[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 118th Congress]
[118th Congress]
[House Document 117-161]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 436-458]
[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.




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. 7). Clause 
2(a)(3) was added in the 116th Congress to restrict the privilege of 
resolutions causing a vacancy in the Office of Speaker to those offered 
by direction of a party caucus or conference (sec. 102(e), H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and such restriction was repealed in the 118th 
Congress (sec. 2(q), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, 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). 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, pp. 15833, 15834, 
15836). Legislative language unacheivable by simple resolution does not 
qualify as a question of the privileges of the House (Dec. 20, 2018, p. 
_ (sustained by tabling of appeal)).




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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 4.1; 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, Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 6.8); (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); (5) to authorize and 
direct the Speaker to administer the oath of office to a Member-elect 
(Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 4.3).



  A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of 
the privileges of the House (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.1; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.2). A resolution declaring vacant 
the Office of Speaker is presented as a matter of high constitutional 
privilege (VI, 35), but in the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House had 
in place a rule providing that such a resolution constituted a question 
of the privileges of the House only if offered by direction of a party 
caucus or conference (sec. 102(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). 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; July 24, 2018, p. _) 
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.


  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. 24757-59 (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, pp. 4983-84 (sustained by 
tabling of appeal); June 21, 2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of 
appeal); July 19, 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).



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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 7.2; 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 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 27.5); (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 (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 8.2); (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 (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 24.3); (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) 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; Apr. 14, 2010, p. 5518); 
(28) establishing a select committee to investigate the actions and 
motivations of the Speaker surrounding the resignation of the House 
Chaplain (Apr. 27, 2018, p. _; May 8, 2018, p. _). On the other hand, a 
resolution alleging inconsistency between statements of the Speaker and 
of an intelligence agency and commissioning an investigation of the 
accuracy of her statements, where such investigation would extend beyond 
the conduct of a Member and necessarily involve a review of the agency 
itself, was held not to constitute a question of the privileges of the 
House (May 21, 2009, p. 13175; June 16, 2009, p. 15272).


  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.

  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 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 26.3); (6) responding to a contemporaneous request for such records 
from a Special Counsel (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.3); (7) 
authorizing an officer of the House to release certain documents in 
response to another such request from the Special Counsel (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.6). 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 18.16); (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); 
(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 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).


  In the 118th Congress the House directed the Speaker to establish a 
bipartisan task force to conduct a comprehensive review of House ethics 
rules and regulations, and to submit their suggested improvements to the 
House ethics process to a specified group of Members representing 
bipartisan House and committee leadership (sec. 3(q), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 
2023, p. _).



Sec. 704. Questions relating to integrity of 
proceedings.

  The  privileges of the House include questions relating to the 
integrity of its proceedings, including the processes by which bills are 
considered (III, 2597-2601, 2614; IV, 3383, 3388, 3478), such as the 
constitutional question of the vote required to pass a joint resolution 
extending the State ratification period of a proposed constitutional 
amendment (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, p. 26203). Privileges of the 
House also include: (1) resignation of a Member from a select or 
standing committee (Speaker Albert, June 16, 1975, p. 19054; Speaker 
O'Neill, Mar. 8, 1977, pp. 6579-82); (2) newspaper charges affecting the 
honor and dignity of the House (VII, 911); (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 (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.6).

  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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.16), 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.17); (2) 
directing the Committee on Rules to investigate and report to the House 
within a time certain on alleged alterations of the Record (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.18); (3) addressing whether the Record should 
constitute a verbatim transcript (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 19.20; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.21); (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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.23). 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 (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.19; 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 19.22).

  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); (6) providing the transcript of a committee 
hearing to the Attorney General in response to an allegation of 
intentionally false testimony by a sworn witness (May 1, 2019, p. _). 
However, a resolution directing a standing committee to release 
executive-session material referred to it as such by special rule of the 
House was held to propose a change in the rules and, therefore, not to 
constitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX 
(Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21562).

  A question regarding the accuracy of House documents constitutes a 
question of privileges of the House (V, 7329), including resolutions: 
(1) asserting that a printed transcript of joint subcommittee hearings 
contained unauthorized alterations of the statements of subcommittee 
members in the prior Congress and that unauthorized alterations may have 
occurred in other committee hearing transcripts, and proposing the 
creation of a select committee to investigate and report 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 (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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.8). For a 
discussion of the privileged status of a request of one House for the 
return of a measure messaged to the other, see Sec. 565, supra.

  A resolution alleging that the Chair had improperly ordered the 
interruption of audio broadcast coverage of certain House proceedings 
constitutes a question of privileges of the House (Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 4, Sec. 3.14), 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.7).

  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 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).

  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.

  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 
(now House Communications Standards Commission) 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 (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 6.14); (6) 
disapproving the actions of a committee chair for alleged impropriety in 
interfering with a criminal investigation (June 29, 2012, pp. 10729, 
10730); (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. 3933) and requiring him to apologize in 
the well of the House (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 4394); (8) alleging that a 
chair of a committee abused his power during impeachment proceedings in 
the committee and that the chair of another committee failed to respond 
to a request for a minority day of hearings related to impeachment 
proceedings and condemning the actions of both committee chairs (Dec. 
18, 2019, 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.


  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). A resolution alleging that a 
Member intimidated guests invited to a joint session of Congress by 
calling for their arrest and condemning that behavior presents a 
question of the privileges of the House (Feb. 6, 2018, p. _). A 
resolution disapproving of the behavior of the Speaker related to the 
handling of a written message from the President accompanying his 
address to a joint session of Congress presents a question of the 
privileges of the House (Feb. 6, 2020, 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, 
Sec. 1.2), the arrangement of furnishings in the Chamber (III, 2631), 
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. 10503, 10504; July 9, 2015, pp. 11113-6), and the removal 
of any item referencing or symbolizing a political party or organization 
that has taken a public position in support of slavery or the 
confederacy from the House wing of the Capitol and the House Office 
Buildings (Sept. 29, 2020, 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.8); 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).



  A resolution calling into question current health and safety guidance 
related to the continued wearing of masks in the House during an ongoing 
pandemic and directing the Attending Physician to revisit and update 
guidance on mask wearing in the Hall of the House and in committee 
spaces for vaccinated Members and staff, consistent with national 
guidance provided by executive branch health officials, presents a 
question of the privileges of the House (May 19, 2021, p. _).



Sec. 706. May not effect change in rules.

  A motion  to amend 
the Rules of the House does not present a question of privilege (Speaker 
Cannon, sustained by the House, thereby overruling the 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; Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 6.13; Jan. 31, 1996, p. 
1887), including directions to the Speaker infringing upon the 
discretionary power of recognition under clause 2 of rule XVII (formerly 
clause 2 of rule XIV) (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-64), for example, by 
requiring that the Speaker give priority in recognition to any Member 
seeking to call up a matter highly privileged pursuant to a statutory 
provision, over a member from the Committee on Rules seeking to call up 
a privileged report from that committee (Speaker Wright, Mar. 11, 1987, 
p. 5403), or by requiring that the Speaker state the question on 
overriding a veto before recognizing for a motion to refer (thereby 
overruling prior decisions of the Chair to change the order of 
precedence of motions) (Speaker Wright, Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20281). 
Similarly, a resolution alleging that, in light of an internationally 
objectionable French program of nuclear test detonations, for the House 
to receive the President of France in a joint meeting would be injurious 
to its dignity and to the integrity of its proceedings, and resolving 
that the Speaker withdraw the pending invitation and refrain from 
similar invitations, was held not to present a question of the 
privileges of the House because it proposed a collateral change in an 
order of the House previously adopted (that the House recess for the 
purpose of receiving the President of France) and a new rule for future 
cases (Jan. 31, 1996, p. 1887). A resolution 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, pp. 15833, 
15834, 15836 (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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, 
Sec. 9.1).

  A resolution urging the Speaker to make specified appointments, as 
previously recommended by the Minority Leader, to a select committee, 
and condemning the Speaker for refusing to follow such recommendations 
in making appointments to the select committee, presents a question of 
the privileges of the House (July 26, 2021, p. _).

  A resolution alleging that a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at 
the start of each legislative day would enhance the dignity and 
integrity of the proceedings of the House and directing that the Speaker 
implement such a recitation as the practice of the House was held to 
propose a change in the rules and therefore not to give rise to a 
question of the privileges of the House (Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23298). A 
resolution directing that the reprogramming process established in law 
for legislative branch appropriations be subjected to third-party review 
for conformity with external standards of accounting but alleging no 
deviation from duly constituted procedure was held not to give rise to a 
question of the privileges of the House (May 20, 1992, p. 12005 
(sustained by tabling of appeal)). A resolution to permit the Delegate 
of the District of Columbia to vote on articles of impeachment of the 
President in contravention of statutory law and the Rules of the House 
was held to be tantamount to a change in the rules and therefore not to 
constitute a question of the privileges of the House (Precedents 
(Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.6). 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 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. 
3068 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Mar. 7, 2017, pp. 3550-51 
(sustained by tabling of appeal); Mar. 15, 2017, pp. 4266-67 (sustained 
by tabling of appeal); Mar. 22, 2017, p. 4635 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal); Apr. 5, 2017, p. 5609 (sustained by tabling of appeal); May 17, 
2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal); May 24, 2017, p. _ 
(sustained by tabling of appeal); June 7, 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. 11, 2008, p. 3707 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Dec. 13, 2011, 
pp. 19859, 19860), expressing its willingness to do so (Oct. 8, 2013, 
pp. 15438, 15439), directing the Speaker to schedule such legislation 
for a vote (Dec. 10, 2015, pp. 19988, 19989 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal), or expressing that the House should immediately consider such 
legislation (Feb. 27, 2018, 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, pp. 7293, 7294). 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 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).



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).


  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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 7.4). 
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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 7.5). 
Speaker Hastert rose to a question of personal privilege to discuss the 
process for selecting a Chaplain, which question was based on press 
accounts (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 16.2).

  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).


  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 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 4.3; 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, pp. 12200, 12201). 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. 4144), 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).



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) 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), motions to suspend the rules (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 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). 
Members may not announce intent to offer a resolution as a question of 
privilege during morning-hour debate (July 23, 2020, p. _).


  While a question of privilege is pending, a message of the President 
is received (V, 6640-6642), but is read only by unanimous consent (V, 
6639). A motion to reconsider may also be entered but may not be 
considered (V, 5673-5676). It has been held that only one question of 
privilege may be pending at a time (III, 2533), but having presented one 
question of privilege, a Member, before discussing it, may submit a 
second question of privilege related to the first and discuss both on 
one recognition (VI, 562). Although a resolution raising a question of 
the privileges of the House has precedence over all other questions, it 
is nevertheless subject to disposition by the ordinary motions permitted 
under clause 4 of rule XVI, and by the motion to commit under clause 2 
of rule XIX (formerly clause 1 of rule XVII) (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 
1976, p. 3914; Apr. 28, 1983, p. 10423; Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4996).




Sec. 711. Precedence of questions of personal 
privilege.

  When  a Member proposes merely to address the House on a question 
of personal privilege, and does not offer a resolution affecting the 
dignity or integrity of the House for action, the practice as to 
precedence is somewhat different. Thus, a Member 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).



[[Page 458]]

either at the time the resolution is noticed (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2209) or 
in response to a parliamentary inquiry (Oct. 28, 1997, p. 23527; Mar. 
20, 2017, p. 4445; 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).
  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). The 
Speaker may elect to announce the time designated to consider such a 
resolution (Oct. 11, 2017, p. _) but is not otherwise required to do so 



  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 (now 72 hours) 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. 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 6.4). 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, 
pp. 7293, 7294). 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).