Questions of the Privileges of the House: An
Analysis
Megan S. Lynch
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
April 28, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44005

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Summary
A question of the privileges of the House is a formal declaration by a Member of the House
asserting that a situation has arisen affecting “the rights of the House collectively, its safety,
dignity and the integrity of its proceedings.” Once a question of the privileges of the House is
raised, the Speaker must, at some point, entertain the question and rule on its validity. The
Speaker makes such a ruling with guidance from the House Parliamentarian based on House rule
and precedent. If it is ruled to be valid, a question of the privileges of the House will be
considered and possibly voted on by the House.
The notion of questions of privilege predates Congress, but the House demonstrated a reluctance
to define such a question for over a century. The chamber eventually found it necessary to create
a definition as part of a rule that would prevent Members from consuming floor time under the
pretext of raising a question of the privileges of the House. Despite the creation of the rule,
however, raising a question of the privileges of the House continues to allow any Member to be
recognized and to have a resolution read on the floor, even if the question is later ruled not to be
valid.
Questions recognized as valid comprise several categories, such as:
• questions related to the organization of the House and the rights of Members to
their seats or leadership positions,
• questions related to the House’s constitutional prerogatives, such as their power
to originate revenue legislation,
• questions related to the conduct of Members, officers, and employees of the
House,
• questions related to the integrity of the legislative process, both in committee and
on the House floor, and
• questions related to the comfort, convenience, and safety of Members.
Certain categories of questions have been held not to constitute valid questions of the privileges
of the House, such as questions that are tantamount to a change in House rules, questions that
seek to alter or prescribe a special rule reported from the House Rules Committee, and questions
expressing legislative sentiment.
From the 104th Congress through the 113th Congress, Members offered 140 questions of the
privileges of the House, 73% of which were ruled valid. The number of valid questions offered
each Congress varied significantly, with some Congresses considering as few as two and others
considering more than 20. The minority party offered 72% of the total number of valid questions,
and the proportion of questions offered by the minority remained consistent during most of the
period.
How valid questions were disposed of during this time period varied significantly depending on
whether the Member offering the question belonged to the majority or the minority party. A
majority of questions offered by the majority party were agreed to, while a majority of the
questions offered by the minority party were tabled, meaning that the House chose to dispose of
the resolution adversely but without taking a vote on the resolution.
Congressional Research Service

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

A contrast exists between the types of questions raised and the types of questions agreed to by the
House. The greatest number of valid questions raised related to the conduct of Members, officers,
and employees of the House (39%) and to the House’s constitutional prerogatives, such as their
power to originate revenue legislation (23%). Of the resolutions agreed to, however, most (78%)
related to the House’s constitutional prerogatives, while a relative few (9%) related to conduct.

Congressional Research Service

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Restrictions Governing When Questions of the Privileges of the House Can Come to
the Floor ................................................................................................................................. 2
House Action in the Event That the Question Is Ruled Not Valid ............................................. 3
House Action in the Event That the Question Is Ruled Valid .................................................... 3
Decorum During Debate ..................................................................................................... 5
Subjects Constituting Valid Questions of the House ................................................................. 6
Common Categories of Questions Held to Be Valid ........................................................... 7
Categories of Questions Held Not to Be Valid .................................................................... 9
Data on Questions Offered and House Action ......................................................................... 10
Data on Categories of Questions Offered and Agreed To ........................................................ 12
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Figures
Figure 1. Questions Offered Each Congress, Total and by the Minority ....................................... 11
Figure 2. House Action on Questions Offered by the Majority Party ............................................ 12
Figure 3. House Action on Questions Offered by the Minority Party ........................................... 12
Figure 4. Categories of Questions Offered .................................................................................... 13
Figure 5. Categories of Questions Agreed To ................................................................................ 14

Tables

Appendixes
Appendix A. Scripts of Parliamentary Language Used on the Floor ............................................. 16
Appendix B. Questions of the Privileges of the House (105th Congress-113th Congress
[1995-2014]) ............................................................................................................................... 18

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 54
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 54

Congressional Research Service

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Introduction
A question of the privileges of the House is a formal declaration by a Member of the House
asserting that a situation has arisen that affects “the rights of the House collectively, its safety,
dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.”1 When making the declaration, the Member submits
a resolution providing detail on the situation and typically urging action of some sort.
A question of privilege has been held to take precedence over all questions except a motion to
adjourn. In explaining this unique privilege, House Speaker Thomas Reed said:
The rights and privileges of all the Members of the House, in the discharge of their functions,
are sacred, and the House can undertake no higher duty than the conservation of all those
rights and privileges intact. And even if the case arises under dubious circumstances, it is
proper for the House to pause and give suitable heed to any question which any Member
raises with regard to his rights and privileges as a Member. It is for the House alone to
determine what they are.2
Once a question of the privileges of the House is raised, the Speaker must, at some point,
entertain the question and rule on its validity. The Speaker makes a ruling regarding whether a
question constitutes a valid question of the privileges of the House with guidance from the House
Parliamentarian based on House Rule IX and House precedent. If valid, a question of the
privileges of the House will be considered on the House floor.
The first section of this report provides information on raising and considering such questions to
provide assistance in anticipating potential House action. Information is provided on restrictions
governing when a question can be raised and when the Speaker must rule on the question’s
validity. Further information is provided on actions the House may take after the Speaker’s ruling
on the question’s validity, including how the House may consider and dispose of a valid question.
Appendix A provides scripts of parliamentary language used on the House floor when such a
question is raised.
The second section of this report focuses on the content of questions in an effort to provide
guidance as to what the Speaker may determine constitutes a valid question. It includes
information on, and examples of, types of questions that have been ruled valid and not valid.
Appendix B provides a list of all valid questions offered in the past two decades.
The final section of the report provides extensive data on questions raised in the past two decades,
such as the number of valid questions raised per Congress and the proportion of questions offered
by the minority party. In addition, this section provides data on how valid questions were
disposed of, which varied significantly depending on whether the Member offering the question

1 As stated in House Rule IX. House rules provide for questions of personal privilege that are not covered in this report.
For more information on questions of personal privilege, see CRS Report 98-411, Questions of Privilege in the House,
by James V. Saturno.
2 Speaker Thomas B. Reed, quoted in Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United
States (Washington: GPO, 1907), (hereafter Hinds’) vol. III, §2524. Questions of privilege encompass both questions
of the privileges of the House as well as questions of personal privilege that are not covered in this report. For more
information on questions of personal privilege, see CRS Report 98-411, Questions of Privilege in the House, by James
V. Saturno.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

belonged to the majority or the minority party. This section also includes information on the
categories of questions offered, as well as the categories of questions ultimately agreed to by the
House.
Restrictions Governing When Questions of the Privileges of the
House Can Come to the Floor
House Rule IX states that under most circumstances, a Member must give notice of his or her
intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. Within two legislative days of giving
such notice, the Member will be recognized to offer the resolution.3 In practice, the Member will
be notified of the date and time when he or she should rise to offer the resolution after having
given notice.4
Under specific circumstances, however, a question of the privileges of the House has precedence
to interrupt the daily flow of business. In these situations, the Speaker will make an immediate
ruling as to the validity of the question, and if valid, the question is privileged for immediate floor
consideration. The three circumstances comprise:
1. A resolution that has been reported from committee;
2. A resolution that has been offered on the floor by the majority leader or the
minority leader; or
3. A resolution that has been offered as privileged under the Origination Clause,
which is the House’s constitutional right to originate all revenue measures
(Article I, Section 7, clause 1, of the Constitution).5
Despite this privilege, under House precedent some restrictions govern when a question can be
raised on the floor. For example, a question of the privileges of the House cannot be raised in
Committee of the Whole.6 Also, a Member rising to a question of privilege is not permitted to
take the floor from another Member who has already been recognized for debate.7 Likewise, a

3 The rule was amended in the 103rd Congress (1993) to authorize the Speaker to designate a time within two days for
the consideration of a resolution offered from the floor by a Member other than the majority leader or minority leader
after that Member has announced an intention to do so. In the 106th Congress the rule was changed to permit the
announcement of the resolution to be dispensed with by unanimous consent (H.Res. 5 [106th Congress], January 6,
1999.
4 Under House precedent, a Member’s announcement of intent to offer such a resolution may take precedence over a
special rule reported from the House Committee on Rules, but if a special rule is pending, announcements are counted
against debate on the resolution, absent unanimous consent to the contrary. U.S. Congress, Constitution, Jefferson’s
Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives, H.Doc. 112-161, 112th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2013),
§709 (hereafter House Manual).
5 House precedents note an occasion on which the presiding officer deferred ruling on the validity of a question of the
privileges of the House while he “looked into [the matter] further.” Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House
of Representatives, H. Doc. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1977), vol. 3, ch. 11, §6.2, p. 45 (hereafter
Deschler’s).
6 Deschler's, vol. 3, ch. 11, §4.3. The Committee of the Whole is the House of Representatives operating on the House
floor as a committee on which every Member of the House serves. For more information see CRS Report RS20147,
Committee of the Whole: An Introduction, by Judy Schneider.
7 Hinds’, vol. V, §5002. However, a Member who has been previously recognized for debate may yield time for
preliminary debate on the question. Deschler's, vol. 3, ch. 11, §23.3.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

question of privilege may not interrupt a roll call or yea-or-nay vote,8 and a Member may not rise
to a question of privileges during a call of the House in the absence of a quorum unless it relates
to the immediate proceedings.9 Moreover, in the event that a question of privilege is pending,
another Member will not be recognized to raise a different question of the privileges of the
House.10
House Action in the Event That the Question Is Ruled Not Valid
If the Speaker rules that the question does not qualify as a valid question of the privileges of the
House, the House may move to different business. Any Member who disagrees with the ruling,
however, may appeal, allowing the House to decide if the decision of the Speaker will stand as
the judgment of the House.11 If the appeal is successful, the House would consider the question of
the privileges of the House. Very often, however, a motion is made to table the appeal, and the
House votes instead on the motion to table.
In the event that a question has been ruled not valid, a Member may attempt to introduce a
different resolution that may meet the criteria of a valid question of the privileges of the House.
Alternatively, the Member may instead use other means of communicating concern, such as
periods designated for non-legislative debate (special order speeches, one-minute speeches, and
morning hour debate).12 Information on the content of questions ruled valid and not valid can be
found below.
House Action in the Event That the Question Is Ruled Valid
Once the Speaker rules the question to be valid (or the House overrules the Speaker’s ruling that
the resolution is not valid), the House may take any number of actions on the resolution, either
immediately or after debate occurs.
A question of the privileges of the House is considered under the “hour rule,” which means
generally that a maximum of one hour of debate may occur on the resolution.13 Debate time is
divided between (a) the proponent of the resolution and (b) the majority leader, the minority
leader, or a designee, as determined by the Speaker. Each controls 30 minutes of time and may
yield portions of that time to Members wishing to speak on the resolution. Members must confine

8 Hinds’, vol. IV, §§6051, 6058.
9 Hinds’, vol. III, §2545.
10 William Holmes Brown, Charles W. Johnson, and John V. Sullivan, House Practice: A Guide to the Rules,
Precedents and Procedures of the House (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 720 (hereafter House Practice).
11 Under early custom, the Speaker would not rule on whether a question constituted a question of the privileges of the
House but would instead submit the question to the House. Hinds’, vol. III, §2718, and House Manual §713.
12 For more information on periods designated for non-legislative debate in the House, see CRS Report RS21174,
Special Order Speeches and Other Forms of Non-Legislative Debate in the House, by Judy Schneider.
13 Deschler's, vol. 3, ch. 11, §7.1. The House, by unanimous consent, can always structure the consideration of a
question of the privileges of the House in a way that varies from House rules. For example, on July 15, 2008, a Member
asked unanimous consent that when considering the resolution, the previous question be ordered without intervening
motion except one motion to refer and one motion to table (which have precedence in the order stated) and that the
Speaker may postpone further proceedings on such a vote on either motion. Also, on October 8, 1998, by unanimous
consent, the House allowed two hours of debate on a question of privileges of the House. In addition, on September 18,
1997, the House agreed by unanimous consent to debate the resolution for 20 minutes.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

remarks in debate to the question raised.14 While uncommon, during consideration of the
resolution, amendments may be offered but only (1) if the amendment is offered by the Member
raising the question of privilege, (2) if the Member raising the question yields to a Member for
the purpose of offering an amendment, or (3) in the event that the previous question (described
below) is not successful.15
At the end of the hour (or before), a Member may “move the previous question,” which is a non-
debatable motion that seeks to bring debate on the resolution to a close.16 If the House defeats the
previous question, another hour of debate would occur, and amendments could be offered. If the
House votes to agree to the previous question, a vote on agreeing to the resolution typically
follows.
To prevent further consideration of the resolution and/or a vote on agreement, a Member may
make a motion to lay the resolution on the table. While the motion to table may be offered while
the resolution is under debate, it is often made immediately after consideration begins. While
tabling a resolution is considered a final adverse disposition of that particular resolution, the
question may be rephrased and presented anew on a subsequent day.17
Instead of voting on the resolution, the House may choose to refer the resolution to a committee.
A Member may offer this motion, which is debatable for up to an hour, in an attempt to send the
resolution to committee for further work or consideration and may even include specific
instructions to the underlying committee. The motion may refer the resolution to one or more
standing committees without regard to the usual rules governing committee jurisdiction, or it may
seek to refer to a committee that is established pursuant to the motion.
A Member could make a motion to postpone consideration of the resolution, although this is
uncommon for questions of the privileges of the House in the modern Congress. A motion to
postpone is debatable for up to an hour. If agreed to by the House, a motion to postpone the
resolution would suspend consideration of the measure either indefinitely or until a specific time,
depending on the language used in the motion.
Additionally, a sponsor may choose to withdraw a resolution after it has been offered. This does
not require unanimous consent; the Member has the right to withdraw the resolution offered even
after debate has occurred.18

14 Deschler's, vol. 3, ch. 11, §7.2.
15 While also uncommon during consideration of the resolution, a motion to recommit is in order pending or after the
ordering of the previous question, although it is not debatable after the ordering of the previous question. House
Manual, §713.
16 The Member offering the resolution, not the Member who may be named in the resolution, has the right to close
debate. For example, on July 24, 2002, Representative James Traficant, who was named in the resolution, made a
parliamentary inquiry related to his right to close. Specifically, he asked, “Mr. Speaker, do I go last, since I am the
subject of the demise?” The presiding officer noted that it was the Member raising the resolution (Representative Joel
Hefley) who had the right to close debate.
17 House Practice, p. 735. For example, in the 105th Congress, Representative Richard Gephardt raised a question of the
privileges of the House concerning an election contest in the 46th district of California that was disposed of by a motion
to table. The next day, he raised a virtually identical question of privilege that omitted three commas from the
legislative text that had appeared in the resolution of the day prior (H.Res. 315 [105th Congress] and H.Res. 318 [105th
Congress], respectively). The second resolution was also tabled.
18 For example, on October 27, 2000, Representative Don Young withdrew such a resolution after considerable debate
had occurred.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Decorum During Debate
By their nature, questions of the privileges of the House address perceived threats to the dignity
or integrity of the chamber that have the potential to be controversial and contentious. House
rules and precedents require that decorum be maintained during debate. Rule XVII, clause 1(b)
states that remarks in debate shall be confined to the question under debate. The Speaker often
states that Members should refrain from references in debate to conduct of other sitting Members
and, in addition, specifies that indecent language either against the proceedings of the House or
its membership is out of order.19 When a question of the privileges of the House is raised, the
prohibition on debate referencing the conduct of a Member or the House may become
complicated. Because of this, the Speaker often states that an exception to the general rule is in
order but that it is closely limited. Specifically, the Speaker states that, while a wide range of
discussion is permitted during debate on such a resolution, the rule still “prohibits the use of
language which is personally abusive.” The Speaker states that this extends to language that is
“profane, vulgar, or obscene and to comportment which constitutes a breach of decorum.”20
Once a question of the privileges of the House is no longer pending, the House prohibition
against references in debate to the official conduct of other Members where such conduct is not
under consideration is restored, and the prohibition applies to debate that includes reciting the
content of a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House that is no longer pending.
Debate on questions of the privileges of the House has sometimes become more raucous than is
typical on the House floor. One example occurred during debate on a question of privileges of the
House related to the actions of a committee chairman who had requested that the Capitol Police
remove minority-party committee Members from a committee room.21 A Member objected to the
remarks of another Member and demanded that the “words be taken down” because they violated
the House’s rules on decorum. The offending Member then asked unanimous consent to withdraw
his remarks.22
Another example occurred in the 113th Congress when a Member raised a question condemning
the behavior of a committee chairman during a hearing. Dozens of Members gathered behind the
Member raising the question, holding electronic devices displaying pictures of the specified
committee chairman during the hearing. The presiding officer suspended consideration several
times, informing Members that consideration would be delayed until Members lowered their

19 For example, see House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 148 (July 24, 2002), p. H5375.
20 Ibid.
21 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 149 (July 18, 2003), p. H7154.
22 “A Member may demand that the words of another Member be taken down. This typically takes place during debate
when one Member believes another Member has violated the rules of decorum in the House. The request requires that
the Member’s remarks be read to the House so that the Speaker may determine whether they are offensive or otherwise
violate the rules of the House. If the Speaker determines that the words are out of order, the violator is customarily
given a chance to withdraw or amend them, and the Member may ask the House for unanimous consent to strike the
words from the Congressional Record. If there is objection, a motion may be offered to strike the words from the
debate. Upon the demand that the words be taken down, the alleged violator must immediately sit down and await the
Speaker’s decision. A Member whose words have been ruled out of order may not speak again on the same day without
the House’s permission, but the Member can vote.” As stated in CRS Report RL32207, Commonly Used Motions and
Requests in the House of Representatives, by Christopher M. Davis.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

displays and decorum was restored, and he reminded Members that under House precedent,
Members may not stage an exhibition.23
Subjects Constituting Valid Questions of the House
House precedent states, “The tradition of Anglo-American parliamentary procedure recognizes
the privileged status of questions related to the honor and security of a deliberate body and its
Members.”24 While the notion of questions of privilege predates Congress, the House
demonstrated a historical reluctance to define such a question as early as 1795.25 The principle
was not articulated in House rules until 1880, and even then, it was only to restrict the process of
considering such questions. According to the House rules manual, the rule governing questions of
the privileges of the House was adopted to “codify long established practice that the House had
hitherto been unwilling to define.”26 The manual goes on to say that 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 the privileges of the House.’”27
House Rule IX states simply that valid questions shall be those “affecting the rights of the House
collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.” House precedent can provide
guidance as to what the Speaker may determine constitutes a valid question of the privileges of
the House, and several categories of examples are provided below to assist in determining what
may be ruled valid.28 This information may be helpful when crafting a resolution or when
anticipating whether questions noticed might be ruled valid. The Office of the Parliamentarian of
the House should be consulted for specific and authoritative guidance.
At the outset, it is important to note a few general requirements for valid questions of the House.
To begin with, when presenting a matter, the text in the resolution must “show on its face an
invasion of those rights” articulated in the House rule and so presumably may not rely on
argument made verbally.29 Second, the situation that has affected the rights of the House must be
actual events and not potential forthcoming events.30 Listed below in the section Categories of
Questions Held Not to Be Valid are general categories of questions that have historically been
found not to be valid.

23 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 160 (March 13, 2014), p. H2408.
24 Deschler's, vol. 3, ch. 11, §1.
25 Congress debated the concept of a question of privilege, referred to then as a “breach of privilege,” in 1795 during a
case against Robert Randall for contempt in attempting to bribe House Members, and House precedent states, “The
House, in 1795, declined to take action that would seem to imply a definition of its privileges.” Hinds’, vol. II, §1603.
“Breach of privilege” is the term commonly used to refer to questions of privilege prior to the establishment of the
House rule in 1880 that solidified the term “question of privilege.”
26 House Manual, §699. Hinds’, vol. II, §1603.
27 House Manual, §700. Hinds’, vol. III, §2521.
28 Some of these categories appear in House Practice, and some appear in the House Manual.
29 Hinds’, vol. III, §2548.
30 Ibid., vol. III, §2556.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Common Categories of Questions Held to Be Valid
Questions Relating to Organization
Questions may relate to the organization of the House and the rights of Members to their seats or
their leadership positions. For example, a resolution providing for an investigation into the
election of a Member presented a question of privilege,31 as did a resolution proposing the
exclusion of a delegate from his seat.32 Valid questions have also included a resolution declaring a
vacancy in the House because a Member-elect is unable to take the oath of office or to expressly
resign because of an incapacitating illness,33 as well as questions dismissing an election contest.34
Questions have also related to removal of a committee chairman pending an investigation.35
Questions Relating to Constitutional Prerogatives
Matters related to the House’s constitutionally granted powers have been recognized as valid
questions of the privileges of the House. Often, Members raise questions related to the
Origination Clause (which requires that revenue bills originate in the House) and typically state
that the Senate has infringed on the House’s privilege to originate revenue measures.36 Such
questions are typically presented by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee (since that
committee has jurisdiction over revenue measures).37
Questions have also involved constitutional functions such as impeachment, as well as the power
to expel Members. The House merely having a constitutional power or duty, however, does not
allow any matter related to those duties to be raised as a question of the privileges of the House.
For example, a question of the privileges of the House raised in 1996, stating that the House
ought to pass an adjustment to the public debt limit, was found not to be valid. The presiding
officer quoted an earlier ruling that a resolution presenting a legislative proposition as a question
of constitutional privilege under the 14th Amendment did not qualify as a question of the
privileges of the House and stated:

31 Ibid., vol. III, §2586.
32 Ibid., vol. III, §2594.
33 H.Res. 80 (97th Congress), February 24, 1981.
34 During the 105th Congress, Members offered a number of resolutions in relation to the election contest for the 46th
District of California.
35 For example, in the 111th Congress, H.Res. 805 sought to remove Representative Charles Rangel as chairman of the
House Ways and Means Committee.
36 Article I, Section 7, clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution prescribes that the House, not the Senate, must originate
measures that contain revenue provisions. The Senate may author revenue provisions but only as amendments to
House-originated measures that already contain revenue provisions. Questions can also be raised to assert that not just a
Senate bill but a conference report accompanying a House bill originated revenue provisions (H.Res. 568, 106th
Congress). It should be noted, however, that a question of privilege under Section 7 of Article I of the Constitution may
be raised only when the House is in possession of the papers (House Manual, p. 411). For more information on what
constitutes a revenue provision, see CRS Report RL31399, The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
Interpretation and Enforcement, by James V. Saturno.
37 For example, on December 12, 2012, Chairman Dave Camp offered a resolution stating that two legislative measures
sent from the Senate infringed on the privileges of the House and directed that the measures be returned to the Senate
(H.Res. 829 [112th Congress]). This process is often referred to as blue-slipping. For more information on the blue-slip
procedure, see CRS Report RS21236, Blue-Slipping: The Origination Clause in the House of Representatives, by
James V. Saturno.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

It is a strained construction to say that because the Constitution gives a mandate that a thing
shall be done, it therefore follows that any Member can insist that it shall be brought up at
some particular time and in the particular way which he chooses. If there is a constitutional
mandate, the House ought by its rules to provide for the proper enforcement of that, but it is
still a question for the House how and when and under what procedure it shall be done.38
Questions Relating to Conduct
Certain questions relating to the conduct of Members, officers, and employees have been held to
be valid. For example, a proposition to remove an officer of the House for misconduct has been
recognized as a valid question,39 as have resolutions directing investigations into Member
misconduct such as illegal solicitation of political contributions in the House office building by
unnamed sitting Members40 and improper conduct by a former Member with regard to the House
page program and insufficient response thereto by the House leadership.41 Questions also
commonly seek the release of information gathered by the House Committee on Ethics during a
pending or completed investigation into Member or staff conduct.
Questions Relating to Integrity of Proceedings
Questions of the privileges of the House have included matters related to the integrity of the
legislative process, both in committee and on the House floor.
Questions related to alleged improprieties in committee procedure have dealt with the use of an
allegedly forged document at a committee hearing, as well as the unilateral release of committee
records in violation of its adopted rules.42 A question was ruled valid that condemned a committee
chairman for adjourning a hearing before allowing the ranking Member to make a statement or
ask questions.43 While a charge of unfair and improper action on the part of a committee has been
held to involve a question of privilege,44 this does not extend to any committee action considered
objectionable. For example, an allegation that a committee had refused either to give hearings or
to allow petitions to be read before it was not considered a valid question of the privileges of the
House.45
Questions addressing improprieties on the House floor have dealt with the presence on the floor
of unauthorized persons,46 the conduct of those in the press gallery,47 and the integrity and
regularity of an electronic vote.48

38 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 142 (January 24, 1996), p. H802.
39 Hinds’, vol. I, §284.
40 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 131 (July 10, 1985), p. H18397.
41 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 152 (September 29, 2006), p. H21334.
42 House Manual, §704.
43 H.Res. 517 (113th Congress).
44 Hinds’, vol. III, §2605.
45 Ibid., vol. III, §2607.
46 Ibid., vol. III, §§2624-2626.
47 Ibid., vol. III, §2627.
48 H.Res. 611 (110th Congress).
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

These have also extended to the integrity and accuracy of House documents and messages,49 as
well as entries in the Journal and the Congressional Record.50 For example, a resolution
providing for the correction in the Congressional Record of an exchange between two Members
was considered valid.51 A question alleging factual inaccuracy in the contents of a speech
recorded in the Congressional Record (without alleging an error in the Congressional Record,
however) was not recognized as a valid question.52
Questions Relating to Comfort, Convenience, and Safety
Certain matters related to the comfort and conveniences of Members have constituted valid
questions of the privileges of the House. A proposition concerning the comfort and convenience
of Members in relation to the construction of an elevator for the House, as well as a proposal for
the removal of desks from the hall, were held to be valid.53 A resolution directing that the clerk
employ additional laborers in the bathroom, however, was not recognized as a valid question, nor
was a resolution relating to a new House restaurant.54
Matters relating to Members’ physical safety have constituted valid questions, such as resolutions
directing investigations into structural deficiencies in the Capitol, the ceiling in the hall, and
alleged fire safety deficiencies.55 This category of Members’ safety expands beyond physical
safety to cybersecurity. For example, a resolution alleging that computers were compromised
directed the Sergeant at Arms to ensure that House personnel be alerted to the dangers of
electronic security breaches.56
Categories of Questions Held Not to Be Valid
House precedent demonstrates that certain categories of questions have been held not to
constitute valid questions of the privileges of the House.
A motion to amend the rules of the House does not present a question of privilege.57 For example,
a resolution to permit the delegate of the District of Columbia to vote on a specific legislative
matter was held to be tantamount to a change in the rules and therefore determined not to
constitute a question of the privileges of the House.58
Also, a question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to alter or prescribe a special
order of business for the House (also referred to as a special rule).59 For example, in 2010 the

49 Hinds’, vol. III, §§2613 and 2631.
50 Hinds’, vol. II, §1363, and House Manual, §704, respectively.
51 H.Res. 260 (96th Congress).
52 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 149 (October 20, 2003), pp. H9704-5.
53 Hinds’, vol. III, §2630.
54Ibid., vol. III, §2635 and vol. III, §2636 (respectively).
55 House Manual, §705.
56 H.Res. 1263 (110th Congress).
57 House Manual, §706.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

presiding officer ruled that a resolution prescribing House consideration of specific legislation
was not a valid question of the privileges of the House:
Under such an approach, each individual Member of the House could constitute himself or
herself as a virtual Rules Committee. Any Member would be able to place before the House
at any time whatever proposed order of business he or she might deem advisable, simply by
alleging an insult to dignity or integrity secondary to some action or inaction. In such an
environment, anything could be privileged, so nothing would enjoy true privilege.60
A resolution that alleges the failure of the House to take specified legislative actions brings it
discredit, impairs its dignity and the integrity of its proceedings, and lowers it in public esteem
does not present a question of the privileges of the House. The presiding officer stated:
To rule that a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX may be raised by
allegations of perceived discredit brought upon the House by legislative action or inaction,
would permit any Member to allege an impact on the dignity of the House based upon
virtually any legislative action or inaction.61
A resolution expressing legislative sentiment does not present a question of the privileges of the
House. In response to such a resolution, the presiding officer stated:
A resolution expressing the legislative sentiment that the President should take specified
action to achieve desired public policy end does not present the question affecting the rights
of the House, collectively, its safety, dignity, or integrity of its proceedings as required under
rule IX.62
Similarly, in response to a question raised that made several assertions about a governor and
called upon that governor and others to take action, the presiding officer stated:
A resolution merely asserting the position of the House with regard to an external issue
cannot be the basis of a question of privilege.... According privilege to such a resolution
would allow any Member to place before the House at any time whatever topic he or she
might deem advisable. In such an environment, anything could be privileged, so nothing
would enjoy true privilege.63
Data on Questions Offered and House Action
From the 104th Congress through the 113th Congress (1995-2014), Members offered 140
questions of the privileges of the House.64 Of the total number offered, 102 of the questions
(73%) were ruled valid and were therefore considered by the House. The number of valid
questions offered each Congress varied significantly, with some Congresses considering as few as
two and others considering more than 20. The minority party offered 72% of the total number of
valid questions, and the proportion of questions offered by the minority remained consistent
during most of the period, as illustrated in Figure 1.

60 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 156 (September 23, 2010), p. H6901.
61 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 142 (January 24, 1996), p. H802.
62 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 144 (October 10, 1998), p. H10404
63 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 157 (October 6, 2011) p. H6657.
64 This does not, however, include resolutions that were “noticed” or submitted, but never offered.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Figure 1. Questions Offered Each Congress, Total and by the Minority
104th Congress-113th Congress
25
20
15
Total
10
Minority
5
0
104th 105th 106th 107th 108th 109th 110th 111th 112th 113th

Source: Congressional Research Service (using the Legislative Information System and the Congressional Record).
How valid questions were disposed of varied significantly depending on whether the Member
offering the question belonged to the majority or the minority party. Of the questions offered by
majority Members, 69% were agreed to, 14% were referred to committee, 10% were tabled, and
7% were withdrawn. All questions offered by the majority party that were voted on were agreed
to, perhaps suggesting that in some cases if a majority party resolution was not likely to receive
an affirmative vote, it did not receive a vote but was disposed of alternatively (e.g., by referring
the resolution to committee).
Of the valid questions offered by the minority party, a large majority (82%) were tabled, meaning
that the House chose to dispose of the resolution adversely but without taking a vote on the
resolution. This may be done to avoid either political or practical situations that are inopportune
for the majority party. For example, it prevents a vote that might be used by the minority as a
“messaging vote.” Also, a motion to table may be made in order to stop consideration of the
resolution so that the House may engage in the business previously planned by the majority party.
Of the other questions offered by the minority, 12% were referred to committee, 4% were agreed
to, and 2% were not agreed to.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Figure 2. House Action on Questions Offered by the Majority Party
104th Congress-113th Congress
0
2
Resolution Agreed To
3
Resolution Referred to
Committee
4
Resolution Tabled
Resolution Withdrawn
20
Resolution Not Agreed To


Source: Congressional Research Service (using the Legislative Information System and the Congressional Record).
Figure 3. House Action on Questions Offered by the Minority Party
104th Congress-113th Congress
0
1 3
Resolution Agreed To
9
Resolution Referred to
Committee
Resolution Tabled
Resolution Withdrawn
Resolution Not Agreed To
60


Source: Congressional Research Service (using the Legislative Information System and the Congressional Record).
Data on Categories of Questions Offered and Agreed To
As mentioned above, from the 104th Congress through the 113th Congress (1995-2014), Members
offered 102 questions that were ruled valid. As displayed in Figure 4, the greatest number of
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

questions related to conduct (39%) and to the House’s constitutional prerogatives (23%),
followed by questions related to the integrity of proceedings (19%) and questions relating to
organization (17%).65 One question dealt with comfort, convenience, and safety, and two did not
fit into any of these general categories.66
Figure 4. Categories of Questions Offered
104th Congress-113th Congress
1
Comfort, Convenience,
2
and Safety
17
Conduct
40
Constitutional Perogatives
Integrity of Proceedings
19
Organization
23
Other


Source: Congressional Research Service (using the Legislative Information System and the Congressional Record).
Notes: Some questions presented language related to both conduct and integrity of proceedings, such as a
resolution condemning a Member of leadership and noting concerns regarding the integrity of proceedings. In
such cases, since the action being condemned was related to the integrity of proceedings, the question was
included under the integrity of proceedings category. The two questions in the category of “other” required the
Speaker to appoint a bipartisan task force to make recommendations on how to restore public confidence in the
ethics process (H.Res. 213 and H.Res. 153 [109thCongress]).
Of the 102 questions considered by the House in the period between the 104th Congress and the
113th Congress, 23 of those were agreed to by the House, as shown in Figure 5. Of those 23
questions, 18 (78%) related to the House’s constitutional prerogatives. (Thirteen related to the
House’s constitutional authority to originate revenue measures, four dealt with impeachment, and
one was to expel a Member.) Two of the measures agreed to were related to conduct, two related
to integrity of proceedings, and one related to comfort, convenience, and safety.

65 Some questions presented language related to both conduct and integrity of proceedings, such as a resolution
condemning a Member of leadership and noting concerns regarding the integrity of proceedings. In such cases, since
the action being condemned was related to the integrity of proceedings, the question was included under the integrity of
proceedings category.
66 The two questions in the category of “other” required the Speaker to appoint a bipartisan task force to make
recommendations on how to restore public confidence in the ethics process (H.Res. 213 and H.Res. 153 [109th
Congress]).
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Figure 5. Categories of Questions Agreed To
104th Congress-113th Congress
Comfort, Convenience,
1
2
and Safety
2
Conduct
Constitutional Perogatives
Integrity of Proceedings
Organization
18
Other


Source: Congressional Research Service (using the Legislative Information System and the Congressional Record).
Conclusion
An examination of questions of the privileges of the House illuminates several characteristics of
their use, content, and consideration.
• Questions possess several distinctive features. The notion of questions of
privilege predates Congress. The House, however, demonstrated a historical
reluctance to define such a question for over a century until the chamber found it
necessary to create a definition as part of a rule that would “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 the privileges of the
House.”67
Despite the creation of the rule, raising a question of the privileges of the House
allows any Member to be recognized and to have a resolution read on the floor,
even if the question is later ruled not to be valid. This represents an uncommon
opportunity, particularly for Members of the minority party, to draw attention to a
specific matter in a chamber where the majority party leadership
characteristically sets the floor agenda. Also unique is that, by their nature,
questions of the privileges of the House allow potentially controversial assertions
to be read on the floor, such as criticisms of another Member’s conduct. The
combination of these characteristics (the question’s potential use by any Member,

67 House Manual, §700.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

its reading requirement, and the subject matter’s potentially controversial nature)
make such resolutions exceptional in the House.
• There is a contrast between the types of questions raised and the types of
questions agreed to. The ratios of the types of questions offered and the types of
questions agreed to by the House varied. As displayed in Figure 4, the greatest
number of questions raised related to conduct (39%) and to the House’s
constitutional prerogatives (23%). Of the resolutions agreed to, however, most
(78%) related to the House’s constitutional prerogatives, while a relative few
(9%) related to conduct. This might reflect a general disinclination to agree to
conduct-related resolutions.
• Consideration of questions reflect the roles and relations of the majority and
the minority. An examination of questions of the privileges of the House might
offer insights into the roles and relationship of the majority party and the
minority party in the House. First, recall that the minority party offered a
majority (72%) of the total number of valid questions, and the proportion of
questions offered by the minority remained consistent during most of the period,
as illustrated in Figure 1.
Second, the manner in which questions were disposed of varied significantly
depending on whether the Member offering the question belonged to the majority
or the minority party. Of the questions offered by majority Members, a majority
(69%) were agreed to. In fact, all questions offered by the majority party that
were voted on were agreed to, perhaps suggesting that if a majority party
resolution was not likely to receive an affirmative vote, it did not receive a vote
but was disposed of alternatively (e.g., by referring the resolution to committee).
Of the questions offered by the minority party, a large majority (82%) were
tabled, meaning that the House chose to dispose of the resolution adversely but
without taking a vote on the resolution. This may be done to avoid political
and/or practical situations that are inopportune for the majority party. For
example, a motion to table prevents a vote that might be used by the minority as
a messaging vote and, in addition, halts consideration of the resolution so that the
House may engage in the business previously planned by the majority party.

Congressional Research Service
15

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Appendix A. Scripts of Parliamentary Language
Used on the Floor
Parliamentary Language Used When a Member Gives Notice of a
Resolution
In most cases, a Member (other than the majority leader of minority leader) must first give notice
of his or her intention to offer the resolution.68 The parliamentary language used in such situations
is generally some variation of the following:
Member: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of Rule IX, I rise to give notice of my
intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as
follows: (At this point, the Member reads the resolution in its entirety, although he or she
may also ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.)
Speaker: Under Rule IX, 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 has
immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after
the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentlelady (or gentleman)
from (Member’s home state) will appear in the Record at this point. The chair will not at this
point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That determination
will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
(Within two legislative days the Member will be notified of the date and time when he or she
should rise to offer the resolution.)
Parliamentary Language Used When a Member Offers the
Resolution
When the resolution is offered, the parliamentary language used in such situations is generally
some variation of the following:
Member: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the
resolution previously noticed.
Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution. (The Clerk reads the resolution.) Does the
gentlelady (or gentleman) from (Member’s home state) wish to present argument on the
parliamentary question whether the resolution presents a question of the privileges of the
House?

68 Exceptions include a resolution that has been reported from committee, a resolution that has been offered on the floor
by the majority leader or the minority leader, or a resolution that has been offered as privileged under the Origination
Clause, which is the House’s constitutional right to originate all revenue measures (Article I, Section 7, clause 1, of the
Constitution). For more information, see the section above titled “Restrictions Governing When Questions of the
Privileges of the House Can Come to the Floor.”
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Member: Yes.
Speaker: The gentlelady (or gentleman) from (Member’s home state) is recognized for that
purpose.
Member: I rise today to ... (In the event that a Member’s remarks deviate from the subject of
a question of the privileges of the House, the Speaker pro tempore will remind the Member
to confine his or her remarks to the question.)
Speaker: Are there any other Members that want to be heard on this point?
Speaker: The resolution does not qualify (with explanation).
—or—
Speaker: The resolution qualifies. The Clerk will report the resolution. (The Clerk reads the
resolution.) The resolution presents a question of the privileges of the House. Pursuant to
clause 2 of Rule IX, the gentlelady (or gentleman) from (Member’s home state) and the
gentlelady (or gentleman) from (Member’s home state) each will control 30 minutes. The
chair recognizes the gentlelady (or gentleman) from (Member’s home state).


Congressional Research Service
17

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Appendix B. Questions of the Privileges of the
House (105th Congress-113th Congress [1995-2014])

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
113th
03/13/2014 H.Res. 517
Condemns the offensive
Rep.
n/a Table
217-173
and disrespectful manner Kildee
in which Chairman
Darrel E. Issa conducted
the hearing of the House
Committee on
Oversight and
Government Reform on
March 5, 2014.
Requires that he come
to the well of the House
of Representatives to
issue a public apology to
Members of the House.
113th
3/6/2014
H.Res. 504
Condemns the offensive
Rep.
n/a Table
211-186
and disrespectful manner Fudge
in which Chairman
Darrel E. Issa conducted
the hearing of the House
Committee on
Oversight and
Government Reform on
March 5, 2014, during
which he turned off the
microphones of the
Ranking Member while
he was speaking and
adjourned the hearing
without a vote or a
unanimous consent
agreement.
112th
12/12/2012 H.Res. 829
Returns to the Senate S.
Rep.
Agreed by
n/a
3254 (National Defense
Camp
voice vote
Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013),
including the Senate
amendment to H.R.
4310 (National Defense
Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013),
because, in the opinion
of the House of
Representatives, they
contravene the
Constitution.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
112th
6/29/2012
H.Res. 718
Disapproves of the
Rep.
n/a Table
259-161
behavior of the chairman Jackson
of the House
Lee
Committee on
Oversight and
Government Reform for:
(1) interfering with
ongoing criminal
investigations; (2)
insisting on a personal
attack against the
Attorney General; and
(3) calling him a liar on
national television
without corroborating
evidence, thereby
bringing discredit to the
integrity of the House.
112th
12/20/2011 H.Res. 504
Disapproves of the
Rep.
n/a Table
231-188
behavior of the
Edwards
Representative from
Florida, Mr. West, for
bringing discredit to the
House by offending the
memory of those who
died during the
Holocaust.
111th
9/23/2010
H.Res. 1653
Returns to the Senate
Rep. Levin Agreed to
n/a
specified bills, including
by voice
the Senate amendment
vote
to H.R. 5875
(Emergency Border
Security Supplemental
Appropriations Act,
2010), because, in the
opinion of the House of
Representatives, they
contravene the
Constitution.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
111th
4/22/2010
H.Res. 1287
Requires the Committee Rep. Flake n/a
Refer 402-0
on Standards of Official
Conduct to report to
the House of
Representatives, with
respect to the activities
addressed in its report
of February 26, 2010
(regarding possible
connections between
PMA Group campaign
contributions and
specific earmarks), on:
(1) how many witnesses
were interviewed; (2)
how many, if any,
subpoenas were issued
in the course of their
investigation; and (3)
what documents were
reviewed and their
availability for public
review.
111th
4/15/2010
H.Res. 1255
Requires the Committee Rep. Flake n/a
Refer 385-0
on Standards of Official
Conduct to report to
the House of
Representatives, with
respect to the activities
addressed in its report
of February 26, 2010
(regarding possible
connections between
PMA Group campaign
contributions and
specific earmarks), on:
(1) how many witnesses
were interviewed; (2)
how many, if any,
subpoenas were issued
in the course of their
investigation; and (3)
what documents were
reviewed and their
availability for public
review.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
111th
4/14/2010
H.Res. 1249
Directs the House
Rep.
n/a Refer
235-187
Committee on Standards Boehner
of Official Conduct to
(minority
investigate fully which
leader)
House Democratic
leaders and members of
their respective staffs
had knowledge before
March 3, 2010, of the
al egations concerning
former Representative
Eric Massa, and what
actions each leader and
staffer having any such
knowledge took after
learning of the
allegations.
Requires the Committee
to establish an
Investigative
Subcommittee regarding
such matter, or report
to the House of
Representatives the
reasons for its failure to
do so.
Requires the Chief
Administrative Officer
immediately to take all
steps necessary to
secure and prevent the
alteration or deletion of
any e-mails, text
messages, voicemails,
and other electronic
records resident on
House equipment that
have been sent or
received by Members
and staff who are the
subjects of such
investigation until
advised by the
Committee that it has
no need of any portion
of such records.
Requires the Committee
to issue a final report by
July 31, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
111th
3/25/2010
H.Res. 1220
Requires the House
Rep. Flake n/a
Refer 406-1
Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct to
report to the House of
Representatives, with
respect to the activities
addressed in its report
of February 26, 2010,
concerning al egations
related to earmarks and
campaign contributions,
on: (1) how many
witnesses were
interviewed; (2) how
many, if any, subpoenas
were issued in the
course of the
Committee’s
investigation; and (3)
what documents were
reviewed and their
availability for public
review.
111th
3/18/2010
H.Res. 1194
Declares that the House
Rep.
n/a Table
232-181
of Representatives
Cantor
disapproves of the
malfeasant manner in
which the Democratic
Leadership has
discharged the duties of
their offices.
111th
3/18/2010
H.Res. 1193
Requires the Committee Rep. Flake n/a
Refer 397-0
on Standards of Official
Conduct to report to
the House of
Representatives, with
respect to the activities
addressed in its report
of February 26, 2010
(regarding possible
connections between
PMA Group campaign
contributions and
specific earmarks), on:
(1) how many witnesses
were interviewed; (2)
how many, if any,
subpoenas were issued
in the course of their
investigation; and (3)
what documents were
reviewed and their
availability for public
review.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
111th
3/11/2010
H.Res. 1164
Directs the House
Rep.
n/a Refer
404-2
Committee on Standards Boehner
of Official Conduct to
(minority
investigate fully which
leader)
House Democratic
leaders and members of
their respective staffs
had knowledge before
March 3, 2010, of the
al egations concerning
former Representative
Eric Massa, and what
actions each leader and
staffer having any such
knowledge took after
learning of the
allegations.
Requires the Committee
to establish an
Investigative
Subcommittee regarding
such matter, or report
to the House of
Representatives the
reasons for its failure to
do so.
Requires the Chief
Administrative Officer to
immediately take all
steps necessary to
secure and prevent the
alteration or deletion of
any e-mails, text
messages, voicemails,
and other electronic
records resident on
House equipment that
have been sent or
received by Members
and staff who are the
subjects of such
investigation until
advised by the
Committee that it has
no need of any portion
of such records.
Requires the Committee
to issue a final report by
June 30, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
111th
10/7/2009
H.Res. 805
Removes Representative
Rep.
n/a Refer
246-153
Rangel as chairman of
Carter
the Committee on Ways
and Means pending
completion of the
investigation into his
affairs by the Committee
on Standards of Official
Conduct.
111th
9/15/2009
H.Res. 744
Declares that the House
Rep.
240-179 n/a
of Representatives
Hoyer
disapproves of the
(majority
behavior of the
leader)
Representative from
South Carolina, Mr.
Wilson, during the joint
session of Congress held
on September 9, 2009.
111th
7/29/2009
H.Res. 690
Declares that the House
Rep.
n/a Table
244-173
of Representatives views
Boehner
with disapproval the
(minority
failure of the
leader)
Democratic Members of
the Franking
Commission to ensure
that the Commission’s
Democratic staff carries
out its important
responsibilities in a
professional, fair, and
impartial manner.
111th
7/22/2009
H.Res. 667
Requires the House
Rep. Flake n/a
Table 224-189
Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct to
immediately establish an
investigative
subcommittee and begin
an investigation into the
relationship between: (1)
the source and timing of
past campaign
contributions to
Members of the House
related to the raided
prominent defense-
lobbying firm; and (2)
earmark requests made
by Members on behalf of
the firm’s clients.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
111th
6/3/2009
H.Res. 500*
Requires the House
Rep.
n/a Refer
270-134
Committee on Standards Hoyer
of Official Conduct to
(majority
report to the House on
leader)
the actions the
Committee has taken, if
any, concerning any
misconduct of House
Members and employees
in connection with
activities of the PMA
Group.
111th
5/12/2009
H.Res. 425
Requires the House
Rep. Flake n/a
Table 215-182
Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, or a
designated
subcommittee, to
investigate immediately,
for a report to the
House within two
months on, the
relationship between: (1)
the source and timing of
past campaign
contributions to
Members of the House
related to a certain
raided defense-lobbying
firm; and (2) earmark
requests made by
Members on behalf of
the firm’s clients.
111th
4/1/2009
H.Res. 312
Requires the House
Rep. Flake n/a
Table 217-185
Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, or a
designated
subcommittee, to
investigate immediately,
for a report to the
House within two
months on the
relationship between: (1)
the source and timing of
past campaign
contributions to
Members of the House
related to a certain
raided defense-lobbying
firm; and (2) earmark
requests made by
Members on behalf of
the firm’s clients.
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
111th
3/30/2009
H.Res. 295
Requires the House
Rep. Flake n/a
Table 210-173
Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, or a
designated investigative
subcommittee, to begin
immediately an
investigation and report
to the House on the
relationship between: (1)
the source and timing of
past campaign
contributions to
Members of the House
related to the raided
prominent defense-
lobbying firm; and (2)
earmark requests made
by Members on behalf of
the firm’s clients.
111th
3/25/2009
H.Res. 286
Requires the House
Rep. Flake n/a
Table 223-182
Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, or a
designated investigative
subcommittee, to begin
immediately an
investigation and report
to the House on the
relationship between: (1)
the source and timing of
past contributions to
Members of the House
related to the raided
prominent defense-
lobbying firm; and (2)
earmark requests made
by Members on behalf of
the firm’s clients.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
111th
3/19/2009
H.Res. 265
Requires the House
Rep. Flake n/a
Table 226-180
Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, or a
designated investigative
subcommittee, to begin
immediately an
investigation and report
to the House on the
relationship between: (1)
the source and timing of
past campaign
contributions to
Members of the House
related to Paul
Magliocchetti, founder of
the raided prominent
defense-lobbying firm;
and (2) earmark
requests made by
Members on behalf of
the firm’s clients.
111th
3/10/2009
H.Res. 228
Requires the House
Rep. Flake n/a
Table 228-184
Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, or a
designated investigative
subcommittee, to begin
immediately an
investigation and report
to the House on the
relationship between: (1)
FY2009 earmark
requests on behalf of
clients of the raided top
defense-lobbying firm
already made by
Members; and (2) the
source and timing of past
campaign contributions
related to such requests.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
111th
3/5/2009
H.Res. 212
Requires the House
Rep. Flake n/a
Table 222-181
Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, or a
designated investigative
subcommittee, to begin
immediately an
investigation and report
to the House on the
relationship between: (1)
earmark requests on
behalf of clients of the
raided top defense-
lobbying firm already
made by Members; and
(2) the source and
timing of past campaign
contributions related to
such requests.
111th
3/5/2009
H.Res. 189
Requires the House
Rep. Flake n/a
Table 222-181
Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, or a
designated investigative
subcommittee, to begin
immediately an
investigation and report
to the House on the
relationship between: (1)
earmark requests on
behalf of clients of the
raided top defense-
lobbying firm already
made by Members; and
(2) the source and
timing of past campaign
contributions related to
such requests.
111th
2/10/2009
H.Res. 143
Provides for removal of
Rep.
n/a Table
242-157
Representative Rangel as Carter
chairman of the
Committee on Ways
and Means, pending
completion of the
investigation into his
affairs by the Committee
on Standards of Official
Conduct.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
110th
9/18/2008
H.Res. 1460
Requires the Committee Rep.
n/a Table
226-176
on Standards of Official
Boehner
Conduct to establish an
(minority
Investigative
leader)
Subcommittee in the
matter of Representative
Charles B. Rangel or
report to the House the
reasons for its failure to
do so.
Removes Representative
Rangel as chairman of
the Committee on Ways
and Means, upon
adoption of this
resolution and pending
completion of such
investigation.
110th
7/31/2008
H.Res. 1396
Declares that: (1) the
Rep.
n/a Table
253-138
Member from New
Boehner
York, Mr. Rangel, by the
(minority
conduct giving rise to
leader)
this resolution, has
dishonored himself and
brought discredit to the
House and merits its
censure; and (2) such
Member is censured.
110th 7/15/2008
H.Res. Impeaches President
Rep.
n/a Refer
238-180
1345*
George W. Bush for
Kucinich
high crimes and
misdemeanors.
Sets forth an article of
impeachment stating that
President Bush, in
violation of his oath of
office, deceived
Congress with fabricated
threats of Iraq weapons
of mass destruction to
fraudulently obtain
support for the
authorization of use of
force against Iraq and to
commit troops to
combat in Iraq.
Congressional Research Service
29

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
110th 6/11/2008
H.Res. Urges the Chief
Rep. Wolf n/a
Refer- voice
1263*
Administrative Officer
vote
and the Sergeant at
Arms of the House of
Representatives to take
timely action to ensure
that all Members,
committees, and offices
of the House are: (1)
alerted to the dangers of
electronic attacks on the
computers and
information systems
used in carrying out
their official duties; and
(2) fully briefed on how
to protect themselves
and their official records
and communications
from electronic security
breaches.
110th 6/11/2008
H.Res. Sets forth articles of
Rep.
n/a Refer-
251-166
1258*
impeachment stating that Kucinich
President Bush, in
violation of his oath of
office: (27 articles are
included).
110th
5/22/2008
H.Res. 1221
Requires the Committee Rep.
n/a Table
220-188
on Standards of Official
Boehner
Conduct to begin an
(minority
immediate investigation
leader)
into the abuse of power
surrounding the
inaccuracies in the
process and enrol ment
of H.R. 2419 (Food and
Energy Security Act of
2007), vetoed by the
President on May 21,
2008.
Admonishes the Speaker
of the House, Majority
Leader, and other
Members of the
Democratic Leadership
for their roles in the
events surrounding this
enrol ment error.
Congressional Research Service
30

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
110th
3/12/2008
H.Res. 1040
Directs the Committee
Rep.
n/a Table
219-193
on Standards of Official
Boehner
Conduct to investigate
(minority
without further delay
leader)
violations of House rules
by Representative Dave
Obey and report its
findings and
recommendations to the
House, including a
recommendation
regarding the
appropriate action for
such violations.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
110th
3/12/2008
H.Res. 1039
Declares that the House: Rep.
n/a Table
215-193
(1) denounces any
Boehner
violations of House rules (minority
by Speaker Nancy Pelosi
leader)
and other Members of
the Democratic
leadership in the
strongest terms possible;
(2) rejects the practices
of holding votes open
beyond a reasonable
period of time for the
sole purpose of
circumventing the will of
the House; and (3)
directs the Speaker to
take such steps as
necessary to prevent any
further abuse.
Vacates the votes on
ordering the previous
question and adoption of
House Resolution 1031
(adopting H.Res. 895).
Directs the Committee
on Standards of Official
Conduct to investigate
and report to the House
on: (1) violations of
House rules by the
Speaker and such
Members; and (2) its
findings and
recommendations to the
House, including a
recommendation
regarding the
appropriate actions for
the Speaker’s activities.
Directs the Select
Committee to
Investigate the Voting
Irregularities of August
2, 2007, to investigate
and include in the report
its findings and resulting
recommendations
concerning the actions
of the Speaker, the time
the vote was held open
and the changes in votes
cast by members,
resulting in passage of
the previous question
vote to H.Res. 1031 on
March 11, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
32

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
110th
11/6/2007
H.Res. 799
Impeaches Richard B.
Rep.
n/a Refer
218-194
Cheney, Vice President
Kucinich
of the United States, for
high crimes and
misdemeanors.
Sets forth articles of
impeachment stating that
Vice President Cheney:
(1) has purposely
manipulated the
intelligence process to
deceive the citizens and
Congress of the United
States about a threat of
Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, and about
an alleged relationship
between Iraq and al
Qaeda, to justify the use
of the U.S. Armed
Forces against Iraq in a
manner damaging to U.S.
national security
interests; and (2) has
openly threatened
aggression against Iran
absent any real threat to
the United States, and
has done so with the
U.S. proven capability to
carry out such threats,
thus undermining U.S.
national security.
110th
10/23/2007 H.Res. 767
Declares that: (1) the
Rep.
n/a Table
196-173
Member from California, Boehner
Mr. Stark, by his
(minority
despicable conduct, has
leader)
dishonored himself and
brought discredit to the
House and merits its
censure; and (2) such
Member is censured.
Congressional Research Service
33

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
110th
8/4/2007
H.Res. 623
Directs the Select
Rep.
n/a Table
216-182
Committee to
Boehner
Investigate the Voting
(minority
Irregularities of August
leader)
2, 2007, to investigate
and include in its initial
report findings and
resulting
recommendations
concerning the actions
of a specified Member
while presiding over the
House of
Representatives on
August 3, 2007, at the
time the Republican
Leader offered H.Res.
612 (raising a question of
the privileges of the
House) and the actions
which led to the
differences between the
statements in the
Congressional Record and
those actually spoken on
that day.
Requires the
Congressional Record for
the legislative day of
August 3, 2007, to be
corrected to reflect
verbatim the words
actually spoken during
consideration of H.Res.
612.
110th
8/3/2007
H.Res. 612
Declares that, by certain
Rep.
n/a Table
211-178
actions on August 3,
Boehner
2007, a specified
(minority
Member has brought
leader)
dishonor and discredit
to the U.S. House of
Representatives by
misusing the powers of
the chair.
Congressional Research Service
34

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
110th
8/3/2007
H.Res. 611
Directs the Officers of
Rep.
Agreed by
n/a
the House of
Boehner
voice vote
Representatives to
(minority
preserve immediately all
leader)
records, documents,
recordings, electronic
transmissions, or other
material, regardless of
form, related to the
voting irregularities of
August 2, 2007.
Establishes a select
committee to: (1)
investigate the
circumstances
surrounding the record
vote requested on the
motion to recommit to
H.R. 3161, including the
Chair’s ruling over the
Parliamentarian's
objections; (2) report to
the House regarding the
actions of any Members,
officers, or employees of
the House engaged in
the disenfranchisement
of Members in voting on
the question of the
requested record vote;
and (3) recommend
changes to House rules
and procedures
necessary to protect the
voting rights of
constitutionally elected
Members chosen by the
people of the United
States of America.
Congressional Research Service
35

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
110th
8/3/2007
H.Res. 609
Requires the Committee Rep.
n/a Withdrawn
on Standards of Official
Hoyer
Conduct to review
(majority
immediately the
leader)
regularity of events
surrounding the vote on
the motion to recommit
on H.R. 3161
(Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and
Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act,
2008), which occurred
on August 2, 2007, and
report back to the
House of
Representatives.
110th
6/5/2007
H.Res. 452
Requires the Committee Rep.
Agreed 373-
n/a
on Standards of Official
Boehner
26
Conduct to: (1)
(minority
investigate without
leader)
further delay alleged
illegal conduct and
violations of House rules
by Representative
Wil iam J. Jefferson; and
(2) report its findings
and recommendations to
the House, including a
recommendation
regarding whether
Representative Jefferson
should be expel ed from
the House.
110th
5/22/2007
H.Res. 428
Declares that the
Rep.
n/a Table
219-189
Member from
Rogers
Pennsylvania, Mr.
Murtha, has been guilty
of a violation of the
Code of Official
Conduct and merits the
reprimand of the House
for the same.
Congressional Research Service
36

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
110th
1/24/2007
H.Res. 93
Disapproves certain
Rep.
n/a Table
223-189
actions taken by the
Boehner
Majority on the
(minority
Committee on Rules
leader)
(refusal to produce for
the Ranking Member a
copy of a letter from
another Minority
Member requesting
withdrawal of an
amendment he had
submitted for the
Committee's
consideration regarding
H.Res. 78).
Directs the Chairwoman
of the Committee to
undertake practices to
prevent future
occurrences.
109th
9/29/2006
H.Res. 1065
Directs the Chairman
Rep.
n/a Refer
410-0
and Ranking Minority
Pelosi
Member of the
(minority
Committee on Standards leader)
of Official Conduct to:
(1) immediately appoint
a Subcommittee,
pursuant to Rule 19 of
the Rules of the
Committee, to ful y and
expeditiously determine
the facts connected with
Representative Mark
Foley's conduct and the
response thereto; and
(2) make a preliminary
report within 10 days.
109th
4/5/2006
H.Res. 762
Directs the Committee
Rep.
n/a Table
218-198
on Standards of Official
Pelosi
Conduct to initiate an
(minority
investigation immediately leader)
of the misconduct by
Members of Congress
and their staff implicated
in the scandals
associated with Mr. Jack
Abramoff's criminal
activity.
Congressional Research Service
37

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
109th
3/30/2006
H.Res. 746
Directs the Committee
Rep.
n/a Table
216-193
on Standards of Official
Pelosi
Conduct to initiate an
(minority
investigation immediately leader)
of the misconduct by
Members of Congress
and their staff implicated
in the scandals
associated with Mr. Jack
Abramoff's criminal
activity.
109th
2/16/2006
H.Res. 687
Directs the Committee
Rep.
n/a Table
219-187
on Standards of Official
Pelosi
Conduct to begin an
(minority
immediate investigation
leader)
into the abuse of power
surrounding the
inaccuracies in the
process and enrol ment
of the Budget
Reconciliation legislation
(S. 1932) cleared for the
President on February 1,
2006.
109th
12/8/2005
H.Res. 591
Declares that the House
Rep.
n/a Table
219-188
of Representatives: (1)
Pelosi
denounces the culture of (minority
corruption exhibited by
leader)
the Republican
Leadership and the
ongoing resort to
illegitimate actions taken
to pass legislation like
the Prescription Drug
bill under false
pretenses; (2) rejects the
practice of improperly
holding votes open
beyond a reasonable
period of time for the
sole purpose of
circumventing the will of
the House; and (3)
directs the Speaker to
take such steps as
necessary to prevent any
further abuse.
Congressional Research Service
38

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
109th
6/16/2005
H.Res. 324
Declares that the House
Rep.
n/a Table
222-191
of Representatives: (1)
Nadler
strongly condemns the
manner in which
Representative
Sensenbrenner has
responded to the
minority party's request
for an additional day of
oversight hearings on
the reauthorization of
the USA PATRIOT Act,
and the manner in which
such hearing was
conducted; and (2)
instructs Representative
Sensenbrenner, in
consultation with
Representative Conyers,
to schedule a further day
of hearings with
witnesses requested by
members of the minority
party concerning the
reauthorization of the
USA PATRIOT Act.
109th
6/9/2005
H.Res. 310
Directs the House
Rep.
n/a Table
219-199
Committee on Standards Pelosi
of Official Conduct to
(minority
proceed, in accordance
leader)
with rule XI (Procedures
of Committees and
Unfinished Business) of
the Rules of the House
of Representatives, to
appoint, upon an
affirmative vote of the
majority of the Members
of the Committee, a
non-partisan professional
staff.
Congressional Research Service
39

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
109th
5/3/2005
H.Res. 253
Declares that the House
Rep.
n/a Table
220-196
of Representatives: (1)
Conyers
finds that the
Committee on the
Judiciary purposefully
and deliberately
mischaracterized five
amendments in House
Report 109-51; and (2)
directs the Chairman of
such Committee to
report to the House a
supplement to such
Report that corrects the
record by describing the
five amendments with
nonargumentative,
objective captions.
109th
4/14/2005
H.Res. 213
Requires the Speaker of
Rep.
n/a Table
218-195
the House of
Pelosi
Representatives to: (1)
(minority
appoint a bipartisan task
leader)
force with equal
representation of the
majority and minority
parties to make
recommendations to
restore public
confidence in the ethics
process; and (2) report
its findings and
recommendations to the
House by June 1, 2005.
109th
3/15/2005
H.Res. 153
Requires the Speaker of
Rep.
n/a Table
223-194
the House of
Pelosi
Representatives to
(minority
appoint a bi-partisan task leader)
force with equal
representation of the
majority and minority
parties to: (1) make
recommendations to
restore public
confidence in the ethics
process; and (2) report
its findings and
recommendations to the
House by May 2, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
40

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
108th
10/8/2004
H.Res. 845
Directs the Committee
Rep.
n/a Table
210-182
on Standards of Official
Pelosi
Conduct to: (1) establish (minority
an Investigative
leader)
Subcommittee to
determine if there is
substantial reason to
believe that by his past
and continuing conduct
Representative Tom
DeLay has violated the
Code of Official
Conduct or other
relevant laws, rules, or
regulations; and (2)
retain a Special Counsel
to assist in its
investigation.
108th
12/8/2003
H.Res. 474
Declares that the House
Rep.
n/a Table
207-182
of Representatives: (1)
Pelosi
denounces certain
(minority
actions taken during the
leader)
vote on H.R. 1
(Medicare Prescription
Drug and Modernization
Act of 2003); (2) rejects
the practice of holding
votes open beyond a
reasonable time for the
sole purpose of
circumventing the will of
the House; and (3)
directs the Speaker to
take such steps as
necessary to prevent any
further abuse.
Congressional Research Service
41

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
108th
7/23/2003
H.Res. 330
Declares that the House
Rep.
n/a Table
223-193
of Representatives: (1)
Pelosi
disapproves of the
(minority
manner in which
leader)
Representative Thomas
summoned the U.S.
Capitol Police to evict
minority party members
of the Committee on
Ways and Means from
the committee library, as
well as the manner in
which he conducted the
markup of legislation in
such Committee on July
18, 2003; (2) finds that
the bill considered at
that markup was not
validly ordered reported
to the House; and (3)
calls for the police
report to be placed in
the Congressional Record.
108th
7/18/2003
H.Res. 324
Declares that the House
Rep.
n/a 170-143
of Representatives
Pelosi
disapproves of the
(minority
manner in which
leader)
Representative Thomas
conducted the markup
of legislation in the
Committee on Ways
and Means on July 18,
2003, and finds that the
bill considered at that
markup was not validly
ordered reported to the
House.
107th
7/24/2002
H.Res. 495
Expels Representative
Rep.
420-1 n/a
James A. Traficant, Jr.
Hefley
from the House of
Representatives.
Congressional Research Service
42

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
107th
9/20/2001
H.Res. 240
Returns to the Senate
Rep.
agreed by
n/a
H.R. 2500 (FY2002
Thomas
voice vote
Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and
State, and the Judiciary,
and related agencies
appropriations) because,
in the opinion of the
House of
Representatives, it
contravenes the
Constitution and
infringes upon the
privileges of the House.
106th
10/27/2000 H.Res. 657
Directs the Speaker of
Rep.
n/a withdrawn
the House of
Young
Representatives to
certify to the U.S.
Attorney for the District
of Columbia a report of
the Committee on
Resources regarding the
refusal of specified
persons to produce
papers and to answer
questions under
subpoena before the
Subcommittee on Energy
and Natural Resources
and the refusal of the
Project on Government
Oversight to produce
papers subpoenaed by
the Committee
106th
10/24/2000 H.Res. 645
Returns to the Senate S.
Rep.
agreed by
n/a
1109 (bear protection)
Crane
voice vote
because, in the opinion
of the House of
Representatives, it
contravenes the
Constitution and
infringes upon the
privileges of the House.
Congressional Research Service
43

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
106th
7/27/2000
H.Res. 568
States that the
Rep.
n/a Table
213-212
conference report
Archer
accompanying H.R. 4516
(FY 2001 legislative
appropriations)
contravenes article I,
section 7 of the
Constitution, is an
infringement of the
privileges of the House
of Representatives, and
should be recommitted
to the committee of
conference.
106th
11/18/1999 H.Res. 394
Returns to the Senate S.
Rep.
agreed by
n/a
1232 (Federal erroneous Weller
voice vote
retirement coverage
corrections) because, in
the opinion of the
House of
Representatives, it
contravenes the
Constitution and
infringes upon the
privileges of the House.
106th
11/18/1999 H.Res. 393
Returns to the Senate S.
Rep.
agreed by
n/a
4 (Soldiers', Sailors',
Weller
voice vote
Airmen's, and Marines'
Bill of Rights) because, in
the opinion of the
House of
Representatives, it
contravenes the
Constitution and
infringes upon the
privileges of the House.
106th
7/15/1999
H.Res. 249
Returns to the Senate S.
Rep.
agreed by
n/a
254 (juvenile offenders)
Portman
voice vote
because, in the opinion
of the House of
Representatives, it
contravenes the
Constitution and
infringes upon the
privileges of the House.
Congressional Research Service
44

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
106th
1/6/1999
H.Res. 10
Appoints specified
Rep. Hyde Agreed 223-
n/a
Members of the House
198
of Representatives as
managers to conduct the
impeachment trial
against Wil iam Jefferson
Clinton, the President of
the United States.
Authorizes such
managers to exhibit the
articles of impeachment
to the Senate and to
take other necessary
actions related to the
articles of impeachment.
105th
12/19/1998 H.Res. 614
Appoints certain
Rep. Hyde Agreed 228-
n/a
Members of the House
190
of Representatives
managers to conduct the
impeachment trial
against President
Clinton, and authorizes
them to take all
necessary actions in
connection with the
preparation and conduct
of the trial.
105th 12/18-
H.Res. 611
Sets forth four articles
Rep. Hyde Agreed by
n/a
12/19,
impeaching William
voice vote
1998
Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United
States, for high crimes
and misdemeanors.
105th
10/15/1998 H.Res. 601
Returns to the Senate S.
Rep.
Agreed by
n/a
361 (rhinoceros and
Crane
voice vote
tiger conservation)
because, in the opinion
of the House of
Representatives, it
contravenes the
Constitution and
infringes the privileges of
the House.
Congressional Research Service
45

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
105th
10/8/1998
H.Res. 581
Authorizes the House
Rep. Hyde Agreed 258-
n/a
Committee on the
176
Judiciary, acting as a
whole or by any
subcommittee thereof
appointed by the
chairman for the
purposes hereof and in
accordance with the
rules of the Committee,
to investigate fully and
completely whether
sufficient grounds exist
for the House to
exercise its
constitutional power to
impeach President
Clinton. Requires the
Committee to report to
the House such
resolutions, articles of
impeachment, or other
recommendations as it
deems proper.
105th
9/23/1998
H.Res. 545
Impeaches Kenneth W.
Rep.
n/a Table
340-71
Starr, an independent
Hastings
counsel of the United
States, for high crimes
and misdemeanors.
105th
5/14/1998
H.Res. 431
Disapproves of the
Rep.
n/a Table
223-196
manner in which
Gephardt
Representative Burton
(minority
has conducted the
leader)
Committee on
Government Reform
and Oversight's
investigation of political
fund-raising
improprieties and
possible violations of
law.
105th
3/5/1998
H.Res. 379
Returns to the Senate S.
Rep.
Agreed by
n/a
104 (radioactive waste
Ensign
voice vote
disposal) because, in the
opinion of the House of
Representatives, it
contravenes the
Constitution and
infringes upon the
privileges of the House.
105th
2/12
H.Res. 355
Dismisses the election
Rep.
Agreed 378-
n/a
contest against Loretta
Thomas
33
Sanchez.
Congressional Research Service
46

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
105th
1/28/1998
H.Res. 341
Dismisses the election
Rep.
n/a Table
214-189
contest in the 46th
Gephardt
District of California.
(minority
leader)
105th
11/9/1997
H.Res. 318
Dismisses the election
Rep.
n/a Table
218-194
contest in the 46th
Gephardt
District of California.
(minority
leader)
105th
11/9/1997
H.Res. 315
Dismisses the election
Rep.
n/a Table
215-193
contest in the 46th
Gephardt
District of California.
(minority
leader)
105th
11/5/1997
H.Res. 307
Dismisses the election
Rep.
n/a Table
217-194
contest in the 46th
Furse
District of California
unless the Committee
on House Oversight
reports a
recommendation for its
final disposition before
the expiration of
November 7, 1997.
105th
10/30/1997 H.Res. 294
Declares that unless the
Rep.
n/a Table
217-193
Committee on House
Becerra
Oversight has sooner
reported a
recommendation for its
final disposition, the
contest in the 46th
District of California is
dismissed upon the
expiration of October
31, 1997.
105th
10/30/1997 H.Res. 293
Declares that unless the
Rep.
n/a Table
212-190
Committee on House
Condit
Oversight has sooner
reported a
recommendation for its
final disposition, the
contest in the 46th
District of California is
dismissed upon the
expiration of October
31, 1997.
Congressional Research Service
47

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
105th
10/30/1997 H.Res. 292
Declares that unless the
Rep.
n/a Table
214-187
Committee on House
Norton
Oversight has sooner
reported a
recommendation for its
final disposition, the
contest in the 46th
District of California is
dismissed upon the
expiration of October
31, 1997.
105th
10/30/1997 H.Res. 290
Dismisses the contested
Rep.
n/a Table
212-198
election in the 46th
Menendez
District of California
unless the Committee
on House Oversight
reports a
recommendation for its
final disposition before
the expiration of
October 31, 1997.
105th
10/30/1997 H.Res. 291
Declares that unless the
Rep.
n/a Table
216-200
Committee on House
Roybal-
Oversight has sooner
Allard
reported a
recommendation for its
final disposition, the
contest in the 46th
District of California is
dismissed upon the
expiration of October
31, 1997.
105th
10/30/1997 H.Res. 296
Declares that unless the
Rep.
n/a Table
214-196
Committee on House
Waters
Oversight has sooner
reported a
recommendation for its
final disposition, the
contest in the 46th
District of California is
dismissed upon the
expiration of October
31, 1997.
Congressional Research Service
48

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
105th
10/30/1997 H.Res. 295
Declares that unless the
Rep.
n/a Table
212-197
Committee on House
Hooley
Oversight has sooner
reported a
recommendation for its
final disposition, the
contest in the 46th
District of California is
dismissed upon the
expiration of October
31, 1997.
105th
10/30/1997 H.Res. 297
Declares that unless the
Rep.
n/a Table
208-192
Committee on House
Dooley
Oversight has sooner
reported a
recommendation for its
final disposition, the
contest in the 46th
District of California is
dismissed upon the
expiration of October
31, 1997.
105th
10/29/1997 H.Res. 287
Dismisses the contested
Rep.
n/a Table
218-200
election in the 46th
Gephardt
District of California
(minority
unless the Committee
Leader)
on House Oversight
reports a
recommendation for its
final disposition before
the expiration of
October 29, 1997.
105th
10/23/1997 H.Res. 276
Dismisses the contested
Rep.
Failed 204-
n/a
election in the 46th
Gephardt
222
District of California
(minority
unless the Committee
leader)
on House Oversight
reports a
recommendation for its
final disposition before
the expiration of
October 29, 1997.
Congressional Research Service
49

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
105th
9/18/1997
H.Res. 233
Instructs the Sergeant-
Rep.
Agreed 289-
n/a
at-Arms to remove
Menendez 65
former Representative
Robert Dornan from the
Hall of the House and
rooms leading thereto
and to prevent him from
returning until the
election contest
concerning the 46th
district of California is
resolved.
104th
9/28/1996
H.Res. 554
Returns to the Senate
Rep.
Agreed by
n/a
H.R. 400 (Gates of the
Crane
voice vote
Artic National Park and
Preserve land exchange)
because in the opinion of
the House of
Representatives it
contravenes the U.S.
Constitution and
infringes on the
privileges of the House.
104th
9/27/1996
H.Res. 545
Returns to the Senate S.
Rep.
Agreed by
n/a
1311 (establishing the
Archer
voice vote
National Physical Fitness
and Sports Foundation)
because in the opinion of
the House of
Representatives it
contravenes the U.S.
Constitution and
infringes on the
privileges of the House.
104th
9/24/1996
H.Res. 532
Requires the Committee Rep.
n/a Table
225-173
on Standards of Official
Lewis
Conduct to release to
the public the outside
counsel's report on
Speaker Newt Gingrich
by September 25, 1996.
Congressional Research Service
50

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
104th
9/24/1996
H.Res. 531
Directs the Committee
Rep.
n/a Table
390-11
on Standards of Official
Linder
Conduct to: (1) hire a
special counsel to assist
in the investigation of
the charges filed against
the Democratic leader,
Representative Richard
A. Gephardt; and (2)
submit all relevant
materials presented to,
or developed by, the
Committee to date on
the complaint to a
special counsel for
review and
recommendation to
determine whether the
committee should
proceed to a preliminary
inquiry.
104th
9/19/1996
H.Res. 526
Requires the Committee Rep.
n/a Table
225-179
on Standards of Official
Lewis
Conduct to release to
the public the outside
counsel's report on
Speaker Newt Gingrich.
104th
9/19/1996
H.Res. 524
Directs the Committee
Rep.
n/a Table
395-9
on Standards of Official
Linder
Conduct to: (1) hire a
special counsel to assist
in the investigation of an
alleged violation by
Representative Richard
A. Gephardt of the
House Rules; and (2)
submit all relevant
materials on such
complaint to the counsel
for review and
recommendation to
determine whether the
Committee should
proceed to a preliminary
inquiry.
104th
6/27/1996
H.Res. 468
Instructs the House
Rep.
n/a Table
229-170
Committee on Standards Johnston
of Official Conduct to
transmit the remaining
charges against Speaker
Newt Gingrich to the
outside counsel for his
investigation and
recommendations.
Congressional Research Service
51

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
104th
4/16/1996
H.Res. 402
Returns to the Senate S.
Rep.
Agreed by
n/a
1463 (amending the
Archer
voice vote
Trade Act of 1974 to
revise the definitions of
domestic industry and
like articles in certain
investigations involving
perishable agricultural
products) because in the
opinion of the House of
Representatives it
contravenes the U.S.
Constitution and
infringes on the
privileges of the House.
104th
3/21/1996
H.Res. 387
Returns to the Senate S.
Rep.
Agreed by
n/a
1518 (eliminating the
Archer
voice vote
Board of Tea Experts)
because in the opinion of
the House of
Representatives it
contravenes the U.S.
Constitution and
infringes on the
privileges of the House.
104th
10/25/1995 H.Res. 244
Requires the Speaker of
Rep.
n/a Table
236-189
the House of
Slaughter
Representatives to take
such action as necessary
to provide an
appropriate remedy (in
response to the use of a
forged document at a
hearing of the
Subcommittee on
National Economic
Growth, Natural
Resources and
Regulatory Affairs of the
Committee on
Government Reform
and Oversight) to ensure
that the integrity of the
legislative process is
protected and to report
his actions and
recommendations to the
House.
Congressional Research Service
52

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis

Vote on
the
Congress Date Resolution
Subject
Sponsor
Resolution Other
104th
11/30/1995 H.Res. 288
Requires the chairman
Rep.
n/a Table
218-170
and ranking member of
Johnston
the Committee on
Standards of Official
Conduct to report to
the House of
Representatives by
December 12, 1995,
concerning: (1) the
status of the
Committee's
investigation of the
complaints against
Speaker Newt Gingrich;
(2) the Committee's
disposition with regard
to the appointment of a
nonpartisan outside
counsel and the scope of
the counsel's
investigation; and (3) a
timetable for Committee
action on the
complaints.
104th
11/17/1995 H.Res. 277
Requires the chairman
Rep.
n/a Table
219-177
and ranking member of
Peterson
the Committee on
Standards of Official
Conduct to report to
the House of
Representatives by
November 28, 1995,
concerning: (1) the
status of the
Committee's
investigation of the
complaints against
Speaker Newt Gingrich;
(2) the Committee's
disposition with regard
to the appointment of a
nonpartisan outside
counsel and the scope of
the counsel's
investigation; and (3) a
timetable for Committee
action on the
complaints.
Source: Congressional Research Service (using the Legislative Information System and the Congressional Record).
Descriptions of the resolutions were taken from the “CRS Summary”, available on the Legislative Information
System.
Notes: In the 105th Congress, the House imposed a moratorium on raising certain questions of the privileges of
the House related to official conduct and ethics complaints. For more information, see House Manual, §703.
Congressional Research Service
53

---

Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis


Author Contact Information
Megan S. Lynch
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
mlynch@crs.loc.gov, 7-7853

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank James Saturno for providing valuable assistance during the designing and
writing of this report.
Congressional Research Service
54

---