    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 119th Congress]
    [119th Congress]
    [House Document 118-187]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 440-463]
    [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 441]]

    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.

      (3) A resolution causing a vacancy in the Office of Speaker shall not
    be privileged except if it is offered by a member of the majority party
    and has accumulated eight cosponsors from the majority party at the time
    it is offered.

      (b) A question of personal privilege shall have precedence of all
    other questions except motions to adjourn.

    [[Page 442]]

      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. _). Such restriction was repealed in the 118th Congress
    (sec. 2(q), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _), and was reinstated in the
    119th Congress with a revised threshold requiring a certain number of
    majority party cosponsors and that the resolution be offered by a Member
    from the majority party (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2025, 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)).

    [[Page 443]]

    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; Oct. 3, 2023, p. _; May 8, 2024, p. _), but in the
    119th Congress, the House adopted clause 2(a)(3) of this rule, providing
    that such a resolution constitutes a question of the privileges of the
    House only if it reaches a threshold of majority party cosponsors and is
    offered by a Member from the majority party (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan.
    3, 2025, p. _). 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.

    [[Page 444]]

    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; July 10, 2024, p. _), 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 445]]

      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. 9569 (sustained by tabling of
    appeal); July 19, 2017, p. 11157 (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).

    [[Page 446]]

    mittee 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 re

    [[Page 447]]

    sponses 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.
    _); (29) calling into question the credibility of the Committee on
    Ethics in failing to publicly release its report on a Member who
    resigned during the pendency of the investigation, and directing that
    the committee release the report (Dec. 5, 2024, p. _; Dec. 5, 2024, 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).

    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 com

      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 448]]

    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 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

      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).

    [[Page 449]]

    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. _).

      In the 118th Congress the House directed the Speaker to establish a
    bipartisan task force to conduct a comprehensive review of House ethics

    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).

    [[Page 450]]

      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. _);
    (7) directing the public release of a report by the Committee on Ethics
    with respect to a Member who resigned during the pendency of an
    investigation into his conduct (Dec. 5, 2024, p. _; Dec. 5, 2024, 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).

    [[Page 451]]

    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 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,

      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).

    [[Page 452]]

    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 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

      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 453]]

    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.
      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

      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).

    [[Page 454]]

    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. _).

      A resolution calling into question current health and safety guidance
    related to the continued wearing of masks in the House during an ongoing

    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)).

    [[Page 455]]

    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 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

      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)).

    [[Page 456]]

    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. 7978
    (sustained by tabling of appeal); May 24, 2017, p. 8353 (sustained by
    tabling of appeal); June 7, 2017, p. 8829 (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.

      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.

    [[Page 457]]

    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).

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

    [[Page 458]]

    committee hearing in a prior Congress (because the second phrase of this
    clause speaks to the ``rights, reputation, and conduct of Members,
    individually'') (June 28, 1983, p. 17674). A printed characterization by
    an officer of the House of a Member's proposed amendments as ``dilatory
    and frivolous'' may give rise to a question of personal privilege (Aug.
    1, 1985, p. 22542) as may the fraudulent use of a Member's official
    stationery as a ``Dear Colleague'' letter (Sept. 17, 1986, p. 23605).
    Although a Member may be recognized on a question of personal privilege
    to complain about an abuse of House rules as applied to debate in which
    such Member was properly participating, such Member may not raise a
    question of personal privilege merely to complain that microphones had
    been turned off during disorderly conduct following expiration of
    recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4085). A Member's mere
    assertion of general corruption in the House does not support a question
    of personal privilege (Jan. 18, 2007, p. 1625).

    Sec. 708. Questions of personal privilege.

      The  privilege of
    the Member rests primarily on the Constitution, which grants conditional
    immunity from arrest (Sec. 90, supra) and an unconditional freedom of
    debate in the House (III, 2670, Sec. 92, supra). An assault on a Member
    within the Capitol when the House was not in session, from a cause not
    connected with the Member's representative capacity, was also held to
    involve a question of privilege (II, 1624). But there has been doubt as
    to the right of the House to interfere for the protection of Members in
    matters not connected with their official duties (II, 1277; III, 2678,
    footnote). Charges against the conduct of a Member are held to involve
    privilege when they 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 sub

      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).

    [[Page 459]]

    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 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

      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.

    [[Page 460]]

    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 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)

      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. _).

    [[Page 461]]

    has precedence over all other questions, it is nevertheless subject to
    disposition by the ordinary motions permitted under clause 4 of rule
    XVI, and by the motion to commit under clause 2 of rule XIX (formerly
    clause 1 of rule XVII) (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 1976, p. 3914; Apr. 28,
    1983, p. 10423; Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4996).

      While a question of privilege is pending, a message of the President
    is received (V, 6640-6642), but is read only by unanimous consent (V,
    6639). A motion to reconsider may also be entered but may not be
    considered (V, 5673-5676). It has been held that only one question of
    privilege may be pending at a time (III, 2533), but having presented one
    question of privilege, a Member, before discussing it, may submit a
    second question of privilege related to the first and discuss both on
    one recognition (VI, 562). Although a resolution raising a question of
    the privileges of the House

    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.

    [[Page 462]]

    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). The
    Speaker may elect to announce the time designated to consider such a
    resolution (Oct. 11, 2017, p. 15789) but is not otherwise required to do
    so 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. 8304). 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 463]]

    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). end segment
    .006  deg. segment .007 -- rule X  deg.

      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).