[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 11. Questions of Privilege]
[E. Basis of Questions of Personal Privilege]
[Â§ 27. Words Uttered in Debate; Charges Inserted in the Record]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1670-1676]
 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 27. Words Uttered in Debate; Charges Inserted in the Record

Floor Debate as Basis for Privilege

Sec. 27.1 A question of personal privilege may not be based upon 
    language uttered upon the floor of the House in debate, the remedy 
    being the demand that the objectionable words be taken down when 
    spoken.

    This precedent was occasioned during certain House proceedings on 
Feb. 6, 1950.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 1514, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. See Sec. 11, supra, for a 
        discussion of this precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarks Made Under Leave to Revise and Extend

Sec. 27.2 Although a question of personal privilege may not be raised 
    to words uttered in debate at the time, such a question may be 
    based on objectionable remarks inserted by a Member in his speech 
    under leave to revise and extend his remarks.

    On June 24, 1937,(13) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to question of personal privilege, stating as the grounds for his 
action not only certain statements made by a Member during House 
debate, but also a statement inserted in the Record of the same day by 
another Member under leave to revise and extend his remarks. In his 
ruling granting recognition to Mr. Hoffman, the Speaker (14) 
made the following clarifying statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 6309, 6310, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. For an additional 
        illustration see 92 Cong. Rec. 5000, 79th Cong. 21 Sess., May 
        14, 1946.
14. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] has 
    presented a question of personal privilege, based upon two 
    propositions. The first is to language inserted in the Record 
    purported to have been uttered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Maverick], which language appears on page 6162

[[Page 1671]]

    of the Record of June 22, which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Hoffman] has quoted.
        The rule is--and it has been sustained and supported by the 
    practice and precedents for many years--when offensive language is 
    uttered upon the floor by a Member reflecting in anywise on a 
    fellow Member, or language is uttered to which the offending Member 
    desires to take exception, it is the duty of such Member instantly 
    to exercise his privilege and demand that the offending words be 
    taken down. This would give the House an opportunity to pass 
    judgment upon whether the language should be retained in the 
    Record, expunged, or other action taken.
        By confession, the gentleman from Michigan did not avail 
    himself of that opportunity, explaining he did not do so probably 
    because he was temporarily absent from the floor when the gentleman 
    from Texas used said language. Under such circumstances, of course, 
    the absence of the Member from the floor would be no justification 
    for him to be made an exception to the rule. It is to be assumed 
    that he is on the floor of the House at all times during the 
    session of the House.
        The Chair is therefore of the opinion that on that point of 
    personal privilege the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] is not 
    entitled to the floor on a question of personal privilege under the 
    rules and practices of the House. . . .
        The Chair stated there are two grounds upon which the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] bases his question of personal 
    privilege. The second ground is that on page 6161 of the Record of 
    the same date the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath] made certain 
    statements, as published in the Record, of which the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] complains.
        If, as a matter of fact, the gentleman from Illinois inserted 
    in the Record matters not actually stated by him upon the floor at 
    the time which gave offense to the gentleman from Michigan, it was 
    then the privilege of the gentleman from Michigan to raise that 
    question, as he has now raised it, as a matter of personal 
    privilege when his attention was called to the offending language.

Strike-breaking Activities

Sec. 27.3 A letter inserted in the Congressional Record by a Senator 
    alleging that a Member was gathering arms and assembling a private 
    army to march against workers on strike was held to give rise to a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On Apr. 11, 1938,(15) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
presented as involving a question of personal privilege a letter 
inserted in the Congressional Record by Senator Alben W. Barkley, of 
Kentucky, which contained the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 83 Cong. Rec. 5235, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When men like Congressman Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, openly 
    boast

[[Page 1672]]

    that they will assemble a strikebreaking private arsenal and 
    private army to march against workers in this country, it seems to 
    me that lovers of democracy and friends of workingmen must no 
    longer remain silent.

    In his ruling granting recognition to the Member, the Speaker 
(16) said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan rises to a question of personal 
    privilege based upon language he has already quoted and which will 
    appear in the Record, as taken from the Appendix of the 
    Congressional Record, page 1256.
        Of course, the question of whether or not a matter constitutes 
    a basis for rising to address the House on a question of personal 
    privilege under the rules is in many instances in what may be 
    called the twilight zone of parliamentary discretion on the part of 
    the Speaker, but the Chair has read the quotation to which the 
    gentleman from Michigan refers, and the Chair is of the opinion 
    that, at least by liberal construction of the rights of Members, 
    which the Chair is always disposed to grant, the gentleman from 
    Michigan is within his rights in rising to a question of personal 
    privilege, because the alleged language might bring into question 
    the rights, reputation, and conduct of a Member of the House.

        Therefore, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan on 
    a question of privilege.

Placing ``Scurrilous'' Matter in the Record

Sec. 27.4 A statement by a Member in his extension of remarks that 
    another Member had placed in the Record ``scurrilous'' matter was 
    held to give grounds for a question of personal privilege.

    On Aug. 27, 1940,(~17) Mr. Jacob Thorkelson, of Montana, 
rising to a question of personal privilege, read a statement inserted 
in the Congressional Record by Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, under 
an extension of remarks, which accused him of ``placing 210 full pages 
of scurrilous matter'' in the Record. Protracted debate on the question 
ensued, at the conclusion of which the Speaker,(~18) on 
hearing objection to a unanimous-consent request of Mr. Sabath that the 
remarks be expunged from the Record, recognized Mr. Thorkelson on a 
question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 11046-49, 11150-58, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Promoting Religious Strife

Sec. 27.5 An insertion in the Record in an extension of remarks of a 
    charge that a Member seeks to promote religious strife, gave rise 
    to a question of personal privilege.

    On Apr. 7, 1943,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
rose and

[[Page 1673]]

proposed as a question of personal privilege to call attention to 
certain language inserted in the Congressional Record by Mr. Emanuel 
Celler, of New York, in an extension of remarks charging him (Mr. 
Rankin) with promoting religious strife, demonstrating thereby his 
contempt for the spirit and traditions of America. Upon hearing the 
objectionable remarks the Speaker (20) said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 89 Cong. Rec. 3062, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair believes that the language not being spoken on 
    the floor and no recourse being had at that time, is a reflection 
    on the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] and the Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman for 1 hour.

Criticism of House Members by a Senator

Sec. 27.6 Insertion in the Record of Senate remarks charging a chairman 
    of a House committee with making a ``disgraceful effort to cram 
    down on a number of `pork barrel' provisions'' by insisting on a 
    meritorious provision in an omnibus bill to get votes for the other 
    items, gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 3, 1942,(1) Mr. Joseph J. Mansfield, of Texas, 
on a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the House 
to Senate remarks appearing in the Congressional Record implying that 
as Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs he had engaged in a 
``disgraceful effort to cram down a number of `pork barrel' 
provisions'' in a pending river and harbor bill by including in it a 
meritorious proposal, for purposes of obtaining votes for the other 
items. In ruling on the question of personal privilege, the Speaker 
(2) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 1880, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is convinced that the question is a very close one, 
    but the Chair is going to hear the gentleman from Texas.

Sec. 27.7 A Senator's action in inserting in the Record certain roll 
    call votes of the House together with critical comment and an 
    editorial critical of the House gave rise to a question of personal 
    privilege, where the inserted material identified individual 
    Members and their votes.

    On July 12, 1956,(3) the Speaker (4) 
recognized Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, on a question of personal 
privilege to call the attention of the House to a news

[[Page 1674]]

paper editorial and certain remarks by Senator Hubert Humphrey, of 
Minnesota, in the Congressional Record, which described House action on 
a particular bill as ``cynical politicking'' and which alleged that the 
House was guilty of ``shabby conduct.'' The material also gave rise to 
a question of the privilege of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 102 Cong. Rec. 12522, 12523, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.8 A newspaper column in which a bill to exempt a Member's 
    educational foundation from tax laws was described as coming ``as 
    near to making suckers out of all the rest of us as any piece of 
    tax legislation Congress ever enacted,'' reprinted in the Appendix 
    of the Record at the request of a Senator, gave rise to a question 
    of personal privilege in the House.

    On Jan. 28, 1958,(5) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
presented as involving a question of personal privilege a newspaper 
column inserted in the Congressional Record by Senator Albert A. Gore, 
of Tennessee. The column referred to a bill to exempt Mr. Cannon's 
educational foundation from the tax laws in the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 104 Cong. Rec. 1202, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . ``It came as near to making suckers out of all the rest 
    of us as any piece of tax legislation Congress ever enacted.''

    In his decision granting recognition to the Member, the Speaker 
(6) said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that under the circumstances the charges and 
    allusions made in the article just read by the gentleman from 
    Missouri are a reflection on him to such an extent that he may 
    claim the right of personal privilege.

Sec. 27.9 A Senator's accusation, reported in the Record, charging that 
    a Member of the House inserted in the Record an intemperate, 
    vituperative, and libelous attack on an individual, was held to 
    give rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On June 30, 1939,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of personal privilege to call attention to a 
statement made in the Senate by Senator Joel Bennett Clark, of 
Missouri, charging Mr. Hoffman with having inserted in the Record an 
intemperate, vituperative, and libelous attack on an individual. The 
Speaker (8) then recognized Mr.

[[Page 1675]]

Hoffman on a question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 8468, 8469, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charges Impugning Veracity

Sec. 27.10 A statement in an extension of remarks of a Member asserting 
    that another Member had brought dishonor and discredit on his 
    office by his use of scurrilous language and alleging that he had 
    distorted the words of the President was held to present a question 
    of personal privilege.

    On June 19, 1940,(9) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
on a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the House 
to certain language (set out below) inserted in the Congressional 
Record by Mr. Donald L. O'Toole, of New York, under permission to 
extend his remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 8642, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is not enough that the Member from Michigan should bring 
    dishonor and discredit upon the high position that he occupies by 
    his scurrilous language in regard to the highest office in the 
    land, but he also feels compelled to distort the words of the 
    President.

    Upon hearing the objectionable remarks, the Speaker (10) 
recognized the Member on a question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.11 A Member's insertion in the Record of a statement charging 
    that another Member echoed in the House a ``typical fascist lie,'' 
    was held to give rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Apr. 25, 1944,(11) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
presented as involving a question of personal privilege a statement 
inserted in the Congressional Record by Mr. Herman P. Eberharter, of 
Pennsylvania, alleging that Mr. Hoffman had echoed in the House a 
``typical fascist lie.'' In his ruling granting recognition to Mr. 
Hoffman, the Speaker (12) observed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 90 Cong. Rec. 3696, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks the statement in the Record which makes 
    charges against the gentleman from Michigan amounts to a question 
    of personal privilege.

Sec. 27.12 A letter printed in the Congressional Record Appendix, in 
    which certain statements made by a Member were said to be 
    untruthful, gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

[[Page 1676]]

    On June 18, 1958,(13) the Speaker (~14) 
recognized Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, on a question of personal 
privilege after Mr. Cannon directed attention to a letter appearing in 
the Appendix to the Congressional Record which described certain 
material attributed to him as a ``lie.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 11609, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------