _
    (sustained by tabling of appeal); May 24, 2017, p. _ (sustained by
    tabling of appeal)); (2) a resolution amending a special order of
    business resolution (July 17, 2009, p. 18192 (sustained by tabling of
    appeal); July 24, 2009, p. 19156 (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), exhorting it to do so
    (Mar.

    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 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).

    [[Page 436]]

    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).

      A resolution that presents a proper question of the privileges of the
    House (alteration of subcommittee hearing transcripts) may propose the
    creation of a select investigatory committee with subpoena authority to
    report back to the House by a date certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18104),
    but may not

    Sec. 708. Questions of personal privilege.

      The  privilege of
    the Member rests primarily on the Constitution, which 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 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).

    [[Page 437]]

      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 (now Ethics); 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. 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. 2195); (4) a
    ``Dear Colleague'' alleging willful violation of the rules of the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) by its ranking
    minority member (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3858); (5) allegations that he
    accepted an appointment from the administration in exchange for certain
    votes (Mar. 19, 2010, p. 3945); (6) a pending investigation by the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) of her,
    including disciplinary action taken by the committee against
    professional staff assigned to the case (Dec. 9, 2010, pp. 19394-5).

      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 (now Ethics) (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. 17462)
    and violations of Federal tax law (Sept. 10, 2008, p. 18419) and a
    statement of alleged violations by the Committee on Standards of
    Official Conduct (now Ethics) regarding those accusations (Aug. 10,
    2010, p. 15440).

    [[Page 438]]

    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. 18508) or conveyed by an exhibit in debate (June 28,
    2000, p. 12723) and the Chair does not interpret remarks in debate
    challenged on the basis of personal privilege (July 25, 2012, p. _).
    However, a Member may raise a question of personal privilege based upon
    press accounts of another Member's remarks, in debate or off the floor,
    that impugn the character or motives of that Member (May 15, 1984, pp.
    12207, 12211; May 31, 1984, p. 14620; Mar. 27, 2012, p. _), newspaper
    accounts of televised press coverage of a committee hearing at which
    that Member 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).

      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. 3858), 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

    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 439]]

    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) 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 Committee on Rules 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); (6) a motion for the previous question on a
    bill reported from Committee of the Whole (May 24, 1972, pp. 18675,
    18676). 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

      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).

      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).

    [[Page 440]]

    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 recognized on 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).

    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.

    Sec. 713. Consideration of questions of privilege.

        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; Jan. 18,
    2007, p. 1625; Sept. 10, 2008, p. 18422).

      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), but
    otherwise does not announce the time designated to consider a resolution
    at the time the resolution is noticed (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2209),
    including in response to a parliamentary inquiry (Oct. 28, 1997, p.
    23527; Mar. 20, 2017, p. _; May 23, 2017, p. _). 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 441]]

    27812). 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 to debate such resolution (Nov. 3, 2005, pp.
    24757, 24758; May 21, 2013, 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.
    22783).

      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, 580; 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.