[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 11. Questions of Privilege]
[D. Personal Privilege of Member]
[Â§ 22. Debate on the Question; Speeches]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1656-1658]
 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
                    D. PERSONAL PRIVILEGE OF MEMBER
 
Sec. 22. Debate on the Question; Speeches

Applicability of Hour Rule

Sec. 22.1 The hour rule applies to debate on a question of personal 
    privilege of a Member.

    On Apr. 19, 1972,(15) Mr. Cornelius E. Gallagher, of New 
Jersey, rose to a question of personal privilege. After hearing Mr. 
Gallagher's statement of the question, the Speaker (16) 
recognized him for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 13491, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to Member Raising Question

Sec. 22.2 On one occasion, a Member asked for a special order which he 
    used to respond to a question of personal privilege raised by 
    another Member, in order to deny any intention to impugn the 
    motives or veracity of that Member.

[[Page 1657]]

    On July 29, 1970,(17) the Speaker pro tempore 
(18) announced that, under a previous order of the House, 
Mr. Philip M. Crane, of Illinois, was recognized for 45 minutes. Mr. 
Crane then took the floor to respond to a question of personal 
privilege raised by Mr. Augustus F. Hawkins, of California, and denied 
any intention to impugn the motives or veracity of that 
Member.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 26436-39, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Harley O. Staggers (W. Va.).
 1. See 116 Cong. Rec. 26002, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 28, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special-order Speech as Alternative to Raising the Question

Sec. 22.3 Rather than raising the question of personal privilege, a 
    Member obtained unanimous consent to proceed for five minutes--to 
    refute a newspaper's criticism--during that part of the day when he 
    would normally have been recognized for only a one-minute speech.

    On June 29, 1962,(2~) during proceedings when Members 
were being recognized for one-minute speeches, the Speaker 
(3) recognized Mr. H. Carl Andersen, of Minnesota, for the 
purpose of seeking unanimous consent that he be permitted to proceed 
for five minutes to revise and extend his remarks. There being no 
objection to the request, the Member proceeded to refute a newspaper 
charge of improper conduct which had been made against 
him.(4~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 12297, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 4. Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Andersen had requested, before the 
        opening of the session, that he be recognized on the point of 
        personal privilege. Since the House had a busy schedule, the 
        Speaker suggested that the business of the House could be 
        expedited if Mr. Andersen would simply ask to proceed for five 
        minutes rather than take an hour under a point of personal 
        privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.4 On one occasion, in lieu of raising a question of personal 
    privilege, a Member took the floor for a one-minute speech to 
    respond to a newspaper article which included an unfavorable 
    reference to his congressional service.

    On Nov. 22, 1967,(5) Mr. Paul A. Fino, of New York, 
asked and was given permission to address the House. He then delivered 
a one-minute speech responding to a newspaper article which included 
derogatory comments on his congressional service.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 33693, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Fino had asked the Speaker to recognize 
        him on a point of personal privilege, but it was suggested that 
        a one-minute speech would serve his purpose equally well, since 
        there was no business scheduled for the day, and he could be 
        recognized following the reading of the Journal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1658]]

Sec. 22.5 Although in stating a question of personal privilege a Member 
    is required to confine his remarks to the question involved, he is 
    entitled to discuss related matters necessary to challenge the 
    charge against him.

    On Feb. 28, 1956,(7) during his statement of a question 
of personal privilege based on a newspaper article assailing his 
integrity, Mr. Craig Hosmer, of California, made reference to certain 
extraneous matters, including informational tables. A point of order 
against the statement of the question was raised by Mr. Byron G. 
Rogers, of Colorado, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 102 Cong. Rec. 3477, 3479, 3480, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . For the last 5 minutes the gentleman has made no 
    reference to the truth or falsity of the charge that he raised 
    under his question of personal privilege. On the contrary, he has 
    placed before the Members of the House a chart, and from that he 
    now proceeds to discuss the bill. It has no relation to the truth 
    or falsity of the charge. The gentleman has refused to permit 
    anyone to ask him any questions and proceeds to discuss this bill, 
    so that it does not come within the definition of personal 
    privilege, on which grounds he sought the floor.

In his decision overruling the point of order the Speaker pro tempore 
(8) said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair might state that he feels that the gentleman from 
    California is very close to the line where the Chair may sustain a 
    point of order. As the Chair understands it, the gentleman has the 
    right to discuss the facts involved in the pending bill insofar as 
    that is necessary in order for the gentleman to express his views 
    with reference to the charge of falsehood contained in the 
    editorial, and to answer that charge, and make his record in that 
    respect. The Chair again suggests to the gentleman from California, 
    having in mind the observations of the Chair, particularly those 
    just made, that he proceed in order and confine his discussion of 
    the bill at this time only to that which is necessary to challenge 
    the charge of falsehood contained in the editorial.