[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 105th Congress]
[105th Congress]
[House Document 104-272]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 359-372]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 359]]
 

                                Rule IX.


                         questions of privilege.




Sec. 661. 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, individually, in their representative capacity only.




Sec. 661a. 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 article I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, shall have 
precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn. A 
resolution offered from the floor by a Member 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 his intention to offer the 
resolution and the form of the resolution.



[[Page 360]]

(B) the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader or a designee, as determined 
by the Speaker.
  (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) A question of personal privilege shall have precedence of all 
other questions except motions to adjourn.


  This rule was adopted in 1880 (III, 2521). It merely put in form of 
definition what had been long established in the practice of the House 
but what 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 as a question of the privileges 
of the House after that Member has announced to the House his intention 
to do so and the content of the resolution, and to divide the time for 
debate on a resolution offered from the floor as a question of the 
privileges of the House (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. ----).



Sec. 662. Questions of privileges of the House.

  The  body of 
precedent relating to questions of privilege includes rulings that span 
the adoption of standing rule IX in 1880.



[[Page 361]]

resolution declaring vacant the office of Speaker is presented as a 
matter of high constitutional privilege (VI, 35). For further discussion 
with respect to the organization of the House and the title of its 
Members to seats, see Sec. Sec. 18-30, 46-51, 56, and 58-60, supra.


Sec. 662a. Questions relating to 
organization.

  The  privileges of the House also 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 as resolutions 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 an elections committee for investigation (H. 
Res. 1, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381; H. Res. 52, Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2220; H. Res. 
97, Mar. 4, 1985, p. 4277; H. Res. 121, Apr. 2, 1985, p. 7118; H. Res. 
148, Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9801); various questions incidental to the right 
to a seat (I, 322, 328, 673, 742; II, 1207; III, 2588; VII, 2316), such 
as a resolution declaring a vacancy in the House because a Member-elect 
is unable to take the oath of office and to serve as a Member or to 
expressly resign the office due to an incapacitating illness (H. Res. 
80, Feb. 24, 1981, p. 2916); a resolution declaring 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 
resolutions directing 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). A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a 
question of privilege (July 31, 1997, p. ----). A 




Sec. 662b. Questions relating to constitutional 
prerogatives.

  The  privileges of the House, as distinguished from that of 
the individual Member, include questions relating to its constitutional 
prerogatives in respect to revenue legislation and appropriations (see, 
e.g., II, 1480-1501; VI, 315; Nov. 8, 1979, pp. 31517-18; Oct. 1, 1985, 
p. 25418; June 16, 1988, p. 14780; June 21, 1988, p. 15425; Aug. 12, 
1994, p. ----). 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's Precedents, vol. 3, ch. 13, sec. 14.2; Aug. 19, 
1982, p. 22127), but not otherwise (Apr. 6, 1995, p. ----). The 
constitutional prerogatives of the House also include its function with 
respect to treaties (II, 1502-1537); impeachments and matters incidental 
thereto (see Sec. 604, supra); bills ``pocket vetoed'' during an 
intersession adjournment (Nov. 21, 1989, p. 31156); 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); and 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). For a discussion of the relationship of the 
House and its Members to the courts, see Sec. Sec. 290-291b, supra.



[[Page 362]]

  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). For example, a legislative proposition 
presented as a question of constitutional privilege under the provisions 
of the 14th amendment was held not to involve a question of privilege 
(VI, 48). Similarly, 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 (Speaker Gingrich, Feb. 7, 1995, p. 
----; Dec. 22, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 3, 1996, p. ----; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 
----; Feb. 1, 1996, p. ----). On the other hand, an extraordinary 
question relating to the House vote required by the Constitution to pass 
a joint resolution extending the ratification period of a proposed 
Constitutional amendment was raised as a question of privilege where the 
House had not otherwise made a separate determination on that procedural 
question and where consideration of the joint resolution had been made 
in order (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, pp. 26203-04).



Sec. 662c. 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) a resolution directing the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct to investigate illegal solicitation of political contributions 
in the House Office Building by unnamed sitting Members (July 10, 1985, 
p. 18397); (2) a resolution establishing an ad hoc committee to 
investigate allegations of ``ghost'' employment in the House (Apr. 9, 
1992, p. ----); (3) a resolution to further investigate the conduct of a 
Member on which it has reported to the House (Aug. 5, 1987, p. 22458); 
(4) a resolution directing the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct to report to the House the status of an investigation pending 
before the committee (Nov. 17, 1995, p. ----; Nov. 30, 1995, p. ----); 
(5) a resolution appointing an outside counsel (Sept. 19, 1996, p. ----; 
Sept. 24, 1996, p. ----); (6) a resolution to commit other matters to an 
outside counsel already appointed by the committee (June 27, 1996, p. --
--); (7) a resolution directing the committee to release the report of 
an outside counsel (Sept. 19, 1996, p. ----; Sept. 24, 1996, p. ----); 
(8) a resolution making allegations concerning the propriety of 
responses by officers of the House to court subpoenas for papers of the 
House without notice to the House, and directions to a committee to 
investigate such allegations (Feb. 13, 1980, pp. 2768-69); (9) a 
resolution 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) a 
resolution making allegations of unauthorized actions by a committee 
employee to intervene in judicial proceedings (Feb. 5, 1992, p. ----); 
(11) a resolution 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); and (12) a resolution alleging a 
chronology of litigation relating to the immunity of a Member from civil 
liability for bona fide official acts and expressing the views of the 
House thereon (May 12, 1988, p. 10574). 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 363]]

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. ----); instructing the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct to disclose further account information respecting 
Members and former Members having checks held by that entity (Mar. 12, 
1992, p. ----); mandating full and accurate disclosure of pertinent 
information concerning the operation of that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 
----); responding to a subpoena for records of that entity (Apr. 29, 
1992, p. ----); responding to a contemporaneous ``request'' for such 
records from a Special Counsel (Apr. 29, 1992, p. ----); and authorizing 
an officer of the House to release certain documents in response to 
another such request from the Special Counsel (May 28, 1992, p. ----). 
The latter category included resolutions: 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. ----); to 
create a select committee to investigate the same matter (Feb. 5, 1992, 
p. ----); requiring an explanation of a reported interference with 
authorized access to a committee investigation of that matter (Apr. 9, 
1992, p. ----); to redress 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. ----); directing the 
Speaker to explain the lapse of time before the House received notice 
that several Members and an officer of the House had received subpoenas 
to testify before a Federal grand jury investigating that matter (May 
14, 1992, p. ----); directing the Committee on House Administration to 
transmit to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and to the 
Department of Justice all records obtained by its task force to 
investigate that matter (July 22, 1992, p. ----); directing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate violations of 
confidentiality by staff engaged in the investigation of that matter 
(July 22, 1992, p. ----); 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. ----; July 23, 1992, p. ----); directing the 
Committee on House Administration to redress the inaccurate naming of a 
Member in minority views accompanying a report on that matter (July 23, 
1992, p. ----); 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. ----); 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. ----); and directing the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct to defer any investigation relating to the 
operation of the former Post Office until 

[[Page 364]]

assured that its inquiry would not interfere with an ongoing criminal 
investigation, as well as a resolution directing the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct to proceed with the investigation 
(Mar. 2, 1994, p. ----).
  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: terminating all bank and check-cashing 
operations in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and directing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to review GAO audits of such 
operations (Oct. 3, 1991, p. 25435); instructing the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct to disclose 

  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. ----). The moratorium was extended through September 10, 
1997 (July 30, 1997, p. ----). The task force recommendations ultimately 
were adopted with certain amendments (H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. --
--).



Sec. 662d. 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, pp. 26203-04). 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); and (3) the conduct of 
representatives of the press (II, 1630, 1631; III, 2627; VI, 553).


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


[[Page 365]]

be raised as a question of privilege, mere 
typographical errors or ordinary revisions of a Member's remarks do not 
form the basis for privileged motions to correct the Record (Apr. 25, 
1985, p. 9419; see Sec. 927, infra).
  The accuracy and propriety of reports in the Congressional Record also 
constitute a question of privileges of the House (V, 7005-7023; VIII, 
3163, 3461, 3463, 3464, 3491, 3499; Apr. 20, 1936, p. 5704; May 11, 
1936, p. 7019; May 7, 1979, pp. 10099-100), including: (1) a resolution 
asserting that a Member's remarks spoken in debate were omitted from the 
printed Record, directing that the Record be corrected and requiring the 
Clerk to report on the circumstances and possible corrective action 
(July 29, 1983, p. 21685); (2) resolutions directing the Committee on 
Rules to investigate and report to the House within a time certain on 
alleged alterations of the Congressional Record (Jan. 24, 1984, p. 250); 
and (3) resolutions addressing whether the Record should constitute a 
verbatim transcript (May 8, 1985, p. 11072; Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1515). 
Although a motion to correct the Congressional Record based on improper 
alterations or insertions may 

  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, 2660-2664; VI, 587; Sept. 18, 1992, p. ----; 
see also Sec. 291, supra). Privileges of the House involving records 
also include: (1) a resolution furnishing certain requested information 
to an Independent Counsel investigating covert arms transactions with 
Iran (June 4, 1992, p. ----); (2) a resolution 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. ----); (3) a 
resolution 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); and (4) a resolution 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. ----).

  A question regarding the accuracy of House documents constitutes a 
question of privileges of the House (V, 7329), including: (1) a 
resolution 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 back by a date certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18279); (2) a 
resolution 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. ----); and (3) a 
resolution requesting the Senate to return a House-passed bill and 
accompanying papers to the House if an error had been made by the Clerk 
in preparing the message to the Senate (Oct. 1, 1982, p. 27172). 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); and (3) a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the House 
and the Secretary of the Senate to produce official duplicates of 
certain legislative papers (Oct. 5, 1992, p. ----).


[[Page 366]]

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 clause 9 of 
rule I requires complete and unedited audio and visual coverage of House 
proceedings and coverage of rollcall votes had not been implemented 
(Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9821).
  A resolution alleging that the Chair had improperly ordered the 
interruption of audio broadcast coverage of certain House proceedings 
constitutes a question of privileges of the House (Mar. 17, 1988, p. 
4180), as does a resolution providing for an experiment in the 
telecasting and broadcasting of House proceedings (Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 
15, 1977, pp. 7607-08). Similarly, a resolution authorizing and 
directing the Speaker to provide 

  Alleged improprieties in committee procedures, including charges of 
committee inaction (III, 2610), secret committee conferences (VI, 578), 
refusal to make staff study available to certain Members and to the 
public (Feb. 14, 1939, p. 1370), refusal to give hearings or allow 
petitions to be read (III, 2607), refusal to permit committee member to 
take photostatic copies of committee files (Aug. 14, 1957, p. 14739), 
and a determination whether a committee violated House rules by voting 
to take allegedly defamatory testimony in open session (June 30, 1958, 
pp. 12690-91), were all held not to give rise to a question of the 
privileges of the House.



Sec. 662e. Questions relating to comfort and 
convenience.

  The  privileges of the House include questions relating to the 
comfort and convenience of Members and employees (III, 2629-2636), such 
as resolutions concerning the proper attire for Members in the Chamber 
when the temperature is uncomfortably warm (July 17, 1979, p. 19008); as 
well as questions relating to safety, such as resolutions requiring an 
investigation into the safety of Members in view of alleged structural 
deficiencies in the West Front of the Capitol (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-
64); and directing the appointment of a select committee to inquire into 
alleged fire safety deficiencies in the environs of the House (May 10, 
1988, p. 10286).



[[Page 367]]

frain 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. ----). 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 (Speaker Foley, sustained by 
tabling of appeal, Feb. 3, 1993, p. ----). 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(b) of rule XI), a question of the privileges of the 
House is raised where it is alleged that subcommittee ratios should 
reflect full committee ratios established by the House and failure to do 
so denies representational rights at the subcommittee level (Oct. 4, 
1984, p. 30042). A resolution alleging that a recitation of the pledge 
of allegiance at the start of each legislative day would enhance the 
dignity and integrity of the proceedings of the House and directing that 
the Speaker implement such a recitation as the practice of the House was 
held to propose a change in the rules and therefore not to give rise to 
a question of the privileges of the House (Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23298). A 
resolution directing that the reprogramming process established in law 
for Legislative Branch appropriations be subjected to third-party review 
for conformity with external standards of accounting but alleging no 
deviation from duly constituted procedure was held not to give rise to a 
question of the privileges of the House (Speaker Foley, sustained by 
tabling of appeal, May 20, 1992, p. ----).


Sec. 662f. 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 by a vote of 235 to 53, thereby overruling 
the decision of March 19, 1910 (VIII, 3376), which held such motion 
privileged (VIII, 3377)], and a question of the privileges of the House 
may not be invoked to effect a change in the rules or standing orders of 
the House or their interpretation (Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 6, 1977, pp. 
38470-73; Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23298; July 30, 1992, p. ----; Jan. 31, 
1996, p. ----), including directions to the Speaker infringing upon his 
discretionary power of recognition under clause 2 of rule XIV (July 25, 
1980, pp. 19762-64), for example, by requiring that he 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 he 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 re-



[[Page 368]]

See also Sec. 662a, 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 (Speaker Albert, June 27, 1974, p. 21596; July 31, 
1975, p. 26250; Dec. 22, 1996, p. ----; Jan. 3, 1996, p. ----; Jan. 24, 
1996, p. ----). For example, 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, does not give rise to a question of the privileges of 
the House (Jan. 3, 1996, p. ----; Jan. 24, 1996, p. ----). Similarly, a 
resolution precluding an adjournment of the House until a specified 
legislative measure is considered does not constitute a question of the 
privileges of the House (Feb. 1, 1996, p. ----). 



Sec. 662g. As distinct from privileged questions.

  The  clause 
of the rule giving questions of privilege precedence of all other 
questions except a motion to adjourn is a recognition of a principle 
always well understood 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'' which 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 mandatory in nature, have been held to have a 
privilege which 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 (III, 2045-2048, 2051, 2398; July 22, 1986, 
p. 17294), 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), and a resolution declaring the office of 
Speaker vacant (VI, 35); but under later decisions certain of these 
matters which 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. 662b, 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(h)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 395).


[[Page 369]]

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, who outside the Hall, get into difficulties 
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 his representative capacity (III, 1828-
1830, 2716; VI, 604, 612; VIII, 2479); but when they relate to conduct 
at a time before he became a Member they have not been entertained as of 
privilege (II, 1287; III, 2691, 2723, 2725). While 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 (since 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). While 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 he was properly 
participating, he may not raise a question of personal privilege merely 
to complain that microphones had been turned off during disorderly 
conduct following expiration of his recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 
1988, p. 4085).


Sec. 663. Questions of personal privilege.

  The  privilege of 
the Member rests primarily on the Constitution, which gives to him a 
conditional immunity from arrest (Sec. 90, supra) and an unconditional 
freedom of debate in the House (III, 2670, Sec. 92, supra). A menace to 
the personal safety of Members from an insecure ceiling in the Hall was 
held to involve a question of the highest privilege (III, 2685); and an 
assault on a Member within the Capitol when the House was not in 
session, from a cause not 


  Speaker Wright rose to a question of personal privilege to respond to 
a ``statement of alleged violations'' pending in the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct; and, pending the committee's disposition 
of his motion to dismiss, announced his intention to resign as Speaker 
and as a Member (May 31, 1989, p. 10440). Speaker Gingrich rose to a 
question of personal privilege to discuss his own official conduct 
previously resolved by the House, which question was based upon press 
accounts (Apr. 17, 1997, p. ----). A Member rose to a question of 
personal privilege to discuss 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. ----).


[[Page 370]]

sponses 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. ----). 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, which impugn his character or 
motives (May 15, 1984, pp. 12207 and 12211; May 31, 1984, p. 14620), or 
based upon newspaper accounts of televised press coverage of a committee 
hearing at which he was criticized derogatorily (Mar. 3, 1988, p. 3196).

  A distinction has been drawn between charges made by one Member 
against another in a newspaper or in a press release (July 28, 1970, p. 
26002) or in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter (Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19139; May 
14, 1996, p. ----), and the same when made on the floor (III, 1827, 
2691, 2717). Charges made in newspapers against Members in their 
representative capacities involve privilege (III, 1832, 2694, 2696-2699, 
2703, 2704; VI, 576, 621; VIII, 2479), even though the names of 
individual Members are not given (III, 1831, 2705, 2709; VI, 616, 617). 
But vague charges in newspaper articles (III, 2711; VI, 570), criticisms 
(III, 2712-2714; VIII, 2465), or even misrepresentations of the Member's 
speeches or acts or re-



Sec. 665. Precedence of privileges of the House.

  The  body of 
precedent relating to the precedence of questions of privilege spans 
both the adoption of standing rule IX in 1880 and its amendment to 
require notice in certain cases in 1993.



[[Page 371]]

subject to disposition by the ordinary motions permitted under clause 4 
of rule XVI, and by the motion to refer under clause 1 of rule XVII (Speaker 
Albert, Feb. 19, 1976, p. 3914; Apr. 28, 1983, p. 10423; Mar. 22, 1990, 
p. 4996). While 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 his power of recognition under clause 2 of 
rule XIV, entertain unanimous-consent requests for ``one-minute 
speeches'' pending recognition for a question of privilege, since 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).



Sec. 665a. Precedence of questions of privileges of 
House.

  A  question of privilege which relates to a breach of privilege 
(an assault) occurring during the reading of the Journal may interrupt 
its reading (II, 1630). A question of privilege may interrupt the 
reading of the Journal (II, 1630; VI, 637), the consideration of a bill 
under a special order (III, 2524, 2525), a rule providing for a vote 
``without intervening motion'' (VI, 560), a proposition to suspend the 
rules (III, 2553; VI, 553, 565), the consideration of certain matters on 
which the previous question has been ordered (III, 2532; VI, 561; VIII, 
2688), business in order on Calendar Wednesday (VI, 394; VII, 908-910), 
reports from the Rules Committee before debate has begun (VIII, 3491; 
Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403), call of the Consent Calendar on Monday (VI, 
553), before that Calendar was repealed in the 104th Congress (H. Res. 
168, June 20, 1995, p. ----), and motions to resolve into Committee of 
the Whole (VI, 554; VIII, 3461). A question of the privileges of the 
House takes precedence over unfinished business, privileged under 
clauses 1 and 3 of rule XXIV (Speaker Albert, June 4, 1975, p. 16860). 
Since 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 until after debate on all suspensions (May 
17, 1983, p. 12486). 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). 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). While a 
resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House has 
precedence over all other questions, it is nevertheless 





Sec. 665b. Precedence of questions of personal 
privilege.

  When  a Member proposes merely to address the House on a question 
of personal privilege, and does not bring up a resolution affecting the 
dignity or integrity of the House for action, the practice as to 
precedence is somewhat different. Thus, a Member rising to a question of 
personal privilege may not interrupt a call of the yeas and nays (V, 
6051, 6052, 6058, 6059; VI, 554, 564), or take from the floor another 
Member who has been recognized for debate (V, 5002; VIII, 2459, 2528; 
Sept. 29, 1983, p. 26508; July 23, 1987, p. 20861), but he 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 
Committee of the Whole (Sept. 4, 1969, p. 24372; Dec. 13, 1973, p. 
41270), the proper remedy being that a demand that words uttered in the 
Committee of the Whole be taken down pursuant to clause 5 of rule XIV; 
yet a breach of privilege occurring in 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).



<>   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. ----). 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. ----; Feb. 7, 1995, p. ----), 
subject to appeal where appropriate (Speaker Albert, June 27, 1974, p. 
21596).

[[Page 372]]



Sec. 665c. 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. 771a, infra.


  Under the form of the rule adopted in the 103d Congress, the Speaker 
may in his discretion 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 without first designating a 
subsequent time or place in the legislative schedule within two 
legislative days (Speaker Foley, Feb. 3, 1993, p. ----); and he is not 
required to announce the time designated to consider a resolution at the 
time the resolution is noticed but may announce his designation at a 
later time (Feb. 11, 1994, p. ----). The Speaker does not rule on the 
privileged status of a resolution at the time that resolution is 
noticed, but only when the resolution is called up within two 
legislative days (Feb. 11, 1994, p. ----; Sept. 13, 1994, p. ----; Feb. 
3, 1995, p. ----).




  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 2(l)(6) of rule XI that 
reports from committees be available to Members for at least three 
calendar days prior to their consideration (Speaker Albert, July 13, 
1971, pp. 24720-23). But a Member may not, as matter of right, require 
the reading of a book or paper on 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 he must take this 
preliminary step in raising a question of general privileges (III, 2546, 
2547; VI, 565-569; VII, 3464). A proposition of privilege may lose its 
precedence by association with a matter not of privilege (III, 2551; V, 
5890; VI, 395). Debate on a question of privilege is under the hour rule 
(V, 4990; VIII, 2448), but the previous question may be moved (II, 1256; 
V, 5459, 5460; VIII, 2672); since the 103d Congress, however, the rule 
has provided for divided control of the hour in the case of a resolution 
offered from the floor. Consideration of a resolution as a question of 
the privileges of the House has included an hour of debate on a motion 
to refer under clause 4 of rule XVI; a separate hour of debate on the 
resolution, itself, under clause 2 of rule XIV; and a motion to commit 
(not debatable after the ordering of the previous question) under clause 
1 of rule XVII (Mar. 12, 1992, p. ----). 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). Debate on a question of 
personal privilege must be confined to the statements or issues which 
gave rise to the question of privilege (V, 5075-77; VI, 576, 608; VIII, 
2448, 2481; May 31, 1984, p. 14623).