[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 11. Questions of Privilege]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1581-1585]
 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                        Questions of Privilege 


[[Page 1581]]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by John R. Graham, Jr., J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Introductory

    Sec. 1. In General

B. Privilege of the House

    Sec. 2. In General; Definition
    Sec. 3. Effecting Changes in House Rules or Orders
    Sec. 4. Raising and Presenting the Question
    Sec. 5. Time for Consideration; Precedence of the Question
    Sec. 6. Recognition to Offer; Determinations as to Validity
    Sec. 7. Consideration and Debate; Referral to Committee

C. Basis of Questions of Privilege of the House

    Sec. 8. General Criticism of Legislative Activity
    Sec. 9. Charges Involving Members
   Sec. 10. Charges Involving House Officers or Employees
   Sec. 11. Correcting the Record; Expungement of Words Uttered in 
            Debate
   Sec. 12. Enforcement of Committee Orders and Subpenas
   Sec. 13. Invasion of House Jurisdiction or Prerogatives
   Sec. 14. Service of Process on Members
   Sec. 15. Service of Grand Jury Subpena
   Sec. 16. Service of Process on House, Its Officers, or Employees
   Sec. 17. Service of Process on Committee Chairmen and Employees
   Sec. 18. Authorization to Respond to Process
   Sec. 19. Providing for Legal Counsel

[[Page 1582]]

D. Personal Privilege of Member

   Sec. 20. In General; Definition
   Sec. 21. Raising the Question; Procedure
   Sec. 22. Debate on the Question; Speeches
   Sec. 23. Precedence of the Question; Interrupting Other Business

E. Basis of Questions of Personal Privilege

   Sec. 24. Introductory; General Opinion or Criticism
   Sec. 25. Charges Before a Governmental Agency or Committee
   Sec. 26. Charges by Fellow Member
   Sec. 27. Words Uttered in Debate; Charges Inserted in the Record
   Sec. 28. Published Charges of Impropriety
   Sec. 29. Published Charges of Illegality
   Sec. 30. Published Charges Involving Legislative Conduct
   Sec. 31. Published Charges Involving Patriotism
   Sec. 32. Published Charges Impugning Veracity
   Sec. 33. Criticism of Members Collectively






                          INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
                                     

Abuse of House powers or institutions, Sec. 30.8
Adjournment, questions of privilege pending at, Sec. 5.5
Alteration of official transcript, charge of, Sec. 25.2
Appeal from Speaker's ruling, Sec. 6.3
Calendar Wednesday business, precedence of questions of privilege over, 
    Sec. 5.7
Character of Member, charges concerning
    atomic secrets, divulging, Sec. 26.2
    Communist Party affiliation, Sec. 25.1
    ethnic slur, Sec. 28.4
    hearing transcripts, altered, submitting, Sec. 25.2
    making oneself a ``damn fool'' Sec. 26.1
    questionable business affiliations, Sec. Sec. 26.3, 28.3
    ``vote selling,'' Sec. 28.1
Charges concerning Congress, resolution for investigation of, Sec. 8.3
Charges concerning the House, resolution for investigation of, Sec. 8.4
Charges made against other Members, Sec. 9.2
Charges or criticism involving unnamed Members, Sec. Sec. 26.1, 26.2, 
    33.1, 33.2
Committee chairman, improprieties as, Sec. 30.11

[[Page 1583]]

Committee employee, criticism of, Sec. 10.3
Committee of the Whole
    questions of personal privilege raised in, Sec. 21.4
    questions of the privilege of the House raised in, Sec. 4.3
Committee reports relating to questions of privilege
    applicability of three-day rule concerning, Sec. 5.10
    witness' refusal to be sworn, Sec. 12.2
    witness' refusal to respond to subpena duces tecum, Sec. 12.3
Committee responsibilities, avoidance of, Sec. 30.14
Committee witnesses, warrants detaining, Sec. 12.1
Communist Party affiliation, charge of, Sec. 25.1
Congress, criticism of, Sec. 8.1
Congressional Record, expurgations
    offensive articles, documents, or speech, inserted in, 
        Sec. Sec. 11.4, 11.5
    offensive House debate in, Sec. Sec. 11.2, 11.3
    offensive Senate debate in, Sec. 11.1
    remarks inserted in, through abuse of leave to print, Sec. 11.7
    remarks inserted without authorization in, Sec. 11.8
    unparliamentary language inserted in, under leave to extend, 
        Sec. 11.6
Congressional Record, resolution to correct inaccuracies in, Sec. 11.9
Congressional Record, resolution to restore remarks previously expunged 
    from, Sec. 11.10
Congressional Record, transcript of, submitted to the Speaker, 
    Sec. 21.2
Counsel, appointment of
    by Clerk, Sec. 19.3
    by House committee, Sec. 19.2
    by Speaker, Sec. 19.1
Court orders
    publication of committee report restrained by, Sec. 13.3
    service of, on Members, Sec. Sec. 14.9, 14.10
Criticism of Members
    generally, Sec. 8.2
    resolution for investigation of, Sec. 9.2
Debate, offensive remarks uttered during
    in relation to questions of personal privilege, Sec. 27.1
Debate, scope of
    in relation to questions of personal privilege, Sec. 22.5
    response to Member who raises question, Sec. 22.2
Deceptive conduct, charge of, Sec. 30.2
Deposition, notice of, served on Clerk, Sec. 16.18
Discovery orders
    issuance of, for committee papers, Sec. 17.9
    service of, on committee employees, Sec. 17.10
District of Columbia business, precedence of question of privilege 
    over, Sec. 5.8
Doorkeeper, criticism of, Sec. 10.2
Employees, committee, service of interrogatories on, Sec. 17.10
Executive invasion of House prerogatives, Sec. 13.2
Executive officer, improper attempt by, to influence Member, Sec. 9.1
Fascist sympathies, charge of, Sec. 31.4
Grounds for question of personal privilege, statement of, Sec. 21.1
Hour rule on debate, applicability of
    to questions of personal privilege, Sec. 22.1
    to questions of the privilege of the House, Sec. 7.1
House floor, control of, when questions of personal privilege arise, 
    Sec. Sec. 23.2, 23.3

[[Page 1584]]

House orders, collateral attack on, Sec. 3.2
House rules, effecting changes in, Sec. 3.1
Illegality, charges of, concerning Members
    criminal conspiracy, perjury, and tax evasion, Sec. 29.5
    fees, receipt of, Sec. 29.3
    forgery, Sec. 29.2
    sedition, Sec. 29.6
    tax irregularities, Sec. 29.4
    unspecified illegal acts, Sec. 29.1
Innuendos as raising question of privilege, Sec. 31.1
Interrogatories, service of, on committee employees, Sec. 17.10
Journal
    interruption of reading of, for questions of privilege, Sec. 5.6
    precedence of reading of, over questions of personal privilege, 
        Sec. 23.1
Judicial invasion of House prerogatives, Sec. 13.3
Legislative actions or record, criticism of, Sec. 24.1
Motion for adjournment, precedence of, over questions of privilege, 
    Sec. Sec. 5.1, 5.2
Motion for the previous question
    applicability of, to questions of the privilege of the House, 
        Sec. 7.3
    precedence of questions of privilege over, Sec. 5.9
Official conduct of Members, charges concerning
    abuse of franking privilege, Sec. 30.18
    abuse of powers or rank, Sec. Sec. 30.8-30.10
    accusation of traitorous acts, Sec. 26.5
    conflicts of interest, Sec. Sec. 30.6, 30.7
    ``cynical politicking'' and ``shabby conduct,'' Sec. 27.7
    dereliction of duties, Sec. 30.3
    ``disgraceful'' conduct, Sec. Sec. 30.15, 30.16
    evidence, confiscating, Sec. 30.4
    improper conduct in agency dealings, Sec. 30.17
    irresponsibility, Sec. 30.12
    making ``intemperate, vituperative and libelous'' attack, Sec. 27.9
    ``making suckers'' out of the taxpayers, Sec. 27.8
    misuse of public funds, Sec. 30.1
    placing ``scurrilous'' matter in the Record, Sec. 27.4
    ``pork barrel'' provisions, Sec. 27.6
    promoting religious strife, Sec. 27.5
    ``sneaking'' something over on the House, Sec. 30.2
    war controls, actions detrimental to, Sec. 30.5
Official conduct of Members, criticism of, Sec. Sec. 8.2, 24.1 et seq.
One-minute speech, use of, as related to questions of personal 
    privilege, Sec. 22.4
Patriotism of Members, charges concerning
    activities detrimental to national security, Sec. Sec. 31.12 et 
        seq.
    collaborating with a foreign enemy, Sec. Sec. 31.14 et seq.
    fascist sympathies, Sec. Sec. 31.4 et seq.
    generalized allegations, Sec. Sec. 31.1-31.3
    innuendos reflecting on patriotism, Sec. Sec. 31.1 et seq.
    sedition, Sec. 29.6
Political influence, exercise of, as improper, Sec. 26.3
Prima facie showing as to question of privilege, Sec. 4.1
Procedure, effecting changes in, Sec. 3.3
Process, response to, authorization for, Sec. 18.1

[[Page 1585]]

Questions of the privilege of the House
    appeal from Speaker's determination of, Sec. 6.3
    consideration of, by House committee, 57.4
    determination of, by Speaker, Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.2
    prima facie showing necessary for, Sec. 4.1
Recognition of Member on question of privilege, Speaker's power as to, 
    Sec. 6.1
Religious strife, promotion of, Sec. 27.5
Resolution, questions of the privilege of the House raised by, Sec. 4.2
Resolutions relating to critical publications, Sec. Sec. 8.3, 8.4
Response to Member who raises question, Sec. 22.2
Revenue legislation, interference with House power to originate, 
    Sec. 13.1
Rude conduct, allegations of, on the part of House employees, Sec. 10.2
Security risk, charging Member as being, Sec. 31.12
Senate debate, expungement of. by House resolution, Sec. 11.1
Senate invasion of House prerogatives, Sec. 13.1
Senator's criticism of House Member, Sec. 27.6
Special-order speech as alternative to question of personal privilege, 
    Sec. 22.3
Strike-breaking activities, charge of, Sec. 27.3
Subpena
    authorization for response to, Sec. Sec. 18.1-18.4
    court-martial issuance of, to Clerk, Sec. 16.17
    executive agency, issuance by, to Member, Sec. 14.8
    modification of, after service, Sec. 14.3
Subpena, issuance of, to
    Clerk, Sec. Sec. 16.7-16.9
    committee chairmen, Sec. Sec. 17.2-17.4
    committee employees, Sec. Sec. 17.5. 17.6
    Doorkeeper, Sec. 16.10
    House employee, Sec. 16.13
    Members, Sec. Sec. 14.2 et seq.
    Sergeant at Arms, Sec. Sec. 16.11, 16.12
Subpenas issued by grand jury to
    Clerk, Sec. 16.14
    committee chairman, Sec. 17.7
    committee employee, Sec. 17.8
    House employee, Sec. 16.16
    Members, Sec. Sec. 15.1, 15.2
    Sergeant at Arms, Sec. 16.15
Summons, service of, on
    Capitol Architect, Sec. 16.6
    chairman of committee, Sec. 17.1
    Clerk, Sec. 16.3
    House, Sec. 16.1
    Member, Sec. 15.2
    Sergeant at Arms, Sec. 16.4
    Speaker, Sec. 16.2
Traitorous acts, allegation of, Sec. 26.5
Unauthorized action by committee employee, allegation of, Sec. 10.3
Unnamed Members. criticism of. Sec. Sec. 26.1. 33.1
Veracity of Members, charges concerning
    charge of distorting the President's words, by fellow Member, 
        Sec. 27.10
    echoing a fascist lie, Sec. 27.11
    misleading the public, Sec. 33.1
    presenting falsehoods, Sec. 32.1
    stating a ``lie,'' Sec. Sec. 26.7, 27.12, 32.2
Vote, improper attempt to influence, Sec. 9.1

[[Page 1587]]



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
                            A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec. 1. In General



    The tradition of Anglo-American parliamentary procedure recognizes 
the privileged status of questions related to the honor and security of 
a deliberative body and its members. The House has accorded privileged 
status to such questions by Rule IX,(1) which provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 661 (1973). For pre-1936 rulings on 
        questions of privilege, see 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2521-
        2725, and 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 553-622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
    rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
    integrity of its proceedings; second, the rights, reputation, and 
    conduct of Members, individually, in their representative capacity 
    only; and shall have precedence of all other questions, except 
    motions to adjourn.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2521, noting that the object of Rule 
        IX was to prevent the loss of time which had theretofore 
        resulted from Members' obtaining the floor for a speech under 
        the pretext of raising a question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the rule, questions of privilege are divided into two 
classes--the first pertaining to the House collectively, the second 
pertaining to the Members individually. Whenever a question of 
privilege is properly raised on the floor by a Member, the Speaker must 
entertain the question and rule on its admissibility. And the 
disposition of such questions must precede the consideration of any 
other question except the motion to adjourn.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Precedence of the question, see Sec. 5, infra.
  

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

[[Page 1588]]



                      

                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
                       B. PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 2. In General; Definition


    Under Rule IX,(4) a question of the privilege of the 
House arises whenever its safety, dignity, or the integrity of its 
proceedings, is in issue. The question having been properly raised by 
the offering of a resolution, the Speaker initially decides whether the 
question presented constitutes a question of the privilege of the 
House. And, as the presiding officer of the House, it is customary for 
him to make a preliminary determination as to the validity of the 
question raised.(5) Appeal may be taken from the Chair's 
ruling, however, since the final determination regarding the validity 
of such a question of privilege rests with the House.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 661 (1973).
 5. See Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.2, infra.
 6. See Sec. 6.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Debate in the House on a question of privilege is limited to one 
hour(7) and may, like debate on other matters, be terminated 
by the adoption of a motion for the previous question.(8) Of 
course, the House may choose not to undertake consideration of a 
question of the privilege of the House, preferring instead to table or 
to commit the matter to a designated House committee for its study and 
recommendations before debate begins.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 7.1, infra.
 8. See Sec. 7.3, infra.
 9. See Sec. 7.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------




 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
                       B. PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 3. Effecting Changes in House Rules or Orders

Change in House Rules

Sec. 3.1 A question of the privilege of the House may not be raised to 
    effect a change in the rules of the House.

    On May 24, 1972,(10) during proceedings incident to the 
receipt of a report from the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union, Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New York, as a ``question of 
privilege of rule IX'' submitted the following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 118 Cong. Rec. 18675, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. For an additional example 
        see 79 Cong. Rec. 14667-69, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 24, 
        1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1003

        Resolved, That on May 24, 1972, at the hour of three forty-five 
    postmeridian the House shall stand in recess for fifteen minutes in 
    order that it may hear and receive petition for redress of 
    grievances relative to the war in Indochina to be presented by a 
    cit

[[Page 1589]]

    izen of the United States and further resolved that in order to 
    present such petition, the said citizen be permitted on the floor 
    of the House during such recess.

Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, then made the point of order that the 
resolution was not a privileged resolution. Following debate on the 
point of order, the Speaker (11) in his ruling on the point 
of order said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlewoman is out of order. The Chair cannot permit the 
    gentlewoman to speak out of order.
        The Chair has been very lenient in permitting the gentlewoman 
    to debate her point of order, but the point of order is obviously 
    in order.
        The gentlewoman undertakes to change the rules of the House or 
    to make an exception without unanimous consent and without a 
    special order of the House.
        The point of order is sustained, and the gentlewoman is out of 
    order.

Change in House Orders

Sec. 3.2 It is not in order by way of a point of personal privilege or 
    by raising a question of the privilege of the House to collaterally 
    attack an order properly adopted by the House at a previous time, 
    the proper method of reopening the matter being by motion to 
    reconsider the vote whereby such action was taken.

    On Feb. 13, 1941,(12) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of the privilege of the House and submitted a 
resolution requesting the restoration to the Record of certain remarks 
made by him and Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, during the previous 
day's proceedings. Such remarks had been deleted by the House pursuant 
to the adoption of a motion to expunge made by Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi. Following debate, an inquiry was heard from Mr. Hoffman as 
to whether the Chair had ruled on the question of the privilege of the 
House. Responding to the inquiry, the Speaker (13) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 979, 980, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The House would have to decide that, and, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the House did decide the matter when it expunged the remarks 
    from the Record. The Chair thinks, under the circumstances, that 
    the proper way to reopen the question would be by a motion to 
    reconsider the vote whereby the motion of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] was adopted. The Chair is of the opinion 
    that inasmuch as the question raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    was decided by a vote of the House on a proper motion, that he does 
    not now present a question of privilege of the House or of personal 
    privilege.

[[Page 1590]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: On the legislative day of Oct. 8, 
1968,(14) after repeated quorum calls and other delay 
pending approval of the Journal, a motion was adopted ordering a call 
of the House upon disclosure of the absence of a quorum. Thereupon 
another motion was adopted (before the quorum call commenced) directing 
that those Members who were not then present be returned to the Chamber 
and not permitted to leave until the pending business (approval of the 
Journal) be completed. No point of order was raised against that 
motion, although it was agreed to by less than a quorum, and no motion 
to reconsider was subsequently entered against the motion. 
Subsequently, during the continued reading of the Journal, Mr. Robert 
Taft, Jr., of Ohio, as a matter both of personal privilege and of the 
privileges of the House, moved that he and all other Members in the 
Chamber who had been there at the time of the last quorum call be 
permitted to leave the Chamber at their desire. While the Speaker 
(15) declined to entertain the motion as a question of 
privilege based upon Mr. Taft's contention that under the Constitution 
and rules the freedom of Members who were present should not be 
restricted, the specific argument was not made that the order had been 
agreed to by less than a quorum or that it was directed only to the 
attendance of absentees and not to those present in the Chamber. This 
precedent does not, then, stand for the proposition that an improper 
order of the House or the manner of execution of an order of the House 
can never be collaterally attacked as a matter of the privilege of the 
House--it merely suggests that the proper contention was not made when 
the question of privilege was raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214, 30215, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (calendar day Oct. 
        9, 1968).
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change in Conference Procedure

Sec. 3.3 A question of the privilege of the House may not be raised to 
    criticize or effect a change in conference procedure.

    On July 29, 1935,(16) Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, 
sub

[[Page 1591]]

mitted as a question of the privilege of the House, a resolution 
(~17) instructing certain House conferees to insist upon the 
exclusion from subsequent conference committee meetings of several 
experts and counsel who were present during a previous committee 
meeting at the insistence of the Senate conferees. A point of order was 
then made by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, that the resolution 
did not state a question of the privilege of the House and further 
said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 12007-13, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. For further examples 
        see 104 Cong. Rec. 12690, 12691, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., June 30, 
        1958; 103 Cong. Rec. 14737-39, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 14, 
        1957; and 84 Cong. Rec. 1367-70, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 14, 
        1939.
17. H. Res. 311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To say that the Senate committee, when it brings its experts to 
    advise them and to assist them in working out the parliamentary or 
    the legislative problems involved, is a matter that goes to the 
    integrity of the proceedings of the House of Representatives I 
    submit does not meet the requirement; and therefore the resolution 
    is not privileged. If they want to come in and ask new 
    instructions, and give the House the right to vote on the 
    instructions or what those instructions are to be, that might be a 
    different proposition, but that would not be a question of the 
    privilege of the House.

    Debate ensued, at the conclusion of which the Speaker 
(18) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 12013, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair does not wish to be understood as passing on the 
    merits of the question, because that is not within the province of 
    the Chair, but the Chair thinks there is a distinction between an 
    assault upon a member of a conference committee, as the gentleman 
    from Alabama has suggested, and the attendance at a session of a 
    conference committee of an employee of the Government upon the 
    invitation of the conferees of one House. The Chair thinks that 
    that is a matter of procedure that should be determined by the 
    conferees. In the event that the conferees are unable to agree, it 
    seems to the Chair that the remedy is provided in rule XXVIII. The 
    Chair does not believe that under the facts stated a question of 
    privilege is involved. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
                       B. PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 4. Raising and Presenting the Question

Prima Facie Showing

Sec. 4.1 The mere statement that the privilege of the House has been 
    violated and transgressed, unsupported by a further showing of a 
    prima facie violation or breach of the privilege of the House, does 
    not properly present a question of privilege.

    On Feb. 18, 1936,(20) Mr. Marion A. Zioncheck, of 
Washington,

[[Page 1592]]

submitted as a question of privilege the following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 80 Cong. Rec. 2312, 2313, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. For further 
        illustration see 88 Cong. Rec. 2005, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 
        6, 1942.
            Note: The resolution quoted above was apparently in 
        response to remarks by Mr. John Taber [N.Y.], made on the 
        preceding day, in which he criticized an alleged abuse by Mr. 
        Zioncheck of the privilege of extending remarks in the Record. 
        See 80 Cong. Rec. 2201, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the gentleman from New York, Mr. Taber, violated 
    and transgressed the privileges of the House Monday, February 17, 
    1936.

    A point of order was then made by Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New 
Jersey, asserting that the resolution did not raise a question of the 
privilege of the House. In his ruling, sustaining the point of order, 
the Speaker (21) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks the point of order is well taken. The 
    resolution does not set out a question of privilege.

Raised by Resolution

Sec. 4.2 Questions of privilege of the House are raised by resolution.

    On Sept. 5, 1940,(22) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of the privilege of the House, sought recognition 
to make a statement. A point of order was made by Mr. John E. Rankin, 
of Mississippi, that in order to obtain recognition on a question of 
the privilege of the House a Member must first offer a resolution. 
Following the subsequent parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Hoffman inquiring 
whether in fact he was required to offer a resolution before stating 
his question, the Speaker (1) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 86 Cong. Rec. 11552, 11553, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. For further 
        illustrations see 86 Cong. Rec. 5111, 5112, 5114, 76th Cong. 3d 
        Sess., Apr. 26, 1940; 80 Cong. Rec. 2201, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Feb. 17, 1936; 79 Cong. Rec. 5454, 5455, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Apr. 11, 1935.
 1. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman must offer his resolution first, under the rule.

In Committee of the Whole

Sec. 4.3 A question of the privilege of the House based upon 
    proceedings in the House may not be raised in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 24, 1972,(2) after the House had gone into the 
Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 118 Cong. Rec. 18675, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) For what purpose does the 
    gentlewoman from New York rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Bella S.] Abzug: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    resolution con

[[Page 1593]]

    cerning a question of privilege on rule IX.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman is not in order.
        Mr. [John J.] McFall [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the resolution.
        Mrs. Abzug: Mr. Chairman, a question of privilege under rule IX 
    in my understanding is in order at any time and it takes precedence 
    over any other.
        The Chairman: The Chair states the gentlewoman is not correct. 
    Question[s] of privilege of the House may not be raised in the 
    Committee of the Whole.



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
                       B. PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 5. Time for Consideration; Precedence of the Question

Precedence of Motions to Adjourn

Sec. 5.1 A question of privilege is not entertained pending a vote on a 
    motion to adjourn.

    On Apr. 15, 1970,(4) following a point of order 
objecting to a vote on a motion to adjourn based on the absence of a 
quorum, Mr. Louis C. Wyman, of New Hampshire, rose to a question of 
``privilege.'' The Speaker pro tempore (5) indicated that 
the pendency of the motion to adjourn precluded the entertainment of 
the question.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 11940, 11941, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
 6. By explicit provision Rule IX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 661 
        (1973), mandates that questions of privilege ``shall have 
        precedence of all other questions, except motions to adjourn.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.2 The House may adjourn pending a decision on a question of 
    privilege of the House.

    On June 5, 1940,(7) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, 
offered a resolution (8) raising a question of the privilege 
of the House. A point of order that a quorum was not present was then 
made by Mr. William P. Cole, of Maryland. When the count of the House 
by the Speaker (9) disclosed the absence of a quorum, the 
House agreed to a motion offered by Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
adjourning until the following day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 86 Cong. Rec. 7633, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 8. H. Res. 510.
 9. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence of Question of Privilege

Sec. 5.3 Parliamentarian's Note: A question of privilege has priority 
    over all other questions except motions to adjourn,(10) 
    and supercedes the consideration of the original question
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule IX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 661 (1973), and 3 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 2521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1594]]

    and must be disposed of first.(11)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 458, and annotation 
        to Rule IX, Sec. 664 (1973); and 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence of Prior Question of Privilege

Sec. 5.4 At a time when a question of privilege is pending in the 
    House, a Member will not be recognized to present another question 
    of privilege.

    On May 28, 1936,(12) Mr. C. Jasper Bell, of Missouri, 
offered a privileged resolution (13) raising a question of 
the privileges of the House. Thereafter, Mr. Joseph P. Monaghan, of 
Montana, sought recognition to raise a point of personal privilege and 
of the privilege of the House. Declining to extend recognition, the 
Speaker (14) stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 8222, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. For a similar example see 
        80 Cong. Rec. 5704-06, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 20, 1936.
13. H. Res. 532.
14. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 8222, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 28, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question now pending is a question of the privilege of the 
    House, and that takes precedence over the question of privilege of 
    the gentleman from Montana. There can be only one question of 
    privilege before the House at a time, and one is now pending.

Question of Privilege as Unfinished Business

Sec. 5.5 A question of the privilege of the House pending at the time 
    of adjournment becomes the unfinished business on the next day.

    On Aug. 27, 1940,(16) the House adjourned during debate 
on a resolution involving the question of the privilege of the House 
offered by Mr. Jacob Thorkelson, of Montana. At the commencement of the 
succeeding day's business the Speaker (17) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 11046-49, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. For an additional 
        example see 112 Cong. Rec. 27641, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 19, 
        1966.
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The unfinished business before the House is the question of the 
    privilege of the House raised by the gentleman from Montana. Does 
    the gentleman from Montana desire to be recognized?

Precedence as to the Journal

Sec. 5.6 The Speaker indicated that, unlike a question of personal 
    privilege, a question of the privilege of the House could interrupt 
    the reading of the Journal.

    On the legislative day of Oct. 8, 1968,(18) during the 
reading of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214-16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1968 
        (calendar day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1595]]

Journal the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [Robert] Taft [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: (19) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Ohio rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker. That is not in order until the reading of the Journal has 
    been completed.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state his privileged 
    motion?
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, my motion is on a point of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state whether it is a 
    point of personal privilege or a privileged motion?
        Mr. Taft: It is a privileged motion, and a motion of personal 
    privilege.
        Under rule IX questions of personal privilege are privileged 
    motions, ahead of the reading of the Journal.
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a 
    question of personal privilege should be made later after the 
    Journal has been disposed of.
        If the gentleman has a matter of privilege of the House, that 
    is an entirely different situation.
        Mr. Taft: I believe, Mr. Speaker, this involves not only 
    personal privilege as an individual, but also as a Member of the 
    House and also the privileges of all Members of the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not recognize the gentleman at this 
    time on a matter of personal privilege.
        But the Chair will, after the pending matter, the reading of 
    the Journal has been disposed of, recognize the gentleman if the 
    gentleman seeks recognition.

Precedence Over Calendar Wednesday Business

Sec. 5.7 A matter involving the privilege of the House takes precedence 
    over the continuation of the call of committees under the Calendar 
    Wednesday rule.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(20) during the call of committees 
pursuant to the Calendar Wednesday rule,(1) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 1695, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.

        The Speaker.(2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, this is Calendar Wednesday, and I 
    ask that the business of Calendar Wednesday proceed. I submit that 
    the regular order is the continuation of the call of committees by 
    the Clerk.
        The Speaker: The Chair at this time is going to lay before the 
    House a matter of highest privilege.

The Speaker then laid before the House as a matter involving the 
privileges of the House a communication from the Clerk of the House 
reporting the receipt of a

[[Page 1596]]

subpena duces tecum from a U.S. district court.

Precedence Over District of Columbia Business

Sec. 5.8 A resolution involving a question of the privilege of the 
    House takes precedence over District of Columbia business under 
    Rule XXIV clause 8.

    On Dec. 14, 1970,(3) it being the day set aside by House 
rule (4) for consideration of District of Columbia business, 
the House nevertheless entertained a resolution (5) 
concerning the printing and publishing of a report of the Committee on 
Internal Security presented by Mr. Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, as a 
matter involving the question of the privilege of the House. Mr. Ichord 
stated in part as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 41355, 41358, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Rule XXIV clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 899 (1973).
 5. H. Res. 1306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I rise to a question of privilege in a matter affecting the 
    rights of the House collectively, the integrity of its proceedings, 
    and the rights of the Members in their respective capacity. See 
    House rule XI. As you know, this question comes before us as a 
    consequence of proceedings instituted on October 13, 1970, in the 
    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the 
    filing, printing, publishing, and dissemination of a report of the 
    House Committee on Internal Security (No. 91-1607), titled 
    ``Limited Survey of Honoraria Given Guest Speakers for Engagements 
    at Colleges and Universities,'' which I reported to the House on 
    October 14. On October 28, 1970, a single judge of that court . . . 
    entered a final order permanently enjoining the Public Printer and 
    the Superintendent of Documents from printing and distributing any 
    copy of the report, or any portion, restatement, or facsimile 
    thereof, and declared that any publication of the report at public 
    expense would be illegal. . . .
        Never in the constitutional history of this Nation . . . has 
    any court of the United States . . . sustained any such final 
    restraint upon the printing and dissemination of a report of a 
    committee of the Congress.

Precedence Over Motion for the Previous Question

Sec. 5.9 A resolution properly asserting a question of the privilege of 
    the House could take precedence over a motion for the previous 
    question on a bill already reported from the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 24, 1972,(6) the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union rose and reported to the House a bill 
(7) con

[[Page 1597]]

cerning certain appropriations for the Department of Transportation. 
Thereafter, prior to consideration of the motion for the previous 
question on the bill made by Mr. John J. McFall, of California, Ms. 
Bella S. Abzug, of New York, submitted a resolution (8) 
asserting as a question of privilege of the House that the House recess 
for the purpose of receiving a petition for the redress of certain 
grievances. After the resolution was read, the Speaker (9) 
sustained a point of order that the resolution did not state a question 
of the privileges of the House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 18675, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. H.R. 15097.
 8. H. Res. 1003.
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
10. See Sec. 3.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Three-day Rule Regarding Committee Reports

Sec. 5.10 A committee report submitted as a matter involving the 
    privileges of the House, as distinguished from a report merely 
    privileged under the rules, may be considered on the same day 
    reported notwithstanding the requirement by House rule that 
    committee reports be available to Members at least three calendar 
    days prior to their consideration.

    On July 13, 1971,(11) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, rising to a question of the privilege of the House, sought to 
submit and call up for immediate consideration a report (12) 
of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on the contemptuous 
conduct of a witness in refusing to respond to a subpoena duces tecum 
issued by the committee. A point of order was then raised by Mr. Sam M. 
Gibbons, of Florida, that consideration of the matter violated a House 
rule (13) requiring committee reports to be available to 
Members for at least three calendar days prior to their consideration. 
Following some debate, the Speaker (14) in overruling the 
point of order stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 117 Cong. Rec. 24720-23, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H. Rept. No. 92-349.
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 735 (1973).
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has studied clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI and the 
    legislative history in connection with its inclusion in the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. That clause provides that 
    ``a matter shall not be considered in the House unless the report 
    has been available for at least 3 calendar days.''
        The Chair has also examined rule IX, which provides that:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the

[[Page 1598]]

        House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of 
        its proceedings . . . and shall have precedence of all other 
        questions, except motions to adjourn.

        Under the precedents, a resolution raising a question of the 
    privileges of the House does not necessarily require a report from 
    a committee. Immediate consideration of a question of privilege of 
    the House is inherent in the whole concept of privilege. When a 
    resolution is presented, the House may then make a determination 
    regarding its disposition.
        When a question is raised that a witness before a House 
    committee has been contemptuous, it has always been recognized that 
    the House has the implied power under the Constitution to deal 
    directly with such conduct so far as is necessary to preserve and 
    exercise its legislative authority. However, punishment for 
    contemptuous conduct involving the refusal of a witness to testify 
    or produce documents is now generally governed by law--Title II, 
    United States Code, sections 192-194--which provides that whenever 
    a witness fails or refuses to appear in response to a committee 
    subpoena, or fails or refuses to testify or produce documents in 
    response thereto, such fact may be reported to the House. Those 
    reports are of high privilege.
        When a resolution raising a question of privilege of the House 
    is submitted by a Member and called up as privileged, that 
    resolution is also subject to immediate disposition as the House 
    shall determine.
        The implied power under the Constitution for the House to deal 
    directly with matters necessary to preserve and exercise its 
    legislative authority; the provision in rule IX that questions of 
    privilege of the House shall have precedence of all other 
    questions; and the fact that the report of the committee has been 
    filed by the gentleman from West Virginia as privileged--all refute 
    the argument that the 3-day layover requirement of clause 27(d)(4) 
    applies in this situation.
        The Chair holds that the report is of such high privilege under 
    the inherent constitutional powers of the House and under rule IX 
    that the provisions of clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI are not 
    applicable.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
                       B. PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 6. Recognition to Offer; Determinations as to Validity

Speaker's Power to Recognize Member

Sec. 6.1 Questions asserted to involve the privilege of the House are 
    addressed to the Speaker; and he may refuse recognition if the 
    resolution is not shown to be admissible as a question of privilege 
    under the rule.

    On the legislative day of Oct. 8, 1968,(15) Mr. Robert 
Taft, Jr., of Ohio, presented a resolution pur

[[Page 1599]]

portedly involving a question of the privilege of the House. However, 
the Speaker (16) ruled that the Member could not be 
recognized for the purpose of calling up such a resolution. (See 
Sec. 3.2, supra.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214, 30215, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1968 
        (calendar day).
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parliamentary inquiry was then raised by Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of 
Michigan, questioning whether in fact the gentleman from Ohio had been 
recognized for the purpose of offering the resolution. Answering in the 
negative, the Speaker stated:(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 30215, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1968 (calendar 
        day Oct. 9, 1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan is well aware of the 
    fact that the question of recognition rests with the Chair. The 
    gentleman did not make a motion which was in order by reason of the 
    action heretofore taken by the House.

Preliminary Determinations; Deferral of Recognition

Sec. 6.2 On one occasion, the Chair deferred ruling on the validity of 
    a resolution presented as raising a question of the privilege of 
    the House.

    On May 21, 1941,~(18~) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, submitted a resolution purportedly raising a question of the 
privilege of the House. Explaining his unwillingness to immediately 
entertain the resolution, the Speaker (19) 
said:20~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 87 Cong. Rec. 4307, 4308, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
20. 87 Cong. Rec. 4308, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 21, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . For the moment at least the Chair would hesitate to hold 
    that the gentleman's resolution is privileged. The Chair assures 
    the gentleman that he would like to look into it further. He would 
    hesitate to hold at this time that the general criticism of Members 
    of the House is a matter so involving the privileges of the House 
    that a resolution of this kind would be in order. . . .
        The Chair desires to look into the matter and will talk with 
    the gentleman personally or recognize him in the House later in the 
    day.

    No further action was taken on the floor or by the Speaker.

Appeal From Speaker's Ruling

Sec. 6.3 On one occasion when an appeal was taken from the Speaker's 
    decision that a resolution did not state a question of the 
    privilege of the House, the House laid the appeal on the table, 
    thereby sustaining the decision of the Chair.

    On the legislative day of Oct. 8, 1968,(21~) Mr. Robert 
Taft, Jr., of

[[Page 1600]]

Ohio, presented a resolution which he asserted raised a question 
involving the privilege of the House. However, the Speaker 
(22) ruled that the Member could not be recognized for the 
purpose of presenting such a resolution. (See Sec. 3.2, supra.) Mr. 
Taft then appealed the ruling of the Chair. Immediately thereafter, Mr. 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, moved that the appeal be laid on the table. 
The question was taken and, by a vote of 136 yeas to 102 nays, the 
motion to lay the appeal on the table was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214, 30215, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1968 
        (calendar day).
22. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
                       B. PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 7. Consideration and Debate; Referral to Committee

Hour Rule on Debate

Sec. 7.1 The hour rule applies to debate on a question of the privilege 
    of the House.

    On Feb. 6, 1950,(1) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
following his submission of a resolution raising a question of the 
privileges of the House, inquired of the Speaker (2) as to 
whether he was entitled to one hour of debate. In response to the 
inquiry the Speaker stated, ``If it is a question of the privilege of 
the House, the gentleman would be.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 96 Cong. Rec. 1514, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. For further illustration, 
        see 116 Cong. Rec. 41358, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 14, 1970; 
        113 Cong. Rec. 6041, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 9, 1967; 92 
        Cong. Rec. 5001, 79th Cong. 3d Sess., May 14, 1946; and 86 
        Cong. Rec. 5111, 5112, 5114, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 26, 
        1940.
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Debate or Argument

Sec. 7.2 A Member having been recognized on a question of the privilege 
    of the House must confine himself to such question.

    On Aug. 27, 1940,(3) Mr. Jacob Thorkelson, of Montana, 
presented a resolution raising the question of personal privilege and 
of the privilege of the House. At issue were remarks inserted in the 
Congressional Record by Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois. Mr. 
Thorkelson, in presenting the resolution, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 86 Cong. Rec. 11046, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is of the utmost importance that the Congressional Record be 
    a true record of the proceedings of the House. The integrity of the 
    Record is destroyed by the insertion of remarks purporting to have 
    been made on the floor of the House, but which were not so made, 
    when no permission has been granted by the House to insert those 
    remarks.

[[Page 1601]]

        The remarks which have just been quoted as having been inserted 
    in the Record by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath] were not 
    made on the floor of the House and violate the rules of the House 
    in two particulars.
        First, the remarks charge that the Member from Montana had 
    inserted 210 pages of ``scurrilous matter'' in the Record. 
    ``Scurrilous,'' among other things, means ``grossly offensive,'' 
    ``vulgar,'' ``opprobrious.''
        Such remarks reflect upon the character, the reputation, of the 
    Member from Montana; tend to hold him up to ridicule; reflect upon 
    his ability, his reputation, and his character in his 
    representative capacity.
        They also charge him with having inserted in the Record a 
    forged letter.

    Subsequently, the Speaker (4) stated that Mr. 
Thorkelson's assertions did not ``raise a question of veracity [but 
did] raise a question in reference to the Record itself, as to whether 
or not such permission was obtained by the gentleman from Illinois.'' 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
 5. 86 Cong. Rec. 11049, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later in the proceedings, when Mr. Thorkelson sought to introduce 
matter relevant to the alleged imputation of untruthfulness, the 
following exchange took place: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 11156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: On what phase is the gentleman addressing himself 
    so far as the question of privilege is concerned?. . .
        Mr. Thorkelson: With regard to whether I have uttered truths or 
    falsehoods. I believe that is part of my resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not find any language in the 
    gentleman's resolution where he is charged with an untruth or 
    falsity. . . . The only question of privilege involved is whether 
    or not the matter was put in without permission of the House. . . . 
    The Chair does not desire to interrupt the continuity of the 
    gentleman's argument, but the Chair is under some obligation to see 
    that the gentleman conforms with the rules and discusses the matter 
    of privilege about which he complains.

Applicability of Previous Question

Sec. 7.3 The previous question applies to a question of the privilege 
    of the House.

    On Apr. 26, 1940,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
presented a resolution raising a question of the privilege of the 
House. Debate on the resolution then ensued. Thereafter, the Member 
moved the previous question on his resolution, the previous question 
ultimately being rejected on a division--ayes 102, noes 139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 86 Cong. Rec. 5111-14, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.

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

[[Page 1602]]

Referral of Question to Committee

Sec. 7.4 The House may refer to the Committee on Rules for 
    consideration a question involving the privilege of the House.

    On Jan. 23, 1940 (8) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
submitted a resolution (9) involving a question of the 
privilege of the House. Immediately thereafter, the House agreed to a 
motion which committed the resolution to the Committee on Rules for its 
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 86 Cong. Rec. 606, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 9. H. Res. 366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.5 The House by resolution may refer a matter to a designated 
    committee for its determination as to whether the matter involves a 
    question of the privilege of the House.

    On Mar. 26, 1953,(10) the House adopted a resolution 
(11) submitted by Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, 
authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to determine 
whether the service of subpenas upon certain Members, former Members, 
and employees of the House, relative to a civil suit, constituted a 
question involving the privilege of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 99 Cong. Rec. 2356-58, 83d Cong. 1st Sess. For additional 
        illustration of the same point, see 87 Cong. Rec. 8734-39, 77th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 10, 1941.
11. H. Res. 190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 8. General Criticism of Legislative Activity


Criticism of Congress

Sec. 8.1 A newspaper editorial making a general criticism of the 
    Congress does not present a question of personal privilege or the 
    privilege of the House.

    On Sept. 22, 1941,(12) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, sought to submit, as a matter presenting a question both of 
personal privilege and of the privilege of the House, the text of a 
newspaper editorial charging Congress with ``inertia, cowardice, and 
political

[[Page 1603]]

slickness,'' thereby detracting from the authority and respect bestowed 
by the Constitution. In his ruling declining recognition to the Member 
for the purpose of submitting the editorial in question, the Speaker 
(13) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 7500, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair does not think that an editorial in a paper 
    making general criticism of Congress raises a question of the 
    privileges of the House, and certainly no Member of the House in 
    his individual capacity is attacked in this resolution, and, 
    therefore, the Chair must hold that this is not a question of 
    personal privilege or a question of the privilege of the House.

Criticism of Members Generally

Sec. 8.2 A newspaper editorial charging Members of the House with 
    demagoguery and willingness to punish the District of Columbia did 
    not give rise to a question of the privilege of the House.

    On May 21, 1941,(14) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered as a matter raising a question of the privilege of the House, a 
resolution requesting the appointment of a committee to investigate and 
report on a newspaper editorial which charged Members of the House with 
demagoguery and willingness to punish the District of Columbia to win 
votes back home. In his ruling on the validity of the resolution as 
raising a question of the privilege of the House, the Speaker 
(15) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 4307, 4308, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . For the moment at least the Chair would hesitate to hold 
    that the gentleman's resolution is privileged. The Chair assures 
    the gentleman that he would like to look into it further. He would 
    hesitate to hold at this time that the general criticism of Members 
    of the House is a matter so involving the privileges of the House 
    that a resolution of this kind would be in order.

    No further floor action was taken by the Speaker with respect to 
this resolution.

Resolutions Relating to Critical Publications

Sec. 8.3 A resolution providing for an investigation of newspaper 
    charges, including allegations of criminal conduct by the Congress, 
    was presented as a question of the privilege of the House.

    On Nov. 28, 1941,(16) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
presented as a question of the privilege of the House a resolution 
(17)

[[Page 1604]]

seeking the factual basis for a newspaper article charging Congress 
with lack of courage, with being ``yellow,'' with having ``sold the 
country out for a few lousy jobs,'' with ``protecting Communists,'' and 
with aiding in ``the robbery, extortion, physical brutality and 
arrogant suppression of citizens' plain rights by groups of thugs, 
thieves, and anti-American conspirators in the service of the 
Kremlin.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 9194, 9195,77th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H. Res. 349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Hoffman then received the consent of the House that 
consideration of this resolution be reserved until the next legislative 
day, Dec. 1.(18) At that time the resolution was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 87 Cong. Rec. 9256-60, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.4 A resolution calling for a committee investigation of 
    newspaper charges that the House was being influenced by mobs was 
    presented as a question of the privilege of the House.

    On Mar. 29, 1954,(19) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered as a matter raising a question of the privilege of the House a 
resolution (20) requesting the appointment of a committee to 
ascertain the facts concerning and make recommendations for action in 
relation to a newspaper article charging that ``mobs appear to have 
enough influence to reach into the House of Representatives to kill 
probes into labor racketeering.'' Following some discussion of the 
resolution a motion was adopted referring the resolution to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 100 Cong. Rec. 3968-71, 83d Cong. 2d sess.
20. H. Res. 482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 9. Charges Involving Members

Charges by a Member

Sec. 9.1 A resolution providing for an investigation of charges by a 
    Member that an executive officer improperly attempted to influence 
    the Member's vote presents a question involving the privilege of 
    the House.

    On July 2, 1935,(1) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, 
presented as a question of the privilege of the House a resolution 
(2) declaring that Mr. Ralph Brewster, of Maine, had stated 
that he had been approached by a federal officer and told that if he 
(Brewster) did not vote against a provi

[[Page 1605]]

sion in the so-called ``Federal Power Act,'' certain funds allocated 
for public works in his home district would be withheld.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 79 Cong. Rec. 10669-71, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H. Res. 285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order was made by Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, that 
the resolution was not privileged. The Speaker (3) in his 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Brewster] has made certain 
    serious charges. It is not necessary, of course, for the Chair to 
    pass on the charges. That is a matter for the House to determine. 
    But the Chair does feel that in view of the statements made by the 
    gentleman from Maine on his own responsibility as a Member of this 
    House, as well as those contained in the pending resolution, that 
    if such statements are found to be correct, then it seems to the 
    Chair that the integrity of the proceedings of this House have been 
    seriously interfered with. The Chair, therefore, thinks that the 
    resolution presents a question of the privilege of the House, and 
    overrules the point of order.

Charges Concerning Member Generally

Sec. 9.2 A resolution for the investigation of charges by a Member 
    concerning fellow Members, accusing them of giving away atomic 
    secrets, raises a question of the privilege of the House.

    On May 5, 1952,(4) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
submitted, as a question involving the privilege of the House, a 
resolution (5) providing that Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall, of New 
York, be given an opportunity to appear before the bar of the House to 
explain or that a committee be appointed to investigate the 
authenticity of statements appearing in the press that Mr. Hall 
declared he ``resents Congressmen who get soused and who in all 
probability are giving away atomic secrets to the enemy while under the 
influence of liquor.'' Pursuant to a motion authorizing the Speaker to 
refer this resolution to ``a committee,'' the Speaker (6) 
ordered it referred to the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 98 Cong. Rec. 4787-97, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H. Res. 631.
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charges Concerning a Fellow Member

Sec. 9.3 A resolution alleging that a Member without authority 
    addressed questionnaires to school teachers requesting their 
    opinion on communism does not present a question of the privilege 
    of the House.

    On June 18, 1936,(7) Mr. Kent E. Keller, of Illinois, 
offered as a

[[Page 1606]]

matter involving the privilege of the House a resolution concerning the 
alleged unauthorized action of Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, whereby 
he addressed questionnaires to school teachers in the District of 
Columbia requesting their opinions on communism. A point of order was 
then made by Mr. Claude A. Fuller, of Arkansas, that the offered 
resolution did not involve a question of the privilege of the House. In 
his ruling sustaining the point of order, the Speaker (8) 
said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 80 Cong. Rec. 9947, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair is somewhat familiar with the precedents 
    involved in matters of this sort. The question of privilege under 
    rule IX under which this resolution is offered provides that 
    questions of privilege shall be----

            First, those affecting the rights of the House 
        collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its 
        proceedings.

        The matter set up in the resolution constitutes an allegation 
    of certain conduct on the part of an individual Member of the 
    House, who, it seems, wrote certain letters to school teachers or 
    other persons in the District of Columbia. Whether or not the 
    subject matter of the letter was proper or not, whether it was a 
    matter of propriety or not, whether it was a matter of good 
    judgment or not, is not one that involves under this rule the 
    question of the privileges of the House and its proceedings, in the 
    opinion of the Chair. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 10. Charges Involving House Officers or Employees

Criticism of Speaker

Sec. 10.1 A newspaper column alleging that the Speaker took care to 
    insure that only Members amenable to a certain program were 
    appointed to the House Ways and Means Committee was held not to 
    give rise to a question of the privilege of the House.

    On May 2, 1956,(9) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of the privilege of the House, presented a 
resolution (10) requesting the appointment of a committee to 
investigate and make recommendations concerning a newspaper column 
which charged that ``Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, had carefully 
scrutinized the House Ways and Means Committee to make sure nobody was 
put on the committee who might vote against the 27\1/2\ percent oil 
depletion allowance.'' The Speaker pro tempore,(11) in 
ruling the claim of privilege invalid, said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 102 Cong. Rec. 3838, 3839, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. H. Res. 417.
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair rules that the gentleman does not present a question 
    of the privilege of the House.

[[Page 1607]]

        It is perfectly all right for the Speaker or any Member to 
    advocate a 27\1/2\ percent depletion. The resolution does not 
    present a question which involves the privilege of the House.

Criticism of Doorkeeper

Sec. 10.2 A resolution proposing to deny a newspaper report that the 
    Doorkeeper of the House acted rudely in accomplishing the removal 
    of a visitor from the gallery was held not to raise a question of 
    the privilege of the House.

    On July 9, 1935,(12) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, 
offered as a matter raising a question of the privilege of the House a 
resolution proposing the denial of a newspaper report which charged 
that the Doorkeeper of the House rudely forced a mother who was breast-
feeding her child to leave the gallery of the House. Mr. Earl C. 
Michener, of Michigan, interrupted the reading of the resolution to 
make the point of order that the resolution did not give rise to a 
question of the privilege of the House. In his ruling sustaining the 
point of order, the Speaker (13) stated: ``The Chair 
suggests that the gentleman from Texas ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution be read. The Chair does not think the resolution is 
privileged.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 10905, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By unanimous consent, the reading of the resolution continued. Mr. 
Blanton then asked unanimous consent for consideration of the 
resolution, but objection was heard.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 79 Cong. Rec. 10906, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improper or Unauthorized Actions by Committee Employee

Sec. 10.3 A resolution alleging that a committee employee appeared in a 
    court as special counsel for a committee of the House without the 
    authorization of the House was presented as a question of the 
    privilege of the House.

    On July 1, 1952,(15~) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
presented as a matter involving a question of the privilege of the 
House a resolution alleging that a committee employee appeared in the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of California as 
special counsel for a subcommittee of the Committee on Executive 
Expenditures without the authorization of the House. Debate on the 
resolution ensued, at the con
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 8768, 8769, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1608]]

clusion of which a motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on 
the Judiciary was agreed to.



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 11. Correcting the Record; Expungement of Words Uttered in Debate

    A resolution asking the Senate to expunge from the Congressional 
Record language used in debate in the Senate which is offensive or 
otherwise improper may give rise to a question of the privilege of the 
House since the remedy of demanding that words be taken down is not 
available.(16) However, neither a question of personal 
privilege nor a question of the privilege of the House arises during a 
debate in which offensive language is used, the remedy being a demand 
that the objectionable words be taken down when spoken. Thus, on one 
occasion,(17) a Member, having risen to a question of 
personal privilege and of the privilege of the House, submitted a 
resolution to strike from the Congressional Record remarks made by a 
Member in the course of floor debate reflecting on the integrity of 
both the House and a majority of the Members. Citing Rule XIV clause 
5,(18) which provides for the taking down of objectionable 
words, the Speaker (19) ruled the Member out of order in 
raising a question of privilege under the circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sec. Sec. 11.1 et seq., infra.
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 1514, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1950. For further 
        illustrations see Ch. 29, infra.
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 761 (1973).
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Debate Reflecting on House Integrity

Sec. 11.1 A resolution to expunge from the Congressional Record Senate 
    debate reflecting on the integrity of the House presents a question 
    of the privilege of the House.

    On July 12, 1956,(1) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
presented as a matter giving rise to a question of the privilege of the 
House a resolution seeking the expurgation from the Record of Senate 
debate attributing improper motives and influence to House action on an 
education bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 102 Cong. Rec. 12522, 12523, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution [H. Res. 588] provided:

        Resolved, whereas in the Congressional Record of July 9, 1956, 
    certain articles appear which reflect upon the integrity of the 
    House as a whole in its

[[Page 1609]]

    representative capacity, and upon individual Members of the House; 
    and
        Whereas such statements tend to disgrace, degrade, and render 
    ineffective the actions of the Members of the House; and
        Whereas the statements so made and carried in the Record 
    adversely affect the rights of the House collectively, its safety, 
    dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings: Now, therefore, be 
    it
        Resolved, That the House hereby by the adoption of this 
    resolution most respectfully requests that the other body expunge 
    from its records the rollcall votes and remarks appearing on pages 
    11016-11017 and the remarks appearing on page A5384 of the daily 
    Congressional Record of July 9, 1956, under the caption ``Ignoring 
    the children''; and be it further
        Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the 
    Presiding Officer of the other body.

    By vote of the House the resolution was referred to the Committee 
on Rules.

House Debate Reflecting on the Senate

Sec. 11.2 A resolution to expunge from the Congressional Record House 
    debate reflecting on the Senate presents a question of the 
    privilege of the House.

    On May 24, 1950,(2) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of the privilege of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 7635-37, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The gentleman will 
    state the question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, in the daily 
    Congressional Record of Monday, May 22, 1950, on page A4071 under 
    date of Thursday, May 18, 1950, under the caption ``We will meet 
    the test,'' there appears an extension of remarks of the Honorable 
    Andrew J. Biemiller, of Wisconsin, which is a violation of the 
    rules of the House in that in those remarks and in the editorial 
    accompanying those remarks a Member of the other body is mentioned 
    in such manner as to reflect upon him in his representative 
    capacity. Such remarks and editorial as inserted in the 
    Congressional Record are made a part of this question of privilege, 
    are a violation of the rules of the House which prohibit any 
    reference in the Congressional Record by a Member of this body to a 
    Member of the other body.
        The resolution which I offer is that such remarks be stricken 
    from the Appendix.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
        Biemiller, which appear on page A4071 of the daily 
        Congressional Record of Monday, May 22, 1950, and which are 
        captioned, ``We will meet the test,'' are a violation of the 
        rules of the House: Therefore be it
            Resolved by the House, That said remarks as so indicated 
        be, and the

[[Page 1610]]

        same hereby are, stricken from the Record.

    Debate on the resolution ensued. Subsequently, on the House's 
agreement to a unanimous-consent request by Mr. Biemiller that his 
remarks be deleted from the permanent Record, the resolution was 
withdrawn.

House Debate Reflecting on Members

Sec. 11.3 On one occasion the House agreed to a resolution which had 
    been presented as a question of privilege of the House, and which 
    expunged from the Congressional Record House debate which had 
    impugned the integrity of a Member.

    On Sept. 5, 1940,(4) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of the privilege of the House and offered a 
resolution (5) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 11552, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 5. H. Res. 591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the gentleman from the Second District of Kentucky [Mr. 
    (Beverly M.) Vincent], referring to the gentleman from the 
    Twentieth District of Ohio [Mr. (Martin L.) Sweeney], stated on the 
    floor of the House on September 4, 1940, as appears in the [daily] 
    Record on page 17450, ``I said I did not want to sit by a traitor 
    to my country;'' and
        Whereas such words were a violation of the rules of the House 
    and, as reprinted in the Record, charge the Member from Ohio with a 
    lack of patriotism, and with disloyalty to his country, reflect 
    upon him in his representative capacity and upon the dignity of the 
    House: Therefore, be it
        Resolved, That the words, ``I said I did not want to sit by a 
    traitor to my country,'' be expunged from the Record.

Debate on the resolution ensued, at the conclusion of which the 
resolution was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: No point of order was raised against the 
presentation of this resolution as a question of privilege of the 
House. The proper remedy in such a case is to have the offending words 
taken down. Detailed coverage of this procedure is found in chapter 29, 
infra.

Offensive or Unauthorized Material Inserted in the Record

Sec. 11.4 A resolution to expunge from the Congressional Record several 
    articles and documents criticizing a House committee, inserted in 
    the Record by a Member, was entertained as a question of the 
    privilege of the House.

    On Mar. 10, 1948,(6) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
pre

[[Page 1611]]

sented as a matter involving the privilege of the House a resolution 
requesting that several articles and documents alleging that ``[the 
Committee on Un-American Activities] continue[s] the practice of Hitler 
and Himmler, which would lead America . . . down the road toward 
fascism'' which had been inserted in the Congressional Record by Mr. 
Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, be stricken therefrom. Following some 
debate the resolution was agreed to. The Member's entire speech, 
including the articles and documents, was stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 94 Cong. Rec. 2476-81, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. For additional examples 
        see 93 Cong. Rec. 2461-63, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.5 A resolution to expunge from the Congressional Record a 
    speech inserted therein alleged to reflect on the integrity of the 
    House and its Members is entertained as a question of privilege.

    On May 13, 1946,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered as a matter involving a question of the privilege of the House 
a resolution (8) concerning the text of a speech delivered 
by August Scholle, a Michigan labor union official, assailing the 
integrity of both the House and its Members. The resolution proposed 
that the speech, which had been inserted in the Congressional Record by 
Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, be stricken therefrom. The 
resolution was adopted on a roll call vote--yeas 247, nays 77, not 
voting 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 4922-24, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. H. Res. 616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.6 A resolution to expunge from the Congressional Record 
    unparliamentary language inserted under leave to extend is 
    entertained as a question of the privilege of the House.

    On Apr. 20, 1936,(9) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, 
presented as a question of the privilege of the House a resolution 
(10) demanding the expurgation from the Record of certain 
unparliamentary remarks concerning the personal life of a Member. The 
material had been inserted on a preceding day under leave to extend 
that had been granted to Mr. Marion A. Zioncheck, of Washington. The 
resolution was agreed to on a roll call vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 80 Cong. Rec. 5704-07, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. H. Res. 490.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.7 A resolution to expunge certain remarks inserted

[[Page 1612]]

    through an abuse of the grant of leave to print in the 
    Congressional Record gives rise to a question of the privilege of 
    the House.

    On July 13, 1942,(11) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, presented as a matter of the privilege of the House the 
following resolution: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 88 Cong. Rec. 6102, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. For a further example see 
        92 Cong. Rec. 1274, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 13, 1946.
12. H. Res. 518.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas in the daily Congressional Record of July 9, 1942, on 
    page A2877, A2878, and A2879 of the Appendix thereof, the remarks 
    purporting to be made by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Sol 
    Bloom, and containing a letter written by one Ralph Ingersoll 
    attacking draft board No. 44 of New York for performing its 
    official duties in refusing to exempt the said Ralph Ingersoll from 
    the draft on the flimsy pretext set out in said letter; and
        Whereas said letter was inserted under permission to insert an 
    editorial and not a letter from the said Ralph Ingersoll; and
        Whereas it is stated on page 6271 of the Congressional Record 
    of July 9, 1942, that the printing of this insertion in the 
    Congressional Record was estimated to cost the Government of the 
    United States $157.50; and
        Whereas said letter so inserted in lieu of the editorial for 
    which permission was given contains language and statements that 
    are objectionable and unparliamentary; and
        Whereas said statements were not made upon the floor of the 
    House; and
        Whereas said statements reflect upon Members of Congress, are 
    false, improper, and out of order, and in violation of the 
    privileges and rules of the House; and if they had been uttered 
    upon the floor of the House they would have been subject to a point 
    of order: Therefore be it
        Resolved, That the said remarks be stricken from the Record and 
    the Public Printer prohibited from issuing copies thereof from the 
    columns of the Congressional Record.

Without debate, the resolution was adopted.

Sec. 11.8 A resolution to expunge from the Congressional Record certain 
    remarks inserted without proper authorization is entertained as a 
    matter of the privilege of the House.

    On Aug. 27, 1940,(13) Mr. Jacob Thorkelson, of Montana, 
offered as a question of the privilege of the House a resolution 
demanding that certain remarks inserted into the Congressional Record 
by Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, without first having obtained the 
permission of the House, be expunged from the Record and declared not 
to constitute a legitimate part of

[[Page 1613]]

the official Record of the House. After some debate the resolution was 
adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 11046, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. For an additional example 
        see 80 Cong. Rec. 7019, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inaccuracies in the Congressional Record

Sec. 11.9 A resolution to correct inaccuracies in the report of 
    proceedings as printed in the Congressional Record is presented as 
    a question of the privilege of the House.

    On Apr. 26, 1940,(14) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered as a matter involving the question of the privilege of the 
House the following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 5111, 5112, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the Congressional Record of April 25, 1940, is not, on 
    pages 5046 to 5051, inclusive, a true and accurate record of the 
    proceedings that took place on the floor of the House on yesterday, 
    in that there is omitted therefrom a demand which was made on the 
    floor of the House by the gentleman from the Twelfth Congressional 
    District of Michigan that certain words uttered on the floor of the 
    House by the gentleman from the Second District of Georgia be taken 
    down, and, there is omitted therefrom, the ruling of the Speaker 
    upon such demand, and there is omitted therefrom a motion which was 
    made by the gentleman from the Twelfth District of Massachusetts, 
    and there is omitted therefrom the vote taken on said motion, and 
    there is omitted therefrom the result of said vote and the 
    subsequent direction of the Speaker to the gentleman from Georgia 
    to continue: Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved, That the Record of the House be corrected and that 
    the proceedings above referred to be printed therein.

Following agreement by unanimous consent to the request of Mr. Edward 
E. Cox, of Georgia, that the stricken matter in question be restored to 
the Record, the resolution was withdrawn.

Restoration of Remarks Previously Deleted

Sec. 11.10 A resolution to restore to the Record remarks previously 
    deleted by House adoption of a motion to expunge does not present a 
    question of the privilege of the House; the proper method of 
    reopening the matter being by motion to reconsider the vote whereby 
    such action was taken.

    On Feb. 13, 1941,(15), Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, rose to a question of the privilege of the House and 
submitted a resolution requesting the restoration to the Record of 
certain remarks made by him and Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
during the previous

[[Page 1614]]

day's proceedings. Such remarks had been deleted by the House pursuant 
to the adoption of a motion to expunge made by Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi. Following debate, an inquiry was heard from Mr. Hoffman as 
to whether the Chair had ruled on the question of the privilege of the 
House. Responding to the inquiry, the Speaker (16) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 87 Cong. Rec. 979, 980, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The House would have to decide that, and, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the House did decide the matter when it expunged the remarks 
    from the Record. The Chair thinks, under the circumstances, that 
    the proper way to reopen the question would be by a motion to 
    reconsider the vote whereby the motion of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] was adopted. The Chair is of the opinion 
    that inasmuch as the question raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    was decided by a vote of the House on a proper motion, that he does 
    not now present a question of privilege of the House or of personal 
    privilege.



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 12. Enforcement of Committee Orders and Subpenas

Warrants Detaining Committee Witnesses

Sec. 12.1 A resolution authorizing the Speaker to issue a warrant 
    commanding the detention of a committee witness, based on 
    allegations that attempts had been made by the Senate to deprive 
    the committee of such witness' presence, gave rise to a question of 
    the privilege of the House.

    On Aug. 15, 1935,(17~) Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New 
York, rose to a question of the privilege of the House and offered a 
resolution (18) authorizing the Speaker to issue a warrant 
commanding the bodily detention of a committee witness, it being 
alleged that attempts had been made by the Senate to deprive the 
committee of such witness' presence. The resolution stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 79 Cong. Rec. 13289, 13290, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H. Res. 340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the House did on July 8, 1935, adopt a resolution, 
    House Resolution 288, authorizing the Committee on Rules to 
    investigate any and all charges of attempts or attempts to 
    intimidate or influence Members of the House of Representatives 
    with regard to the bill S. 2796 or any other bills affecting 
    public-utility holding companies during the Seventy-fourth Congress 
    by any person, partnership, trust, association, or corporation;
        Whereas under the authority conferred upon said Committee on 
    Rules by said House Resolution 288, the said committee had caused 
    to be issued a subpena directed to H.C. Hopson to ap

[[Page 1615]]

    pear before said committee and to testify concerning the matters 
    committed to the said Committee on Rules for investigation. . . .
        Whereas agents of another body have attempted to serve the said 
    H.C. Hopson at 11:30 a.m. on August 14 with a subpena in order to 
    compel the said H.C. Hopson to appear before another body forthwith 
    to give testi
    mony.
        . . . Whereas any interference with the proper proceeding of 
    the Committee on Rules in the investigation committed to them by 
    House Resolution 288 is an invasion of the prerogatives and 
    privileges of the House of Representatives. . . .
        . . . Therefore, be it
        Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
    issue his warrant commanding the Sergeant at Arms of the House of 
    Representatives, or his deputy, to take into custody the body of 
    H.C. Hopson wherever found; that the said Sergeant at Arms, or his 
    deputy, shall keep in custody the said H.C. Hopson until such time 
    as the Committee on Rules shall discharge him.
        Provided, however, That the said witness may be available for 
    examination by the Senate Committee at such times as his attendance 
    is not required by the House Committee.

    A point of order was raised by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
asserting that the resolution did not give rise to a question of the 
privilege of the House. Following some debate, the point of order was 
overruled by the Chair, the Speaker (19) stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . As the Chair construes the resolution, it involves the 
    dignity and authority of the House. The House has authority to 
    protect its own agents and its own committees in the discharge of 
    the duties vested in them. It seems to the Chair that this is 
    distinctly a matter of privilege for the consideration of the 
    House. . . .
        The Chair repeats that the resolution is one which involves the 
    dignity and authority of the House in protecting its committees, 
    which in this instance happens to be the Committee on Rules, in the 
    investigation which it has been authorized to make. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Orders Relating to Refusal of Witness to Be Sworn

Sec. 12.2 A committee report relating the refusal of a witness to be 
    sworn to testify before a House subcommittee involves a question of 
    the privilege of the House.

    On Sept. 10, 1973,(20) Mr. Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of the privilege of the House and offered a report 
(1) from the Committee on Armed Services informing the House 
of the refusal of George Gordon Liddy to be sworn or to testify before 
its duly authorized subcommittee. Following the presen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 28951, 28952, 28959, 28960, 28962, 28963, 93d Cong. 
        1st Sess.
 1. H. Rept. No. 93-453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1616]]

tation of the committee report, the House agreed to a privileged 
resolution (2) offered by Mr. Nedzi directing the Speaker 
(3) to certify to the appropriate United States attorney the 
refusal of the witness to be sworn to testify before a subcommittee of 
the Committee on Armed Services.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Res. 536.
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Based upon the precedent in the 92d 
Congress, first session, July 13, 1971,(4) Representative 
Nedzi was advised that a committee report on the contempt of a witness 
could be brought to the floor on the same day as filed and that the 
requirement for a three-day layover under Rule XI clause 27(d)(4) did 
not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 24720-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enforcement of Subpena Duces Tecum

Sec. 12.3 A committee report relating the refusal of a witness to 
    respond to a subpena duces tecum issued by a House subcommittee 
    gives rise to a question of the privilege of the House.

    On July 13, 1971,(5) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, rose to a question of the privilege of the House and 
submitted a report (6) from the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce informing the House of the refusal of Frank Stanton, 
president of CBS, to respond to a subpena duces tecum issued by a 
subcommittee of the committee. Subsequent to the presentation of the 
committee report, a privileged resolution (7) was offered by 
Mr. Staggers directing the Speaker (8) to certify the report 
of the House committee on the contemptuous conduct of the witness to 
the appropriate United States attorney. Some debate on the resolution 
ensued, at the conclusion of which the previous question on the 
resolution was moved by Mr. Staggers. Thereupon, Mr. Hastings Keith, of 
Massachusetts, asserting his opposition to the resolution, offered a 
motion to recommit the resolution to the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. The motion to recommit was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 24720-23, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. For additional 
        examples see 112 Cong. Rec. 27439-513, 27641, 89th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 18 and 19, 1966; 80 Cong. Rec. 8219-21, 74th Cong. 
        2d Sess., May 28, 1936.
 6. H. Rept. No. 92-349.
 7. H. Res. 534.
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).

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

[[Page 1617]]



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 13. Invasion of House Jurisdiction or Prerogatives

Senate Invasion of House Prerogatives

Sec. 13.1 Invasion of the House prerogative to originate revenue-
    raising legislation granted by article I, section 7 of the 
    Constitution raises a question of the privilege of the House.

    On May 20, 1965,(9) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
offered as a matter involving the privilege of the House a resolution 
(10) providing for the return to the Senate of a messaged 
bill. The bill authorized the President to raise the duty on fishery 
products and was deemed to infringe on the revenue-raising prerogatives 
of the House. The language of the Senate bill was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 11149, 11150, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. For further 
        instances where invasion of the House's revenue-raising 
        prerogative gave rise to a question of the privilege of the 
        House, see 111 Cong. Rec. 23632, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
        14, 1965; 108 Cong. Rec. 23014, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 10, 
        1962; 106 Cong. Rec. 15818, 15819, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., July 2, 
        1960; 99 Cong. Rec. 1897, 1898, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 12, 
        1953; 92 Cong. Rec. 5001-12, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1946.
10. H. Res. 397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That when the Secretary of the Interior determines that the 
    fishing vessels of a country are being used in the conduct of 
    fishing operations in a manner or in such circumstances which 
    diminish the effectiveness of domestic fishery conservation 
    programs, the President . . . may increase the duty on any fishery 
    product in any form from such country for such time as he deems 
    necessary to a rate not more than 50 percent above the rate 
    existing on July 1, 1934.

    The House resolution was agreed to.

Executive Invasion of House Prerogatives

Sec. 13.2 Alleged infringement by the executive branch, through its 
    treatymaking power, on the constitutional right of Congress under 
    article IV section 3 to exercise control over the territory and 
    other property belonging to the United States, presents a question 
    of the privilege of the House.

    On Feb. 17, 1944,(11) Mr. Carl Hinshaw, of California, 
presented as a question involving the privilege of the House a 
resolution (12)

[[Page 1618]]

instructing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate the action of 
the President in sending to the Senate for ratification a treaty 
relating to the utilization by the United States and Mexico of certain 
southwestern rivers. The resolution declared that the Constitution 
(art. IV, Sec. 3) vests regulatory power over U.S. territory in the 
Congress, and that the action of the President constituted an invasion 
of the House's prerogatives relating to the control of United States' 
territory and property. Without debate, a motion to refer the 
resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary was agreed 
to.(13~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 90 Cong. Rec. 1836, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. H. Res. 446.
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 1841, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judicial Invasion of House Prerogatives

Sec. 13.3 A resolution declaring that the constitutional prerogatives 
    of the House had been invaded by the issuance of a court order 
    restraining the publication of a committee report presents a 
    question of the privilege of the House.

    On Dec. 14, 1970,(14) Mr. Richard H. Ichord, of 
Missouri, offered as a matter involving the privilege of the House a 
resolution (H. Res. 1306) ordering the Public Printer to publish a 
report of the Committee on Internal Security and enjoining all persons 
from interfering therewith, it being alleged, inter alia, that the 
prior issuance of a temporary order by a United States District Court 
restraining the publication of the committee report constituted an 
invasion of the House's prerogatives granted by the U.S. Constitution 
(art. I, Sec. 6, clause 3). After lengthy debate the resolution was 
agreed to on a roll call vote.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 41355, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Id. at P. 41374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 14. Service of Process on Members

    The service of process on the House or those associated with it, or 
the exercise of authority over it by another coordinate and coequal 
branch of government, including any mandate of process which commands a 
Member's presence before another branch of government during sessions 
of the House, has historically been perceived by the House as a matter 
intimately related to its dignity and the integrity of its proceedings, 
and as constituting an occasion for the raising of the question of the 
privilege of the House.

[[Page 1619]]

    The rules and precedents of the House require that no Member, 
official, staff member, or employee of the House may, either 
voluntarily or in obedience to a subpena, testify regarding official 
functions, documents, or activities of the House without the consent of 
the House being first obtained. Likewise, information on papers 
obtained by Members, officers, and staff employees of the House 
pursuant to their official duties may not be revealed in response to a 
subpena without the consent of the House. Accordingly, when a House 
Member, officer, or employee is subpenaed on a matter relating to House 
business, the privilege of the House arises; he or his supervisor 
therefore advises the Speaker, who lays the facts before the House for 
its consideration.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 113 Cong. Rec. 29374-76, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 25, 1967. 
        For instances where the receipt of judicial process by a House 
        officer or Member has resulted in the presentation of a 
        question of the privilege of the House, see Sec. Sec. 15-17, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Federal Court Summons

Sec. 14.1 The receipt of a summons naming a Member (who was also 
    Majority Leader) of the House in his official capacity as a 
    defendant in a civil action brought in a federal court raises a 
    question of the privilege of the House and the matter is laid 
    before the House for its consideration.

    On July 8, 1965,(17) the Chair recognized Mr. Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, who rose to a question of the privilege of the 
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 15978, 15979, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privilege 
    of the House. The Speaker: (18) The gentleman will state 
    the question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, in my official capacity as a 
    Representative and as majority leader of this House, I have been 
    served with a summons issued by the U.S. District Court for the 
    District of Columbia to appear in connection with the case of the 
    All-American Protectorate, Inc. against Lyndon B. Johnson, and 
    others.
        Under the precedents of the House, I am unable to comply with 
    this summons without the consent of the House, the privileges of 
    the House being involved. I therefore submit the matter for the 
    consideration of this body.
        I send to the desk the summons.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the subpena.

    Thereupon the summons was read to the House.

[[Page 1620]]

    The Speaker and the Minority Leader, Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, 
had been named in the summons, and both respectively submitted the 
matter to the House. The following proceedings then took place:

        The Speaker: The Chair has addressed a letter to the Attorney 
    General of the United States. The Clerk will read the letter.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                                     July 8, 1965.
          The Honorable the Attorney General, Department of Justice.

            Dear Sir: I did on July 6, 1965, accept service of a 
        summons in the case of The All-American Protectorate, 
        Incorporated v. Lyndon B. Johnson et al., civil action file No. 
        1583-65, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
        Columbia. The complaint filed in this action names me, 
        individually and as Speaker of the House of Representatives, as 
        a defendant in this proceeding.
            The majority leader of the House of Representatives, the 
        Honorable Carl Albert, and the minority leader, the Honorable 
        Gerald R. Ford, both of whom are named as defendants in this 
        same proceeding, accepted service of summons on July 7, 1965.
            I am including herewith the summons served upon me, and 
        those served upon Representatives Albert and Ford, individually 
        and in their official capacities as majority and minority 
        leaders, respectively, in order that you may proceed in 
        accordance with the law.
              Sincerely,
                                            John W. McCormack,
                                            Speaker of the House
                                               of Representatives.

Service of Federal Court Subpena

Sec. 14.2 Where a Member receives a subpena to appear as a witness in a 
    federal court during a session of the House, a question of the 
    privilege of the House arises and the matter is laid before the 
    House for its consideration.

    On Nov. 17, 1969,(19) Mr. Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas, 
rose to a question of the privilege of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 115 Cong. Rec. 34301, 34302, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. For additional 
        examples see 107 Cong. Rec. 5844, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 
        13, 1961; 107 Cong. Rec. 2481, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 21, 
        1961; 107 Cong. Rec. 2480, 2481, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 21, 
        1961; 107 Cong. Rec. 2000, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 9, 1961; 
        and 106 Cong. Rec. 6131, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 21, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gonzalez: . . . Mr. Speaker, I have been subpenaed to 
    appear before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 
    Texas to testify on Wednesday, November 19, 1969, in San Antonio, 
    Tex., in the criminal case of the United States of America against 
    Albert Fuentes, Jr., and Edward J. Montez.
        Under the precedents of the House, I am unable to comply with 
    this subpena without the consent of the House, the privileges of 
    the House being involved. I, therefore, submit the matter for the 
    consideration of this body.

[[Page 1621]]

        Mr. Speaker, I send the subpena to the desk.
        The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will read the subpena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There followed a reading of the subpena to the House.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Gonzalez had no information relevant to 
the case and the House did not authorize his appearance.

Service of Modified Federal Court Subpena

Sec. 14.3 Where a federal court subpena directed to a Member was 
    modified after service by court order, the Member informed the 
    House of the modification when he presented the subpena to the 
    House.

    On Feb. 9, 1961,(1) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, rose to a question of the privilege of the House and 
addressed the following remarks to the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 2000, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walter: Mr. Speaker, I have been subpenaed to appear before 
    the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to testify on 
    February 20, 1961, in the case of the United States of America 
    against Martin Popper.
        The subpena, as originally served upon me, required that I 
    appear and testify and bring with me certain documents. A motion to 
    quash that portion of the subpena duces tecum requiring the 
    presentation of documents was granted by Mr. Justice Edward M. 
    Curran on February 3, 1961.
        Under the precedents of the House, I am unable to appear and 
    testify without the consent of the House, the privileges of the 
    House being involved. I therefore submit the matter to the House 
    for its consideration.

    The subpena was sent to the desk and the Speaker (2) 
instructed the Clerk to read it to the House. At the conclusion of the 
Clerk's reading, the House agreed to a privileged resolution 
(3) offered by Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
authorizing the Member to appear in response to the subpena as 
modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 3. H. Res. 155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of State Court Subpena

Sec. 14.4 Where a Member receives a subpena from a state court, he lays 
    the matter before the House for action.

    On Oct. 18, 1971,(4) Mr. Don H. Clausen, of California, 
rising to a

[[Page 1622]]

question of the privilege of the House, informed the House that he had 
been served with a subpena from the Superior Court of the State of 
California. Upon the delivery of the subpena to the desk, the Speaker 
(5) instructed the Clerk to read the subpena to the House. 
The House took no further action in the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 36494, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. For further 
        illustrations, including some instances where the House adopted 
        resolutions, see 116 Cong. Rec. 11863, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Apr. 15, 1970; 113 Cong. Rec. 35129, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 
        6, 1967; 113 Cong. Rec. 28406, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 10, 
        1967; and 111 Cong. Rec. 17002, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 15, 
        1965.
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.5 A Member having been subpenaed to testify at a preliminary 
    hearing in an action pending in the state court rose to a question 
    of the privilege of the House.

    On Sept. 23, 1971,(6) Mr. Joshua Eilberg, of 
Pennsylvania, rose to a question of the privilege of the House and 
addressed the following remarks to the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 117 Cong. Rec. 33114, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eilberg: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, after the House 
    had adjourned, I was subpenaed to appear before the Court of Common 
    Pleas of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to testify 
    this morning, September 23, 1971, at 9 a.m., at a preliminary 
    hearing in an action designated as Commonwealth against Patrick 
    McLaughlin.
        Under the precedents of the House, I was unable to comply with 
    this subpena, without the consent of the House, the privileges of 
    the House being involved. I therefore submit the matter for the 
    consideration of this body.

    The subpena was sent to the desk, and the Speaker (7) 
instructed the Clerk to read it to the House. The House did not adopt a 
resolution permitting him to attend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Subpena Issued by District of Columbia Court

Sec. 14.6 The receipt by a Member of a subpena to appear before a court 
    of the District of Columbia gave rise to a question of the 
    privilege of the House.

    On Jan. 19, 1972,(8) the Chair recognized Mr. George P. 
Miller, of California, on a question of the privilege of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 318, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Additional illustrations may 
        be found at 115 Cong. Rec. 26008, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
        18, 1969, and 110 Cong. Rec. 1510, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 
        31, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Miller of California: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of 
    the privileges of the House.
        Mr. Speaker, I have been subpenaed to appear before the 
    criminal assignment branch of the District of Columbia Court of 
    General Sessions on January 28, 1972, in the case of the United 
    States of America against Ernest Long.

[[Page 1623]]

        Under the precedents of the House, I am unable to comply with 
    the subpena without the consent of the House, the privileges of the 
    House being involved. I therefore submit the matter for the 
    consideration of this body.
        I send the subpena to the desk.
        The Speaker: (9) The Clerk will report the subpena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the reading of the subpena, a privileged resolution 
(10) was offered by Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
authorizing the Member to appear in response to the subpena. The 
resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Res. 767.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Municipal Court Subpena

Sec. 14.7 A Member having received a summons to appear before a 
    municipal court rose to a question of the privilege of the House.

    On June 9, 1964,(11) Mr. John E. Moss, Jr., of 
California, rose to a question of the privilege of the House and 
informed the House that he had been summoned to appear and testify 
before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of the city of 
Alexandria, Virginia. The summons was sent to the desk, whereupon the 
Speaker (12) instructed the Clerk to read it to the House. 
At the conclusion of the Clerk's reading, a resolution (13) 
was offered by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, authorizing the Member to 
appear in response to the summons. The resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 13017, 13018, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. For an additional 
        example see 99 Cong. Rec. 3013, 3014, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 
        13, 1953.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
13. H. Res. 743.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Executive Agency, Subpena

Sec. 14.8 The receipt by a Member of a subpena to appear and testify 
    before a federal executive agency gives rise to a question of the 
    privilege of the House.

    On Mar. 18, 1963,(14) after the Chair's recognition of 
Mr. Alvin E. O'Konski, of Wisconsin, on a question of privilege, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 4392, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Konski: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege of 
    the House. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I have been subpenaed to appear before the Federal 
    Communications Commission or Charles J. Frederick, hearing 
    examiner, at the new Post Office Building, Pennsylvania Avenue and 
    13th Street NW., Washington, D.C., to testify on March 20,

[[Page 1624]]

    1963, at 10 a.m., in the matter of Central Wisconsin Television, 
    Inc., Federal Communications Commission docket No. 14933-14934. 
    Under the precedents of the House, I am unable to comply with this 
    subpena without the consent of the House, the privileges of the 
    House being involved. I therefore submit the matter for the 
    consideration of this body.
        The Speaker:(15) The Clerk will report the subpena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House then heard the report of the Clerk.
    The House took no further action in the matter.

Service of Court Orders To Appear and Show Cause

Sec. 14.9 A Member, having been served by a state court with an order 
    to appear and show cause, rose to a question of the privilege of 
    the House.

    On May 19, 1970,(16) Mr. Sam Steiger, of Arizona, rose 
to a question of the privilege of the House and informed the House that 
he had been served with an order to appear and to show cause issued by 
the Superior Court of the State of Arizona. The order was sent to the 
desk, whereupon the Speaker (17) instructed the Clerk to 
read it to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 16165, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Member had been served with a subpena 
duces tecum by a state court to appear as a witness for the plaintiff 
and to bring with him certain documents in his possession. He appeared 
in response to the subpena, but refused to bring the requested 
documents and refused to answer oral interrogatories propounded by 
counsel for plaintiff. He was then served with an order to show cause 
why he should not be compelled to answer the interrogatories which had 
been propounded to him. Because the court order requested him to appear 
while Congress was in session, he raised the question of the privilege 
of the House. He did not request the House to authorize his appearance, 
and no further action was taken in the matter.

Service of Order To Appear and Answer Interrogatories

Sec. 14.10 A Member, having been served by a state court with an order 
    to appear and answer oral interrogatories, rose to a question of 
    the privileges of the House.

    On July 22, 1970,(18) Mr. Sam Steiger, of Arizona, 
rising to a question of the privilege of the

[[Page 1625]]

House, informed the House that he had been served with an order to 
appear and answer oral interrogatories issued by the Superior Court of 
the State of Arizona. The order was sent to the desk whereupon the 
Speaker (19) instructed the Clerk to read it to the House. 
At the conclusion of the reading, the House agreed to a privileged 
resolution (20) offered by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
authorizing the Member to appear in response to the order at any time 
when the House had adjourned to a day certain for a period in excess of 
three days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 25333, 25334, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
20. H. Res. 1155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 15. Service of Grand Jury Subpena

Federal Grand Jury Subpena

Sec. 15.1 The receipt by a Member of a subpena to appear before a 
    federal grand jury gives rise to a question of the privilege of the 
    House.

    On July 15, 1963,(1) the Chair recognized Mr. Edmond 
Edmondson, of Oklahoma, on a question of the privilege of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 109 Cong. Rec. 12488, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. For additional examples 
        see 95 Cong. Rec. 5544, 5545, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 3, 
        1949; and 88 Cong. Rec. 1267, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 16, 
        1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edmondson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the 
    privilege of the House.
        The Speaker: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edmondson: Mr. Speaker, I have received a summons to appear 
    before the grand jury of the U.S. District Court for the District 
    of Columbia on Tuesday, July 16, 1963, at 9 o'clock a.m., to 
    testify in the case of the United States against Jessie Lee Bell.
        Under the precedents of the House, I am unable to comply with 
    this summons without the consent of the House, the privileges of 
    the House being involved. I, therefore, submit the matter for the 
    consideration of this body.

        Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk the summons.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the summons.

    At the conclusion of the Clerk's report, a resolution 
(3~) offered by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, authorizing 
the Member to appear in response to the summons, was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Grand Jury Subpoena

Sec. 15.2 A subpoena to a Member requiring his appearance before a 
    state grand jury gives rise to a question of the privilege of the 
    House.

[[Page 1626]]

    On May 9, 1962,(4) Mr. Frank W. Boykin, of Alabama, 
rising to a question of the privilege of the House, informed the House 
that he had been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury of the 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. The subpoena was sent to 
the desk whereupon, the Speaker (5) instructed the Clerk to 
read it to the House. At the conclusion of the Clerk's reading, the 
House agreed to a privileged resolution (6) offered by Mr. 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, authorizing the Member to appear in response 
to the subpoena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 8006, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. For further illustrations 
        see 108 Cong. Rec. 7945, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., May 8, 1962; 108 
        Cong. Rec. 7816, 7817, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., May 7, 1962; and 
        105 Cong. Rec. 1623, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 2, 1959.
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 6. H. Res. 630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 16. Service of Process on House, Its Officers, or Employees

Service of Process Naming the House

Sec. 16.1 The receipt of a summons and complaint naming the House of 
    Representatives as the defendant in a civil action pending in a 
    federal court raises a question of the privilege of the House.

    On Dec. 13, 1973,(7) the Speaker (8) laid 
before the House as a matter giving rise to a question of the privilege 
of the House the following summons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 41258, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For additional examples 
        see 118 Cong. Rec. 29136, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 18, 1972; 
        118 Cong. Rec. 17398, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 16, 1972; and 117 
        Cong. Rec. 1503, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 3, 1971.
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Summons in a Civil Action
    [In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 
        California, civil action file No. C 73 2092GBH]

        Earle Ray Esgate, Plaintiff, v. Donald E. Johnson, Board of 
    Veterans Appeals, the United States House of Representatives, the 
    United States Senate, the President of the United States, as 
    Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, and as 
    Co-Defendant United States Army and United States Army Medical 
    Corps.
        To the above named Defendant: You are hereby summoned and 
    required to serve upon The plaintiff; acting as his own attorney 
    and whose address is below: plaintiff's attorney, whose address 
    Earle Ray Esgate, 1099 Topaz Ave. Apt. 6, San Jose, California, 
    95117, Phone 296-8182 an answer to the complaint which is herewith 
    served upon you within 60 days after service of this summons upon 
    you, exclusive of

[[Page 1627]]

    the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will 
    be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
        Date: December 5, 1973.
                                                F. R. Pettigrew,
                                                   Clerk of Court.
                                                       C. Cowne,
                                                     Deputy Clerk.

        [Seal of Court.]

    Along with the summons, the Speaker presented two letters written 
by the Clerk, W. Pat Jennings, relating to the summons:

                                              Washington, D. C.,
                                                December 12, 1973.
                                                   Hon. Carl Albert,
                                                        The Speaker,
                                           House of Representatives.

            Dear Mr. Speaker: On December 11, 1973 I have been served a 
        summons and copy of the complaint in a Civil Action through the 
        United States Marshal by certified mail number 197884 that was 
        issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 
        California.
            The Summons requires the Congress of the United States to 
        answer the complaint within sixty days after service.
            The Summons and complaint in question are attached, and the 
        matter is presented for such action as the House in its wisdom 
        may see fit to take.
            With kind regards, I am,
                                                W. Pat Jennings,
                                  Clerk, House of Representatives.

                                               Washington, D.C.,
                                                December 12, 1973.
                                                Hon. Robert H. Bork,
                 Acting Attorney General of the United States, U.S. 
                             Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

            Dear Mr. Bork: I am sending you a certified copy of a 
        summons and complaint in Civil Action No. C 73 2092GBH filed 
        against the United States House of Representatives and others 
        in the United States District Court for the Northern District 
        of California, and served upon me through the U.S. Marshal by 
        certified mail No. 197884 on December 11, 1973.
            In accordance with 2 U.S.C. 118 I have sent a certified 
        copy of the Summons and Complaint in this action to the U.S. 
        Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting 
        that he take appropriate action under the supervision and 
        direction of the Attorney General. I am also sending you a copy 
        of the letter I forwarded this date to the U.S. Attorney.
            With kind regards, I am,
            Sincerely,
                                                W. Pat Jennings,
                                  Clerk, House of Representatives.

    Under the provisions of 2 USC Sec. 118, the United States Attorney 
is obliged to appear and defend, upon request of an officer of either 
House of Congress, actions brought against such officer on account of 
anything done in discharge of official duties. Thereafter, the defense 
of the case is under the supervision and direction of the Attorney 
General.

Service of Process on House Officers

Sec. 16.2 The receipt of a summons and complaint naming the Speaker in 
    his official capacity as a defendant in a civil action brought in a 
    federal court raises a question

[[Page 1628]]

    of the privilege of the House, and the matter is laid before the 
    House for its consideration.

    On Feb. 5, 1973,(9) the Speaker (10) laid 
before the House as a matter giving rise to a question of the privilege 
of the House the following summons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 3207, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For additional 
        illustrations see 119 Cong. Rec. 29, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
        3, 1973; 118 Cong. Rec. 17398, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 16, 
        1972; 115 Cong. Rec. 24002 91st Con. 1st Sess., Sept. 3, 1969; 
        and 111 Cong. Rec. 2645, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 11, 1965.
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Summons

        The Regent Cecil J. Williams Plaintiff v. Carl Albert, M.C. 
    Speaker, et al. Defendants.
        To the above named Defendant: Carl Albert, M.C., Speaker.
        You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon the Regent 
    Cecil J. Williams, P.P., whose address is 1417 N Street, N.W., 
    Washington, D. C. 20005, an answer to the complaint which is 
    herewith served upon you, within 60 days after service of this 
    summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to 
    do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief 
    demanded in the complaint.
                                                 James F. Davey,
                                                   Clerk of Court.
                                                  Rubin Cuellar,
                                                     Deputy Clerk.

        Date: January 5, 1973.

    Following the presentation of the summons, the Speaker advised the 
House that he had, pursuant to 2 USC Sec. 118, requested the U.S. 
Attorney to represent him in the action. (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Civil Action File No. 27-73 (U.S.D.C. D. D.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.3 The receipt of a summers and complaint naming the Clerk of 
    the House of Representatives in his official capacity as a 
    defendant in a civil action brought in a federal court gives rise 
    to a question of the privilege of the House, and the matter is laid 
    before the House for its consideration.

    On Mar. 26, 1973,(12) the Speaker (13) laid 
before the House as a matter involving a question of the privilege of 
the House a communication from the Clerk of the House advising that he 
had been served with a summons and com

[[Page 1629]]

plaint as a defendant in a civil action (14) brought in the 
Federal District Court for the District of Columbia and further 
advising that he had pursuant to 2 USC Sec. 118, requested the U.S. 
Attorney for the District of Columbia to represent him in the action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 9452, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For further examples see 
        119 Cong. Rec. 29, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1973; 118 Cong. 
        Rec. 34040, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 5, 1972; 118 Cong. Rec. 
        15311, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 2, 1972; 118 Cong. Rec. 5025, 
        92d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 1972; and 116 Cong. Rec. 31182, 
        91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 10, 1970.
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
14. Mauro v Jennings et al., Civil Action File No. 447-73 (U.S.D.C. D. 
        D.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.4 The receipt of a summons and complaint naming the Sergeant at 
    Arms of the House of Representatives in his official capacity as a 
    defendant in a civil action brought in a federal court raises a 
    question of the privilege of the House, and the matter is laid 
    before the House for its consideration.

    On July 16, 1973,(15) the Speaker (16) laid 
before the House as a question of the privilege of the House a 
communication from the Sergeant at Arms advising that he had been 
served with a summons and complaint as a defendant in a civil action 
(17) brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia and further advising that he had, pursuant to 2 USC Sec. 118, 
requested the U.S. Attorney to represent him in the action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 23961, 23962, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For additional 
        examples see 116 Cong. Rec. 28502, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 
        12, 1970; and 109 Cong. Rec. 10359, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 
        6, 1963.
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
17. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. v Kenneth R. Harding, 
        Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives et al., Civil 
        Action File No. 1328-73 (U.S.D.C. D. D.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Supplemental Petition on House Officers

Sec. 16.5 The receipt of a supplemental petition naming House officers 
    as individual defendants in a civil action already pending in 
    federal court against the House and other of its officers and 
    Members raises a question of the privilege of the House, and the 
    matter is submitted to the House for its consideration.

    On Oct. 10, 1972,(18) the Speaker (19) laid 
before the House as a matter involving a question of the privilege of 
the House a communication from the clerk advising that he had received 
an amending and supplemental petition in connection with a case 
(20) pending before the U.S. District Court for the

[[Page 1630]]

Eastern Division of Louisiana naming the Clerk and Sergeant at Arms of 
the House of Representatives as additional defendants in the action and 
further advising that he had, pursuant to 2 USC Sec. 118, requested the 
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern Division of Louisiana to represent them 
in the action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 34583, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
20. Hillary v U.S. House of Representatives, Albert, Colmer, et al., 
        Civil Action File No. 72-1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service on Capitol Architect

Sec. 16.6 The receipt of a summons and complaint naming the Acting 
    Architect of the Capitol in his official capacity as a defendant in 
    a civil action brought in a federal court gives rise to a question 
    of the privilege of the House and the matter is laid before the 
    House for its consideration.

    On Aug. 12, 1970,(1) the Speaker (2) laid 
before the House a communication from the Acting Architect of the 
Capitol informing the House that he had been served with a summons and 
complaint as a defendant in a civil action (3) brought in 
the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia and advising 
the House that he had, pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 516, requested the 
Department of Justice to represent him in the action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 28502, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 3. Civil Action File No. 2296-70 (U.S.D.C. D. D.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Process on the Clerk

Sec. 16.7 The Clerk having been served with process, including a 
    subpoena duces tecum issued by a federal court in a civil action, 
    informed the Speaker who laid the matter before the House.

    On Nov. 15, 1973,(4) the Speaker (5) laid 
before the House as a matter involving a question of the privilege of 
the House a communication from the Clerk of the House advising that he 
had been served with a subpena and a notice of the taking of a 
deposition issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia commanding his appearance for the purpose of testifying and 
producing certain House documents and records in connection with the 
case of Nader et al. v Butz et al. (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 37136, 37137, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For additional 
        examples see 118 Cong. Rec. 6326, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 1, 
        1972; 117 Cong. Rec. 47667, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 17, 1971; 
        117 Cong. Rec. 47185, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 15, 1971; and 
        117 Cong. Rec. 39512, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 5, 1971.
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
 6. Civil Action File No. 148-72 (U.S.D.C. D. D.C.).

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

[[Page 1631]]

    Following the presentation of the communication, the House agreed 
to a privileged resolution (7) offered by Mr. Thomas P. 
O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, authorizing the Clerk or his designated 
agent to appear in response to the subpena but permitting the 
production of certified copies of only those subpenaed House papers and 
documents subsequently determined by the court to be material and 
relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.8 The Clerk of the House of Representatives, having received a 
    subpena duces tecum from a state court, reported the matter to the 
    Speaker who laid it before the House.

    On Apr. 24, 1958,(8) the Speaker (9) laid 
before the House as a matter involving the question of the privilege of 
the House the following communication from the Clerk of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 104 Cong. Rec. 7262, 7263, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

                                                   April 17, 1958.
    The Honorable the Speaker,
    House of Representatives.

        Sir: From the Superior Court of the 26th Judicial District of 
    North Carolina I have received a subpena duces tecum, directed to 
    me as Clerk of the House of Representatives, to appear before said 
    court as a witness in the case of Anna Mae Allen et al. v. Southern 
    Railway Company et al., and to bring with me certain and sundry 
    papers therein described in the files of the House of 
    Representatives.
        The rules and practice of the House of Representatives 
    indicates that the Clerk may not, either voluntarily or in 
    obedience to a subpena duces tecum, produce such papers without the 
    consent of the House being first obtained. It is further indicated 
    that he may not supply copies of certain of the documents and 
    papers requested without such consent.
        The subpena in question is herewith attached, and the matter is 
    presented for such action as the House in its wisdom may see fit to 
    take.
          Very truly yours,
                                             Ralph R. Roberts,
                                            Clerk, United States
                                         House of Representatives.

    Following the presentation of the communication and the reading of 
the subpena to the House, a resolution (10) was offered by 
Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, authorizing the Clerk to 
appear in response to the subpena but permitting the production of 
certified copies of only those subpenaed House papers and documents 
subsequently determined by the court to be material and relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Res. 547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.9 The Clerk of the House of Representatives, having

[[Page 1632]]

    received a subpena to appear and testify before a court of the 
    District of Columbia in a criminal case, informed the Speaker who 
    laid the matter before the House.

    On July 13, 1965,(11) the Speaker (12) laid 
before the House as a matter raising the question of the privilege of 
the House, a communication from the Clerk of the House advising that he 
had received a subpena commanding his appearance for the purpose of 
testifying before the criminal bench of the District of Columbia Court 
of General Sessions in connection with U.S. v Washington. 
(13) Following the presentation of the communication and the 
reading of the subpena, the House agreed to a resolution 
(14) offered by Mr. John E. Moss, Jr., of California, 
authorizing the Clerk to appear and testify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 16592, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
13. Criminal Case No. U.S. 5379-65, U.S. 5380-65.
14. H. Res. 469.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Subpena on the Doorkeeper

Sec. 16.10 When the Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives receives 
    a subpena duces tecum from a federal district court he reports the 
    facts to the Speaker who lays the matter before the House.

    On Apr. 13, 1961,(15) the Speaker (16) rose 
to a question of the privilege of the House and laid before the House a 
communication from the Doorkeeper of the House advising that he had 
received a subpena directing his appearance as a witness and the 
production of certain described papers before the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Columbia in connection with U.S. v Taylor. 
(17) Following the presentation of the communication, the 
House agreed to a privileged resolution (18) offered by Mr. 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, authorizing the Doorkeeper to 
appear in response to the subpena, but permitting the production of 
certified copies of only those subpenaed House papers and documents 
subsequently determined by the court to be material and relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 5851, 5852, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
17. Criminal Case No. 965-60.
18. H. Res. 256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Subpena on the Sergeant at Arms

Sec. 16.11 The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representa

[[Page 1633]]

    tives, having received a subpena from a federal court, reported the 
    facts to the Speaker who laid the matter before the House.

    On Mar. 3, 1960,(19) the Speaker pro tempore 
(20) laid before the House as a matter raising the question 
of the privilege of the House a communication from the Sergeant at 
Arms, as follows:

19. 106 Cong. Rec. 4393, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. An additional example 
        supporting this point may be found at 100 Cong. Rec. 1162, 83d 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 2, 1954.
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

                                                    March 3, 1960.
    The Honorable Sam Rayburn,
    Speaker of the House of Representatives,
    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: From the District Court of the United States 
    for the Southern District of New York, I have received a subpena 
    directing the Sergeant at Arms to appear before said court as a 
    witness in the case of the United States v Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. 
    (No. 35-208).
        The subpena in question is herewith attached, and the matter is 
    presented for such action as the House in its wisdom may see fit to 
    take.
          Respectfully,
                                          Zeake W. Johnson, Jr.,
                                                 Sergeant at Arms.

The Speaker pro tempore then instructed the Clerk to read the subpena 
to the House. At the conclusion of the reading, a privileged resolution 
(1) offered by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, authorizing the 
Sergeant at Arms to appear in response to the subpena was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Res. 465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.12 The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, having 
    received a subpena to appear and testify before a criminal court of 
    the District of Columbia, informed the Speaker who laid the matter 
    before the House.

    On July 13, 1965,(2) the Speaker (3) laid 
before the House as a matter involving a question of the privilege of 
the House a communication from the Sergeant at Arms advising that he 
had received a subpena directing his appearance to testify before the 
criminal branch of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions 
in connection with U.S. v Washington.(4) After the reading 
of the subpena by the Clerk, a resolution (5) was offered by 
Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, authorizing the Sergeant at Arms to 
appear and testify. The resolution was

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 16529, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 4. Criminal Case No. U.S. 5379-65, U.S. 5380-65.
 5. H. Res. 456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1634]]

agreed to, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Service of Subpenas on House Employees

Sec. 16.13 An employee of the House having received a subpena duces 
    tecum in a federal civil action seeking his testimony and the 
    production of House records in his possession, his superior 
    informed the Speaker who laid the matter before the House.

    On Apr. 25, 1966,(6) the Speaker (7) laid 
before the House as a matter involving a question of the privilege of 
the House a communication from the Clerk of the House advising that an 
employee under his authority had been served with a subpena duces tecum 
commanding his appearance for the purpose of testifying and producing 
certain House records before the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Columbia in connection with Siamis v Chizzo.(8) Following 
the presentation of the communication, the House agreed to a resolution 
(9) offered by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, authorizing the 
employee to appear in response to the subpena but permitting the 
production of certified copies of only those subpenaed House papers and 
documents subsequently determined by the court to be material and I 
relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 8786, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. For further illustrations 
        see 102 Cong. Rec. 7588, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., May 7, 1956; and 
        101 Cong. Rec. 1215, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 7, 1955.
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 8. Civil Action File No. 1471-63 (U.S.D.C. D. D.C.)
 9. H. Res. 825.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Grand Jury Subpenas on House Officers

Sec. 16.14 The Clerk of the House of Representatives having received a 
    subpena duces tecum from a federal grand jury, informed the Speaker 
    who laid the matter before the House.

    On Feb. 20, 1973,(10) the Speaker (11) laid 
before the House as a matter involving a question of the privilege of 
the House a communication from the Clerk of the House advising that he 
had been served with a subpena duces tecum commanding his appear

[[Page 1635]]

ance and the production of certain House records before the grand jury 
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Following 
the Speaker's insertion of the subpena in the Record, the House agreed 
to a privileged resolution (12) offered by Mr. Thomas P. 
O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, authorizing the Clerk to appear in 
response to the subpena but permitting the production of certified 
copies of only those subpenaed House papers and documents subsequently 
determined by the court to be material and relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 4490, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For further illustrations 
        see 118 Cong. Rec. 28285, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 15, 1972; 
        115 Cong. Rec. 32005, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 29, 1969; and 
        113 Cong. Rec. 29374-76, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 1967.
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
12. H. Res. 221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.15 The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives having 
    been served with a subpena duces tecum from a federal grand jury, 
    informed the Speaker who laid the matter before the House.

    On Jan. 16, 1968,(13) the Speaker (14) laid 
before the House as a question of the privilege of the House a 
communication from the Sergeant at Arms of the House advising that he 
had received a subpena duces tecum directing his appearance and the 
production of certain original records before the grand jury of the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. After the reading of 
the subpena by the Clerk, a privileged resolution (15) was 
offered by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, authorizing the Sergeant at 
Arms to appear and deliver the requested papers and documents in 
response to the subpena. The resolution was agreed to, and a motion to 
reconsider was laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 114 Cong. Rec. 80, 81, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. For additional examples 
        see 113 Cong. Rec. 17561, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 27, 1967; 
        111 Cong. Rec. 5338, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 18, 1965; and 
        99 Cong. Rec. 5523, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1953.
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
15. H. Res. 1022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Grand Jury Subpenas on House Employees

Sec. 16.16 Where an employee of the House received a subpena duces 
    tecum issued by a federal grand jury, his superior informed the 
    Speaker who laid the matter before the House.

    On Oct. 19, 1967,(16) the Speaker (17) laid 
before the House as a question of the privilege of the House a 
communication from the Clerk advising that an employee under his 
jurisdiction had been served with a subpena duces

[[Page 1636]]

tecum commanding his appearance for the purpose of testifying before 
the grand jury of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 
The House then agreed to a privileged resolution (18) 
offered by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, authorizing the Speaker to 
permit the employee to appear in response to the subpena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 29375, 29376, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
18. H. Res. 950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Court-martial Subpena

Sec. 16.17 The Clerk of the House of Representatives, having received a 
    subpena duces tecum from a general court-martial, informed the 
    Speaker who laid the matter before the House.

    On Nov. 17, 1970,(19) the Speaker (20) laid 
before the House as a matter involving a question of the privilege of 
the House a communication from the Clerk advising that he was in 
receipt of a subpena duces tecum commanding his appearance as a witness 
and the production of certain House subcommittee executive session 
transcripts before a general court-martial of the United States 
convened at Ft. Benning, Georgia. At the Speaker's instruction the 
subpena was then read by the Clerk to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 37652-54, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Clerk's office was advised (1) that the 
Committee on Armed Services, and not the Clerk, was the proper 
custodian of executive session testimony taken before its subcommittee 
and that an employee of that committee should have been the recipient 
of the subpenas; and (2) that the requested executive session testimony 
could not, under the provisions of House Resolution 15 (91st Congress) 
be released by any officer or employee of the House during an 
adjournment; but that (3) the Committee on Armed Services could meet 
and, pursuant to the House rules, order the testimony to be made 
public.
    The House took no further action on the subpenas.

Service of Notice of Taking of Deposition

Sec. 16.18 The Clerk of the House, having been served with a notice of 
    taking of a deposition in a civil action in which he had been named 
    as a defendant in his official capacity, informed the Speaker who 
    laid the matter before the House.

[[Page 1637]]

    On Mar. 15, 1973,(1) the Speaker (2) laid 
before the House as a matter involving the question of the privilege of 
the House a communication from the Clerk advising that he had been 
served with a notice of the taking of a deposition in connection with a 
civil action (3) pending in the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia. Subsequently, on Mar. 19, 1973,(4) the 
House agreed to a privileged resolution (5) offered by Mr. 
John J. McFall, of California, authorizing the Clerk to respond to the 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 7955, 7956, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
 3. Common Cause v W. Patrick Jennings et al., Civil Action File No. 
        2379-72 (U.S.D.C. D. D.C.).
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 8485, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H. Res. 313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 17. Service of Process on Committee Chairmen and Employees

Service of Summons and Complaint on Committee Chairman

Sec. 17.1 The receipt of a summons and complaint naming the chairman of 
    a House committee as a defendant in a civil action brought in a 
    federal court raises a question of the privilege of the House, and 
    the matter is laid before the House for its consideration.

    On May 16, 1972,(6) the Speaker (17) laid 
before the House as a matter involving a question of the privilege of 
the House a communication from the Chairman of the Committee on Rules 
advising that he had been served with a summons and complaint as a 
defendant in a civil action (8) brought in the U.S. District 
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. At the same time, the 
Speaker, who stated that he and the Clerk of the House had received 
summons and complaint in the same action, inserted copies of the 
following letters in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 17398, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
 8. Civil Action File No. 72-1126 (Sec. H, U.S.D.C. E.D. La.).

                                                     May 16, 1972.
    Hon. Richard G. Kleindienst,
    Acting Attorney General, Department of
    Justice, Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Kleindienst: On May 15, 1972, I received by certified 
    mail a Summons and complaint in Civil Action No. 72-1126 in the 
    United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 
    A copy of the Summons and complaint is enclosed herewith.

[[Page 1638]]

    Representative William M. Colmer, Chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules of the House of Representatives, and the Clerk of the House 
    of Representatives, Hon. W. Pat Jennings, have also received 
    Summons and complaint in the action.
        In accordance with the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 118, I have sent 
    a copy of the Summons and complaint in this action to the U.S. 
    Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana requesting that he 
    take appropriate action under the supervision and direction of the 
    Acting Attorney General. I am also sending you a copy of the letter 
    I forwarded this date to the U.S. Attorney.
          Sincerely,
                                                  Carl Albert,
                                            Speaker of the House
                                               of Representatives.

                                                     May 16, 1972.
    Hon. Gerald J. Gallinghouse,
    U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, 
        La.

        Dear Mr. Gallinghouse: I am sending you a copy of a Summons and 
    complaint in Civil Action No. 72-1126 in the United States District 
    Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, against me in my 
    official capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
    received by certified mail on May 15, 1972.
        Representative William M. Colmer, Chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules of the House of Representatives, and the Clerk of the House 
    of Representatives, Hon. W. Pat Jennings, have also received by 
    certified mail copies of the Summons and complaint.
        In accordance with the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 118, I 
    respectfully request that you take appropriate action, as deemed 
    necessary, under the supervision and direction of the Acting 
    Attorney General, in defense of this suit against the Speaker, the 
    Chairman of the Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives, 
    and the House of Representatives. I am also sending you a copy of 
    the letter that I forwarded this date to the Acting Attorney 
    General of the United States.
          Sincerely,
                                                  Carl Albert,
                                            Speaker of the House
                                             of Representatives.

Subpenas Served on Committee Chairmen

Sec. 17.2 The chairman of a House committee, having received a subpena 
    duces tecum from a federal court, reported the facts to the speaker 
    who laid the matter before the House.

    On Feb. 21, 1961,(9) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Un-American Activities, Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, rose to a 
question of the privilege of the House and informed the House that he 
had been subpenaed to appear and testify in connection with a case 
(10) pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of New York. Following the presentation of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 107 Cong. Rec. 2481, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. U.S. v Seeger, Criminal Case No. C 152-240, Cr. 800 (U.S.D.C. S.D. 
        N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1639]]

subpena to the House, a resolution,(11) authorizing the 
chairman to appear and testify, offered by Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, was agreed to.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.3 When the chairman of a House committee receives a subpena 
    duces tecum from the Tax Court of the United States, a question of 
    the privilege of the House arises.

    On Aug. 12, 1969,(12) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Currency, Wright Patman, of Texas, rose to a question of 
the privilege of the House and informed the House that he had been 
served with a subpena duces tecum requesting the production of certain 
documents before the Tax Court of the United States. The subpena was 
sent to the desk, and the Speaker (13) instructed the Clerk 
to read it to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 23354, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Chairman Patman stated that the documents 
called for in the subpena were not in his possession or control, and 
the House took no action thereon.

Sec. 17.4 The chairman of a House committee, having been subpenaed to 
    appear and testify before a state court, rose to a question of the 
    privilege of the House.

    On July 7, 1971,(14) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Internal Security, Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, rose to a question 
of the privilege of the House and addressed the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 23813, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. On the same day a similar 
        subpena served on the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
        Means, Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.), by the same court in connection 
        with the same case was also presented to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ichord: Mr. Speaker . . . I have been subpenaed to appear 
    before the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on the 7th 
    day of July 1971 at 2 p.m. in the case of United States v. Margaret 
    Butterfield (docket No. 27078-71) and to bring with me certain 
    papers under the control of the Committee on Internal Security.
        Under the precedents of the House, I am unable to comply with 
    this subpena duces tecum without the consent of the House, the 
    privileges of the House being involved. I therefore submit the 
    matter for the consideration of this body.
        I send the subpena duces tecum to the desk.

    The subpena was sent to the desk, and the Speaker pro tempore 
(15) instructed the Clerk to read it to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Hale Boggs (La.).

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

[[Page 1640]]

Service of Subpenas on Committee Employees

Sec. 17.5 Where a House committee employee had been subpenaed by a 
    federal court, in a matter related to committee business, the 
    chairman of the committee advised the Speaker of this fact by 
    letter and the Speaker then laid the matter before the House for 
    its consideration.

    On Feb. 21, l961,(16) the Speaker (17) laid 
before the House as a matter giving rise to a question of the privilege 
of the House a communication from the Chairman of the Committee on Un-
American Activities:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 2482, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

                                                February 20, 1961.
    Hon. Sam Rayburn,
    Speaker, House of Representatives,
    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: Mr. Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., an employee of 
    the House, while serving at my direction as counsel for the 
    Committee on Un-American Activities, received a subpena duces tecum 
    directing him to appear as a witness before the U.S. District Court 
    for the District of Columbia, in the case of the United States of 
    America v. Martin Popper (No. 1053-59). The return date of the 
    subpena has been extended to April 15, 1961.
        The portion of the subpena duces tecum requiring the production 
    of documents was, on the 3d day of February 1961, quashed by Mr. 
    Justice Edward M. Curran.
        The subpena in question is transmitted herewith and the matter 
    is presented for such action as the House, in its wisdom, may see 
    fit to take.
          Sincerely yours,
                                              Francis E. Walter,
                                                         Chairman.

    After the Clerk's reading of the subpena, the House agreed to a 
resolution (18) offered by Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, authorizing the committee employee to appear in response 
to the subpena duces tecum as modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.6 When an employee of a House committee had been served with a 
    subpena from a state court, in a matter related to committee 
    business, the chairman of the committee informed the Speaker who 
    laid the matter before the House.

    On May 21, 1962,(19) the Speaker pro 
tempore,(20) rising to a question of the privilege of the 
House, laid before the House the

[[Page 1641]]

following communication from the Chairman of the Committee on Un-
American Activities:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 8823, 8824, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. For a further 
        illustration see 105 Cong. Rec. 5858, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Apr. 14, 1959.
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).

                                                     May 21, 1962.
    Hon. John McCormack,
    Speaker, House of Representatives,
    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: Mr. Donald Appell, an employee of the House, 
    while serving at my direction as an investigator on the Committee 
    on Un-American Activities, received a subpena directing him to 
    appear as a witness in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 
    New York County, on the 23d day of May 1962, in the case of John 
    Henry Faulk, plaintiff v. Aware, Inc., Laurence A. Johnson and 
    Vincent Hartnett, defendants.
        The subpena in question is transmitted herewith and the matter 
    is presented for such action as the House, in its wisdom, may see 
    fit to take.
          Sincerely yours,
                                              Francis E. Walter,
                                                         Chairman.

    After a reading of the subpena by the Clerk, a resolution 
(1) was offered by Mr. Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, 
authorizing the employee's appearance to testify to any matter 
determined by the court to be material and relevant to the 
identification of any publicly disclosed document, but prohibiting his 
testimony as to any matter that may be based on knowledge acquired by 
him in his official capacity as committee investigator. The resolution 
was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Res. 650.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Grand Jury Subpena on Committee Chairman

Sec. 17.7 The chairman of a House committee, having received a subpena 
    duces tecum from a federal grand jury, rose to a question of the 
    privilege of the House.

    On Aug. 15, 1972,(2) the Chair recognized Mr. Charles M. 
Price, of Illinois:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 118 Cong. Rec. 28286, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Price of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the 
    privileges of the House.
        The Speaker:(3) The gentleman will state the 
    question of privilege of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Price of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as chairman 
    of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I have been 
    subpenaed to appear before the grand jury of the U.S. District 
    Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on August 22, 1972, 
    and to bring with me certain records of the Committee on Standards 
    of Official Conduct. Under the rules and precedents of the House, I 
    am unable to comply with the subpena duces tecum without the 
    permission of the House [the privileges of the House] being 
    involved.
        I therefore submit the matter for the consideration of the 
    House.

[[Page 1642]]

        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the subpena.

    After the reading of the subpena, a privileged resolution 
(4) was offered by Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, authorizing 
the chairman to appear in response to the subpena but permitting the 
production of certified copies of only those subpenaed House papers and 
documents subsequently determined by the court to be material and 
relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Res. 1092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Grand Jury Subpenas on Committee Employees

Sec. 17.8 A House committee employee, having received a subpena duces 
    tecum from a federal grand jury, informed the Speaker who laid the 
    matter before the House.

    On Jan. 16, 1968,(5) the Speaker (6) laid 
before the House as a matter involving the privilege of the House a 
communication from the clerk of the Committee on House Administration 
advising that he was in receipt of a subpena duces tecum commanding his 
appearance for the purpose of testifying and producing certain original 
records before the grand jury of the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia. Following the presentation of the communication 
and the reading of the subpena to the House, a privileged resolution 
(7) was offered by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, authorizing 
the committee clerk to appear and produce the requested original papers 
and documents in response to the subpena. The resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 114 Cong. Rec. 81, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. For further examples see 113 
        Cong. Rec. 29374-76, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 1967; and 
        113 Cong. Rec. 17562, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 27, 1967.
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 7. H. Res. 1023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service of Discovery Orders

Sec. 17.9 Where a federal district court, pursuant to the Federal Rules 
    of Criminal Procedure, issued a discovery order for the inspection 
    and copying of certain original papers and documents in the 
    possession and under the control of a House committee, a question 
    of the privilege of the House arose.

    On July 1, 1969,(8) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Internal Security, Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, rose to a question 
of the privilege of the House and offered

[[Page 1643]]

a resolution (9) for the consideration of the House. The 
resolution authorized him to make available to the U.S. attorney, in 
response to a discovery order issued by a federal district court 
pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the 
purpose of inspection and copying by parties in a pending criminal 
action,(10) certain enumerated committee papers and 
documents. The resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 17948, 91St Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H. Res. 459.
10. U.S. v Stamler, Hall, and Cohen, Criminal Action No. 67 CR 393, 67 
        CR 394, 67 CR 395 (U.S.D.C. No. 1). Ill ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.10 Where certain employees and former employees of a House 
    committee were named parties defendant in a federal civil action 
    and had received discovery orders and interrogatories, a question 
    of the privilege of the House was invoked.

    On Mar. 2, 1971,(11) Mr. Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, 
rising to a question of the privilege of the House, offered a 
resolution (12) for the consideration of the House. The 
resolution authorized specified employees and former employees of the 
Committee on Internal Security to testify and produce certain documents 
in response to discovery orders and written and oral interrogatories 
served on them as parties defendant in a civil action (13) 
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 
Illinois. The previous question was immediately moved on the 
resolution. Mr. Abner Mikva, of Illinois, objected to the vote because 
a quorum was not present. On a call of the roll pursuant to Rule XV, 
the resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 117 Cong. Rec. 4584-93, 92D Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H. Res. 264.
13. Civil Action File No. 65 C 800, 65 C 2050 (U.S.D.C. No. D. Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 18. Authorization to Respond to Process

    When the Clerk or other officer of the House is served with a 
subpena duces tecum when the House is in session, the House ordinarily 
deals with each subpena by resolution on an individual basis. During 
periods of adjournment, however, the current practice is to authorize 
the officer in receipt of such a court order to appear (but not to take 
original documents of the House) pursuant to a resolution providing 
continuing authority to respond during that period. The court may be 
provided with copies of House documents except

[[Page 1644]]

those taken in executive session, upon the court's determination of 
their relevancy.
    Prior to the 80th Congress, it was not the custom for the House to 
agree to resolutions providing continuing authority for the Clerk or 
other House officers to respond to subpenas duces tecum during periods 
of adjournment. From the 80th through the 83d Congresses, resolutions 
were adopted providing for continuing authority to respond to subpenas 
duces tecum where the court issuing the subpena required the documents 
for use in cases relating to the refusal of witnesses to testify before 
congressional committees. These resolutions pertained only to subpenas 
issued by courts of the United States.
    For example, the 80th Congress approved a resolution which provided 
that when, during that Congress, a subpena duces tecum was directed to 
the Clerk or any officer or employee of the House from any court of the 
United States considering a case based on the refusal of a witness to 
appear or testify before a congressional committee, the Clerk or other 
officer was authorized to appear but not with any documents. The courts 
were, however, given permission to make copies of relevant 
documents.(14) In the second session of the 83d Congress, 
the House adopted a similar resolution which could be invoked during 
any period of adjournment of that Congress.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 584, 94 Cong. Rec. 5433, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 6, 1948. 
        See also H. Res. 864, 96 Cong. Rec. 15636, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Sept. 22, 1950: H. Res. 481, 97 Cong. Rec. 13777, 82d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Oct. 20, 1951; and H. Res. 391, 99 Cong. Rec. 11132, 83d 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 3, 1953.
15. H. Res. 711, 100 Cong. Rec. 15547, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 20, 
        1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 84th and subsequent Congresses, the House approved of 
resolutions that provided that when documentary evidence under the 
control of the House was needed in any court of justice during any 
recess or adjournment of that Congress, the Clerk or other House 
officer was authorized to appear in answer to a subpena duces tecum but 
not to take documents. The courts were given permission to make copies 
of documents (except for executive session materials) upon the issuance 
of a court order declaring their relevancy.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H. Res. 341, 101 Cong. Rec. 13063, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 
        1955. See also H. Res. 416, 103 Cong. Rec. 16759, 16760, 85th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 30, 1957; and H. Res. 224, 105 Cong. Rec. 
        5260, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 25, 1959.

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

[[Page 1645]]

 Speaker's Power to Authorize Response to Process

Sec. 18.1 On one occasion, the House by resolution authorized the 
    Speaker to permit House officers and employees to appear in 
    response to subpenas issued by a U.S. District Court in connection 
    with an investigation being conducted by a grand jury.

    On Oct. 19, 1967,(17) communications from the Clerk of 
the House and the chairman of a House committee were presented to the 
House advising that they were in receipt of subpenas issued by the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia. Mr. Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, offered a resolution (18) giving the Speaker 
authorization to permit certain officers and employees to respond to 
the subpenas. The resolution provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 29374-76, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H. Res. 950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas in the investigation of possible violations of Title 
    18, United States Code, Sections 201, 287, 371, 641, 1001 and 1505, 
    a subpena ad testificandum was issued by the United States District 
    Court for the District of Columbia and addressed to W. Pat 
    Jennings, Clerk of the House of Representatives, directing him to 
    appear before the grand jury of said court on October 23, 1967, to 
    testify in connection with matters under investigation by the grand 
    jury; and
        Whereas other officers and staff employees of the House of 
    Representatives have received, or may receive, subpenas ad 
    testificandum to appear before the said grand jury in connection 
    with the before-mentioned investigation; and
        Whereas information secured by officers and staff employees of 
    the House of Representatives pursuant to their official duties as 
    such officers or employees may not be revealed without the consent 
    of the House: Therefore be it
        Resolved, That W. Pat Jennings, Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives, is authorized to appear in response to the subpena 
    before-mentioned as a witness before the grand jury; and be it 
    further
        Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives is 
    authorized to permit any other officer or employee of the House who 
    is in receipt of or shall receive a subpena ad testificandum in 
    connection with the proceedings conducted by the grand jury before-
    mentioned to appear in response thereto; and be it further
        Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to 
    the said court.

    The resolution was agreed to.
    A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The U.S. attorney had advised the Speaker 
that several officers and employees of the House might be subpenaed to 
appear and testify

[[Page 1646]]

before the federal grand jury in connection with its investigation into 
possible violations of the Criminal Code. Rather than have each officer 
and employee authorized by separate resolution, the Speaker was given 
the authority to authorize such appearances. Each officer and employee 
who thereafter received a subpena in connection with the grand jury 
proceedings informed the Speaker who then responded with a written 
authorization.

Duration of Authorization

Sec. 18.2 Where one Congress has, by resolution, authorized a Member to 
    appear in response to a subpena issued by a federal court, and the 
    court's proceedings extend into the next Congress, the Member must 
    again obtain permission of the House if he still wishes to respond 
    to the subpena.

    On Apr. 13, 1961,(19) the Chair recognized Mr. James 
Roosevelt, of California, on a question of privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong. Rec. 5844, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 
        2480, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 21, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roosevelt: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the 
    privilege of the House.
        The Speaker: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roosevelt: Mr. Speaker, during the 86th Congress, the House 
    authorized me to appear in response to a subpena issued by the U.S. 
    District Court for the District of Columbia, directing me to appear 
    in Washington, D.C., to testify in the case of the United States of 
    America against Martin Popper.
        The case was originally scheduled for trial on June 21, 1960, 
    but was adjourned and is now scheduled to begin on April 25, 1961.
        Under the precedents of the House, I am unable to comply with 
    this subpena without the consent of this House, the privileges of 
    the House being involved. I, therefore, submit the matter for the 
    consideration of this body.
        Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk the subpena.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the subpena.

    After the Clerk read the subpena, the House agreed to a resolution 
(2~1) offered by Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
authorizing the Member to appear in response to the subpena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. H. Res. 254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.3 The Clerk having notified the House that he had been 
    authorized by the preceding Congress to appear as a witness and to 
    produce specified documents in a certain case and that the case

[[Page 1647]]

    was still in progress, the House passed a resolution permitting his 
    further appearance as a witness.

    On Mar. 27, 1961,(~22~) the Speaker (1) laid 
before the House as a matter involving a question of the privilege of 
the House the following communication from the Clerk:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 107 Cong. Rec. 4917-19, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

                                                   March 24, 1961.
    The Honorable the Speaker,
    House of Representatives.

        Sir: As the Clerk of the House of the 86th Congress I received, 
    from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 
    two subpenas duces tecum, one in the case of Peter Seeger (criminal 
    No. C-152-240), and the other in the case of Elliott Sullivan 
    (criminal No. C-152-238). Both subpenas directed me to appear 
    before said court as a witness in these cases and to bring with me 
    certain and sundry papers therein described in the files of the 
    House of Representatives.
        This matter was brought to the attention of the last House, as 
    a result of which House Resolutions 476 and 477 were adopted on 
    March 15, 1960.
        Since the development of these cases has extended into the 87th 
    Congress and it is well recognized that each House controls its own 
    papers, this matter is presented for such action as the House, in 
    its wisdom, may see fit to take.

          Respectfully yours,

                                               Ralph R. Roberts,
                             Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives.

    After a reading of the subpena to the House, Mr. John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, offered a resolution (2) authorizing the 
Clerk to appear in response to the subpena but permitting the 
production of certified copies of only those subpena House papers and 
documents subsequently determined by the court to be material and 
relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Res. 234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorization During Recesses and Adjournments

Sec. 18.4 The House may, by resolution, authorize court appearances 
    while prohibiting the disclosure of minutes or transcripts of 
    committee executive sessions in response to subpenas served upon 
    Members, officers, or employees during recesses and adjournments.

    On Jan. 13, 1973,(3) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, offered for immediate consideration the following 
resolution: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 30, 31, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For similar authorizing 
        resolutions adopted by recent Congresses see 117 Cong. Rec. 16, 
        92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971; 115 Cong. Rec. 37, 91st 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969; and 113 Cong. Rec. 35, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967.
 4. H. Res. 12.

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

[[Page 1648]]

        Whereas, by the privileges of this House no evidence of a 
    documentary character under the control and in the possession of 
    the House of Representatives can, by the mandate of process of the 
    ordinary courts of justice, be taken from such control or 
    possession except by its permission: Therefore be it
        Resolved, That when it appears by the order of any court in the 
    United States or a judge thereof, or of any legal officer charged 
    with the administration of the orders of such court or judge, that 
    documentary evidence in the possession and under the control of the 
    House is needful for use in any court of justice or before any 
    judge or such legal officer, for the promotion of justice, this 
    House will take such action thereon as will promote the ends of 
    justice consistently with the privileges and rights of this House; 
    be it further
        Resolved, That during any recess or adjournment of its Ninety-
    third Congress, when a subpena or other order for the production or 
    disclosure of information is by the due process of any court in the 
    United States served upon any Member, officer, or employee of the 
    House of Representatives, directing appearance as a witness before 
    the said court at any time and the production of certain and sundry 
    papers in the possession and under the control of the House of 
    Representatives, that any such Member, officer, or employee of the 
    House, be authorized to appear before said court at the place and 
    time named in any such subpena or order, but no papers or documents 
    in the possession or under the control of the House of 
    Representatives shall be produced in response thereto; and be it 
    further
        Resolved, That when any said court determines upon the 
    materiality and the relevancy of the papers or documents called for 
    in the subpena or other order, then said court, through any of its 
    officers or agents, shall have full permission to attend with all 
    proper parties to the proceedings before said court and at a place 
    under the orders and control of the House of Representatives and 
    take copies of the said documents or papers and the Clerk of the 
    House is authorized to supply certified copies of such documents 
    that the court has found to be material and relevant, except that 
    under no circumstances shall any minutes or transcripts of 
    executive sessions, or any evidence of witnesses in respect 
    thereto, be disclosed or copied, nor shall the possession of said 
    documents and papers by any Member, officer, or employee of the 
    House be disturbed or removed from their place of file or custody 
    under said Member, officer, or employee; and be it further
        Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted by 
    the Clerk of the House to any of said courts whenever such writs of 
    subpena or other orders are issued and served as aforesaid.

    The resolution was agreed to.
    A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 19. Providing for Legal Counsel

    Legal counsel, through the Department of Justice, is made available 
to the officers--but not

[[Page 1649]]

the Members--of the House pursuant to 2 USC Sec. 118, which provides in 
part:

        In any action brought against any person for or on account of 
    anything done by him while an officer of either House of Congress 
    in the discharge of his official duty, in executing any order of 
    such House, the district attorney for the district within which the 
    action is brought, on being thereto requested by the officer sued, 
    shall enter an appearance in behalf of such officer . . . and the 
    defense of such action shall thenceforth be conducted under the 
    supervision and direction of the Attorney General.

However, the Attorney General has recommended that the House retain 
other legal counsel in cases where he had determined that a conflict 
may have existed between the legislative and executive 
interests.                          -------------------

Appointment of Special Counsel by the Speaker

Sec. 19.1 On one occasion the House, by resolution, authorized the 
    Speaker to appoint and fix the compensation for a special counsel 
    to represent the House and those Members named as defendants in a 
    suit brought by a former Member.

    On Mar. 9, 1967,(5) the Speaker (6) announced 
as a matter involving a question of the privilege of the House, that he 
and certain other Members and officers of the House had been served 
with a summons issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia in connection with an action (7) brought by Adam 
Clayton Powell, Jr. Following the reading of the summons by the Clerk, 
Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, rose to a question of the privilege of 
the House and offered a resolution (H. Res. 376) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 6035-48, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 7. Civil Action File No. 559-61 (U.S.D.C.D. D.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., et al., on March 8, 1967, 
    filed a suit in the United States District Court for the District 
    of Columbia, naming as defendants certain Members, and officers of 
    the House of Representatives, and contesting certain actions of the 
    House of Representatives; and
        Whereas this suit raises questions concerning the rights and 
    privileges of the House of Representatives, the separation of 
    powers between the legislative and judicial branches of the 
    Government and fundamental constitutional issues: Now, therefore, 
    be it
        Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives of 
    the United States is hereby authorized to appoint and fix the 
    compensation of such spe

[[Page 1650]]

    cial counsel as he may deem necessary to represent the House of 
    Representatives, its Members and officers named as defendants, in 
    the suit filed by Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., et al. in the United 
    States District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as in 
    any similar or related proceeding brought in any court of the 
    United States; and be it further
        Resolved, That any expenses incurred pursuant to these 
    resolutions, including the compensation of such special counsel and 
    any costs incurred thereby, shall be paid from the contingent fund 
    of the House on vouchers authorized and signed by the Speaker of 
    the House of Representatives and approved by the Committee on House 
    Administration; and be it further
        Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
    transmit a copy of these resolutions to the aforementioned court 
    and to any other court in which related legal proceedings may be 
    brought.

    Debate on the resolution ensued, after which the resolution was 
agreed to.(8~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Parliamentarian's Note: On Mar. 14, 1967, the Speaker announced the 
        appointment of special counsel pursuant to H. Res. 376. 113 
        Cong. Rec. 6603, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. The House, on Feb. 17, 
        1969, by simple resolution (H. Res. 243) continued the 
        authority granted the Speaker by the provisions of H. Res. 376, 
        90th Congress, to retain special counsel, 115 Cong. Rec. 3359, 
        91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appointment of Special Counsel for Members and Employees

Sec. 19.2 The House may, by resolution, authorize a committee to 
    arrange for the legal defense of certain committee members and 
    employees who are named in their official capacities as defendants 
    in a civil action.

    On Aug. 1, 1953,(9) Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, 
offered a resolution (10) authorizing the Committee on the 
Judiciary to file appearances, to provide counsel and to provide for 
the defense of certain members and employees of the Committee on Un-
American Activities who had been named as parties defendant in a civil 
action (11) brought in the Superior Court for the State of 
California. The resolution stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 99 Cong. Rec. 10949, 10950, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H. Res. 386.
11. Michael Wilson et al. v Loew's Inc., et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas Harold H. Velde, of Illinois, Donald L. Jackson, of 
    California, Morgan M. Moulder, of Missouri, Clyde Doyle, of 
    California, and James B. Frazier, Jr., of Tennessee, all 
    Representatives in the Congress of the United States; and Louis J. 
    Russell, and William Wheeler, employees of the House of 
    Representatives, were by sub

[[Page 1651]]

    poenas commanded to appear on Monday and Tuesday, March 30 and 31, 
    1953 in the city of Los Angeles, Calif., and to testify and give 
    their depositions in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's, 
    Incorporated, et al., an action pending in the Supreme Court of 
    California in and for the County of Los Angeles; and . . .
        Whereas Harold H. Velde, Donald L. Jackson, Morgan M. Moulder, 
    Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier, Jr., Louis J. Russell, and William 
    Wheeler appeared specially in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. 
    versus Loew's Incorporated, et al., for the purpose of moving to 
    set aside the service of summonses and to quash the subpoenas with 
    which they had been served; and
        Whereas on July 20, 1953, the Superior Court of the State of 
    California in and for the County of Los Angeles ruled that the 
    aforesaid summonses served upon Harold H. Velde, Morgan M. Moulder, 
    James B. Frazier, Jr., and Louis .J. Russell should be set aside 
    for the reason that it was the public policy of the State of 
    California ``that nonresident members and attaches of a 
    congressional committee who enter the territorial jurisdiction of 
    its courts for the controlling purpose of conducting legislative 
    hearings pursuant to law should be privileged from the service of 
    process in civil litigation''; and . . .Whereas on July 20, 1953, 
    the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County 
    of Los Angeles further ruled that the subpoenas served on Clyde 
    Doyle and Donald Jackson should be recalled and quashed because 
    such service was invalid under the aforementioned article I, 
    section 6, of the Constitution of the United States; and
        Whereas the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's 
    Incorporated, et al. in which the aforementioned Members, former 
    Members, and employees of the House of Representatives are named 
    parties defendant is still pending; and
        Whereas the summonses with respect to Donald L. Jackson, Clyde 
    Doyle, and William Wheeler and the subpoena with respect to William 
    Wheeler in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's 
    Incorporated, et al. have not been quashed:
        Resolved, That the House of Representatives hereby approves of 
    the special appearances of Harold H. Velde, Donald L. Jackson, 
    Morgan M. Moulder, Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier, Jr., Louis J. 
    Russell, and William Wheeler heretofore entered in the case of 
    Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et al.; and be it 
    further
        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a 
    whole or by subcommittee, is hereby authorized to direct the filing 
    in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et 
    al. of such special or general appearances on behalf of any of the 
    Members, former Members, or employees of the House of 
    Representatives named as defendants therein, and to direct such 
    other or further action with respect to the aforementioned 
    defendants in such manner as will, in thejudgment of the Committee 
    on the Judiciary, be consistent with the rights and privileges of 
    the House of Representatives; and be it further
        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is also 
    authorized and directed to arrange for the defense of the Members, 
    former Members, and employees of the Committee on Un-Amer

[[Page 1652]]

    ican Activities in any suit hereafter brought against such Members, 
    former Members, and employees, or any one or more of them, growing 
    out of the actions of such Members, former Members, and employees 
    while performing such duties and obligations imposed upon them by 
    the laws of the Congress and the rules and resolutions of the House 
    of Representatives. The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to 
    incur all expenses necessary for the purposes hereof. . . .

    The resolution was agreed to, and a motion to reconsider was laid 
on the table.(l2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Parliamentarian's Note: On Sept. 6, 1961, the House, by resolution 
        (H. Res. 417), continued the authority of the Committee on the 
        Judiciary granted by the provisions of H. Res. 386, 83d Cong., 
        to arrange for the legal defense of members, former members and 
        employees of the Committee on Un-American Activities. 107 Cong. 
        Rec. 18240, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorizing the Clerk to Appoint Special Counsel

Sec. 19.3 On one occasion the House, by resolution, authorized the 
    Clerk to appoint and fix compensation for counsel to represent him 
    in any suit brought against him as supervisory officer under the 
    Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 or the Federal Election Campaign Act 
    of 1971.

    On Feb. 22, 1972,(13) the Speaker (14) laid 
before the House a communication from the Clerk advising that a civil 
action (15) had been filed in the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Columbia naming, among others, the Clerk of the House 
as a party defendant. The Clerk in his communication also advised that 
pursuant to 2 USC Sec. 118 he had on Feb. 18, 1972, written to the 
Acting Attorney General of the United States and to the U.S. Attorney 
for the District of Columbia requesting that they carry out their 
assigned statutory responsibilities in defending the Clerk in this 
matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 5024, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
15. Nader et al. v Jennings et al., Civil Action File No. 243-72 
        (U.S.D.C. D. D.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 15, 1972,(16) the Speaker laid before the House 
a communication from the Clerk advising that in response to his request 
of Feb. 18, 1972, he was in receipt of replies from the Department of 
Justice and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia in which 
they agreed, pursuant to 2 USC Sec. 118, to furnish representation for 
the Clerk in the civil action unless a ``divergence of interest'' 
developed between the positions of

[[Page 1653]]

the Clerk and the Justice Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 8470, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 3, 1972, the Clerk received a letter from the Attorney 
General stating that a ``divergence of interest'' had developed between 
the positions of the Clerk and the Justice Department and requesting 
the Clerk to obtain other counsel. The letter was not communicated to 
the Speaker or laid before the House. Pursuant to the authority granted 
the Clerk in House Resolution 955 the Clerk obtained other counsel.
    On May 3, 1972,(17) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, offered 
the resolution below (H. Res. 955) as a matter involving the question 
of the privilege of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 118 Cong. Rec. 15627, 15628, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives is 
    hereby authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of such 
    special counsel as he may deem necessary to represent the Clerk and 
    the interests of the House in any suit now pending or hereafter 
    brought against the Clerk arising out of his actions while 
    performing duties or obligations imposed upon him by the Federal 
    Corrupt Practices Act, 1925, or the Federal Election Campaign Act 
    of 1971; and be it further
        Resolved, That any expenses incurred pursuant to these 
    resolutions, including the compensation of such special counsel and 
    any costs incurred thereby, shall be paid from the contingent fund 
    of the House on vouchers approved by the Committee on House 
    Administration.

    The House agreed to the resolution.
    On Jan. 6, 1973,(18)~~ the House, by unanimous consent, 
agreed to a resolution (19) continuing the authority of the 
Clerk to appoint and fix compensation for legal counsel in suits 
brought against him under the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 or the 
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 379, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H. Res. 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The provision for payment of such expenses 
is now permanent law [see 87 Stat. 527 at p. 537, Pub. L. No. 93-145 
(Nov. 1, 1973)], but the statute authorizes compensation only for 
attorneys who represent the Clerk in suits brought against him in the 
performance of his official duties as mandated by either the Federal 
Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 or the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971. There is no comparable provision of law which authorizes the 
payment by the House of attorneys' fees for Members indicted, sued, or 
subpoenaed as witnesses either in their official or individual 
capacities.

[[Page 1654]]



                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
                    D. PERSONAL PRIVILEGE OF MEMBER
 
Sec. 20. In General; Definition


    Under Rule IX,(20) the House is deemed to be presented 
with aquestion of personal privilege whenever a question arises as to 
the rights, reputation, and conduct of a Member, individually, in his 
representative capacity.(l)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 661 (1973).
 1. Basis of questions of personal privilege, see Sec. Sec. 24 et seq., 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While a question of personal privilege need not be raised in the 
form of a resolution, a Member raising such a question must in the 
first instance state to the Chair the grounds upon which the question 
is based.(2) Once a Member is recognized for the purpose of 
raising a question of personal privilege, the scope of his argument is 
limited to the question raised.(3) Accepted practice also 
precludes the question being raised either during the time of another 
Member's control of the floor (4) or while another question 
of privilege is pending before the House.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 21.1, infra.
 3. See Sec. Sec. 22.5, 22.6, infra.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 23.2, 23.3, infra.
 5. 80 Cong. Rec. 8222, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. See Sec. 5.4, supra, for a 
        detailed discussion of this precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
                    D. PERSONAL PRIVILEGE OF MEMBER
 
Sec. 21. Raising the Question; Procedure

Statement of Grounds

Sec. 21.1 In raising a question of personal privilege a Member in the 
    first instance must state to the Chair for his decision the grounds 
    upon which he bases his question.

    On Apr. 11, 1935,(6) Mr. Joseph P. Monaghan, of Montana, 
rose to a question of personal privilege and stated, with reference to 
Rule IX, ``under the question of personal privilege I cite the 
integrity of the proceedings of the House. I cannot see that this rule 
adequately protects this House so far as giving it and the public 
adequate information as to the rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 79 Cong. Rec. 5454, 5455, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. For additional 
        illustrations see 118 Cong. Rec. 13491-97, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Apr. 19, 1972; and 84 Cong. Rec. 5033-35, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        May 2, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order was then made by Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New 
York, that the gentleman had not stated a question of personal 
privilege.
    In his ruling sustaining the point of order, the Speaker 
(7) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 1655]]

        It is necessary for the gentleman first to state his question 
    of personal privilege as a basis for any argument that he may 
    desire to submit. The Chair has no desire other than to see that 
    the gentleman and every Member of the House is protected under the 
    rules. The rules provide that a gentleman who raises a question of 
    personal privilege must first state his question before he proceeds 
    to argue with reference to it.

Submission of Material Containing Objectionable Remarks

Sec. 21.2 When a Member raises a question of personal privilege based 
    on the alleged insertion in the Record of unparliamentary language, 
    he must submit the transcript of the Record to the Chair.

    On Apr. 7, 1943,(8) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
rose to a question of personal privilege, stating that certain remarks 
of a Member not made on the floor but inserted in the Record for Apr. 
2, 1943, reflected upon his integrity. The following exchange then 
ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 89 Cong. Rec. 3065, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (~9) Will the gentleman send that 
    Record up to the chair? Does the gentleman from New York have the 
    transcript and know that that was inserted?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: I have not the transcript with me, but I remember 
    what was stated by the gentleman and it is not reflected accurately 
    in the Record.
        Furthermore, the gentleman made the statement that I was the 
    Jewish gentleman from New York; and on that score I rise to a 
    question of personal privilege.
        The Speaker: The Chair wants to see the original transcript of 
    the remarks of the gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. Celler: I can read more; there is more in that Record, Mr. 
    Speaker, which was not uttered on the floor of the House. I shall 
    be very brief, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair is not going to rule on this question 
    without seeing the original transcript and it is not here. If there 
    is no objection, the gentleman may proceed for 10 minutes.

Sec. 21.3 On one occasion a Member was recognized to raise a question 
    of personal privilege, based on comments appearing in a local 
    newspaper, although the Record does not show that the material was 
    first submitted to the Chair for examination.

    On June 22, 1966,(10) the Chair recognized Mr. Charles 
E. Chamberlain, of Michigan, on a question of privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 112 Cong. Rec. 13907, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a matter of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state his 
    matter of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

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

[[Page 1656]]

        Mr. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to an article 
    which appeared in the Washington Post this morning entitled 
    ``Question: Do Congressmen Steal,'' by the columnists Drew Pearson 
    and Jack Anderson.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized under 
    the question of personal privilege.

    Debate on the question then ensued.

In the Committee of the Whole

Sec. 21.4 Under the modern practice, a question of personal privilege 
    may not be raised in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Dec. 13, 1973,(12) during consideration by the 
Committee of the Whole of amendments to H. R. 11450, the Energy 
Emergency Act, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, rose to a question of 
personal privilege. In refusing to grant recognition to the Member for 
that purpose, the Chairman pro tempore (13) stated that a 
question of personal privilege could not be entertained in the 
Committee of the Whole.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec 41271, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For further illustrations 
        see 115 Cong. Rec. 24372, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 4, 1969; 
        105 Cong. Rec. 11289, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1959; and 
        95 Cong. Rec. 2652, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1949.
13. John J. McFall (Calif.).
14. Parliamentarian's Note: Although pursuant to the modern practice a 
        question of personal privilege may not be raised in the 
        Committee of the Whole, early precedent suggests that such a 
        question could be raised if the matter in issue arose during 
        the Committee proceedings. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               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.


                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
                    D. PERSONAL PRIVILEGE OF MEMBER
 
Sec. 23. Precedence of the Question; Interrupting Other Business

Precedence as to the Journal

Sec. 23.1 A Member rising to a question of personal privilege may not 
    interrupt the reading of the Journal.

[[Page 1659]]

    On the legislative day of Oct. 8, 1968,(9) Mr. Robert 
Taft, Jr., of Ohio, rose to obtain recognition during the reading of 
the Journal:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214-16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1968 
        (calendar day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker:(10) For what purpose does the gentleman 
    from Ohio rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker. That is not in order until the reading of the Journal has 
    been completed.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state his privileged 
    motion?
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, my motion is on a point of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state whether it is a 
    point of personal privilege or a privileged motion?
        Mr. Taft: It is a privileged motion, and a motion of personal 
    privilege.
        Under rule IX questions of personal privilege are privileged 
    motions, ahead of the reading of the Journal.
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a 
    question of personal privilege should be made later after the 
    Journal has been disposed of.
        If the gentleman has a matter of privilege of the House, that 
    is an entirely different situation.
        Mr. Taft: I believe, Mr. Speaker, this involves not only 
    personal privilege as an individual, but also as a Member of the 
    House and also the privileges of all Members of the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not recognize the gentleman at this 
    time on a matter of personal privilege.
        But the Chair will, after the pending matter, the reading of 
    the Journal has been disposed of, recognize the gentleman if the 
    gentleman seeks recognition.

    Subsequently, the gentleman was recognized to raise a question of 
the privilege of the House.

Interruption of Member Holding the Floor

Sec. 23.2 A Member may not be deprived of the floor by another Member 
    raising a question of personal privilege.

    On May 17, 1946,(11) during the consideration of House 
Resolution 624, concerning further expenses for the House Committee on 
UnAmerican Activities, Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, sought recognition 
for a question of personal privilege. In his response declining 
recognition to the Member for that purpose, the Speaker (12) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 5216, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. For additional examples see 
        91 Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 5, 1945; 84 
        Cong. Rec. 8467, 8468, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1939; and 
        80 Cong. Rec. 3720, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1936.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from South Dakota has the floor. Unless he yields 
    the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman.

[[Page 1660]]

Sec. 23.3 A Member may not rise to a question of personal privilege 
    while another Member controls the time for debate even though the 
    Member in control of the time may yield him time for debate on the 
    merits of the proposition then pending.

    On Apr. 8, 1937,(13) during House debate on House 
Resolution 162, concerning an investigation of sitdown strikes, the 
following proceedings transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 3295, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 
    seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. (Frank E.) Hook].
        Mr. Hook: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal 
    privilege based on the remarks of the last speaker, and ask for 1 
    hour.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I did not yield to the gentleman for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. Hook: Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
    allowed to proceed for 5 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(14) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Fred M. Vinson (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Plumley [of Vermont]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        Mr. Hook: Mr. Speaker, I then insist upon my right to rise to a 
    question of personal privilege. The gentleman threatened us.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Michigan cannot 
    take the gentleman from Georgia off the floor by raising a question 
    of personal privilege.



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 24. Introductory; General Opinion or Criticism


    Rule IX defines questions of personal privilege as those that 
affect the ``rights, reputation, and conduct'' of individual Members in 
their representative capacity.(15) To give rise to a 
question of personal privilege, a criticism must reflect directly on 
the Member's integrity or reputation.(16) Mere statements of 
opinion about or general criticism of his voting record or views do not 
constitute adequate grounds for a question of personal 
privilege.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 661 (1973).
16. Sec. 24.1, infra.
17. Sec. 24.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is not in order by way of a point of personal privilege or by 
raising a question of the privilege

[[Page 1661]]

of the House to collaterally attack an order previously adopted by the 
House.(18) Similarly, the refusal of Members in charge of 
time for general debate on a bill to allot time therefor to a Member 
does not give such Member grounds for a question of personal privilege. 
Thus, in one instance,(19) a Member claimed the floor for a 
question of personal privilege and proceeded to discuss the fact that 
the Member in charge of time for general debate on a bill had refused 
to assign him any time for that purpose. However, the Speaker 
(20) ruled that the Member's request for time could not be 
brought up by way of a question of personal privilege. Said the 
Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214, 30215, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. See Sec. 3.2, 
        supra, for a detailed discussion of this precedent.
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 5454, 5455, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 11, 1935.
20. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The rules provide that a Member may rise to a question of 
    personal privilege where his rights, reputation, and conduct 
    individually, in his representative capacity, is assailed or 
    reflected upon. The Chair fails to see where the gentleman has 
    presented a question of personal privilege which will bring himself 
    within that rule. The rules provide for the conduct of the business 
    of the House. . . .
        . . . They provide the method of procedure. If this rule is 
    adopted the gentleman may, of course, appeal to those who have 
    charge of the time for time, but there are 435 Members of the 
    House, and the gentleman must appreciate, as the Chair does, that 
    it is impossible for those gentlemen to yield to everyone. However, 
    the Chair is very sure that opportunity will be afforded the 
    gentleman sometime during the discussion of the bill to express his 
    views.
        The Chair fails to see where the gentleman has been denied any 
    right that has not been denied to every Member of this House. The 
    gentleman has his right of appeal to get time, as the Chair stated, 
    if this rule is adopted. If the rule is not adopted and the bill is 
    taken up, then the gentleman may proceed under the rules of the 
    House. The Chair fails to see where the gentleman has raised a 
    question of personal 
    privilege.                          -------------------

Criticism of Member's Legislative Activity or Position

Sec. 24.1 Ordinarily, a Member may not rise to a question of personal 
    privilege merely because there has been some criticism of his 
    legislative activity. A question of personal privilege ordinarily 
    involves a reflection on a Member's integrity or reputation. Thus, 
    it was ruled that a Member could not rise to a question of personal 
    privilege where he had been criticized merely for certain 
    questionnaires he had distributed.

[[Page 1662]]

    On June 18, 1936,(1) Mr. Kent E. Keller, of Illinois, 
offered as a matter involving a question of the privilege of the House 
a resolution deploring the allegedly unauthorized action taken by Mr. 
Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, whereby he addressed questionnaires to 
school teachers in the District of Columbia requesting their opinions 
on communism. A point of order was raised by Mr. Claude A. Fuller, of 
Arkansas, asserting that the offered resolution did not involve a 
question of the privilege of the House. When the Chair sustained the 
point of order, Mr. Blanton sought to address the House on the ground 
that the resolution gave rise to a point of personal privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 9947, 9948, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 86 Cong. 
        Rec. 11046-49, 11150-58, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 27, 1940; 
        and 79 Cong. Rec. 494, 495, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 16, 
        1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Speaker, since this ridiculous resolution has 
    been read into the Record and will go in the press, and every fair-
    minded man in the House knows that votes for it here would be 
    negligible and it could not be passed, I think it is only fair that 
    the House should give me 5 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent to 
    proceed for 5 minutes.
        The Speaker: Is there objection?
        Mr. [Martin J.] Kennedy of New York: I object.
        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Speaker, of course, one objection can prevent 
    it, so I rise to a question of personal privilege.
        The Speaker: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blanton: I submit the last four clauses of the resolution 
    just read, which was filed here by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Keller], without any notice whatever to me, at a time when I was in 
    a Senate conference, working for this House, and did get an 
    agreement with the Senate conferees on an important appropriation 
    bill, will be used by ``red'' newspapers as a reflection upon me, 
    although, as a matter of fact, it cannot hurt me or my good name in 
    any way. I had no notice that this resolution was to be offered, 
    and I was called out of that conference with Senate managers after 
    the resolution had been sent to the Clerk's desk for consideration. 
    While under a strict interpretation of the rules I realize full 
    well that because the resolution does not reflect upon me, and will 
    not hurt me, it does not constitute privilege, but I feel that I 
    should raise the question to show what a great injustice was done 
    me by it being presented. I submit that, as a matter of personal 
    privilege, I should have a right to be heard.
        The Speaker: The Chair stated that in his opinion the subject 
    matter stated in the resolution was not of such nature as reflected 
    upon the gentleman from Texas.

        The Chair is of the opinion that the matter stated by the 
    gentleman from Texas does not constitute a question of personal 
    privilege.

Sec. 24.2 The mere statement of opinion by a group of news

[[Page 1663]]

    paper correspondents with reference to a Member's record or 
    position in the House does not present a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On Mar. 27, 1939,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the 
House to a magazine article in which it was stated that a poll of 
newsmen revealed their opinion that Mr. Hoffman was among the least 
useful Members of the House. In ruling on the question of personal 
privilege, the Speaker (4) made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 3361, 3362, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan rises to A question of personal 
    privilege, which question is based upon the language he has just 
    read from a paper he held in his hand. It seems that the gravamen 
    of the matter relates to a newspaper poll that was purported to 
    have been made with reference to the usefulness, standing, and so 
    forth, of Members of the House of Representatives.
        Of course, there are sometimes border-line cases in which it is 
    rather difficult for the Chair to reach, for himself, a definite 
    conclusion on the question of personal privilege, but the Chair 
    thinks the rule should again be stated because this question is 
    frequently stated.
        Rule IX provides:

                             Questions of Privilege

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
        integrity of its proceedings; second, the rights, reputation, 
        and conduct of Members, individually, in their representative 
        capacity only; and shall have precedence of all other questions 
        except motions to adjourn.

        The gentleman from Michigan takes the position that this 
    newspaper criticism, if the Chair may call it that, states a 
    question of personal privilege. While the Chair is inclined to give 
    the greatest elasticity and liberality to questions of personal 
    privilege when raised, the Chair is of the opinion that in this 
    particular instance the mere statement of opinion by a group of 
    newspaper correspondents with reference to a Member's record or 
    position in the House of Representatives does not present in fact, 
    or under the rules of the House, a matter of personal privilege.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to rule that the gentleman 
    has not presented a question of personal privilege.

Sec. 24.3 A newspaper statement asserting that all House Members from a 
    specific delegation support a certain bill was held not to give 
    rise to a question of personal privilege to a Member of such 
    delegation opposed to the bill.

    On Mar. 31, 1938,(5) Mr. Michael J. Stack, of 
Pennsylvania,

[[Page 1664]]

rising to a question of personal privilege, read a newspaper statement 
which asserted that it was understood that all members of the 
Philadelphia delegation favored an effective reorganization bill. In 
fact, the Member was uncommitted regarding such a bill. At the 
conclusion of the Member's statement of the question, the Speaker 
(6) said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 4473, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
 6. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman has very cleverly gained recognition to make a 
    statement stating his attitude on the bill which is to come before 
    the House, but the Chair is of the opinion the gentleman does not 
    state a matter of personal privilege.

Sec. 24.4 A newspaper article alleging that a minority report filed by 
    a Member had been written by employees of a political party was 
    held not to involve a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 30, 1939,(7) Mr. Wallace E. Pierce, of New York, 
submitted as a question of personal privilege a statement from a 
newspaper article alleging that a minority report which Mr. Pierce had 
filed as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary had been written by 
several employees of the Republican National Committee. In his decision 
on the question, the Speaker (8~) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 3552-54, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair, of course, can well understand the indignation 
    of any Member of the House at a newspaper article that appears to 
    be absolutely unfair or critical of his conduct as a Member of the 
    House, but on this question of personal privilege the Chair is of 
    course compelled to follow the precedents of the House, very few of 
    which were established by the present occupant of the Chair.
        The Chair has read the newspaper article which the gentleman 
    from New York has read, to see if under the precedents and under 
    the philosophy of the rule, the gentleman would be entitled to 
    present this matter as a question of personal privilege. The Chair, 
    within the past few days, has upon several occasions read into the 
    Record the rule affecting this question of personal privilege. 
    There are several precedents upon this particular question of 
    newspaper criticism. One of them is found in section 2712 of Hinds' 
    Precedents, volume 3:

            A newspaper article in the nature of criticism of a 
        Member's acts in the House does not present a question of 
        personal privilege.

      That is the syllabus of the decision.

        Another decision holds that a newspaper article criticizing 
    Members generally involves no question of privilege.
        Having recourse again to the precedents the Chair finds the 
    following: ``The fact that a Member is misrepresented in his acts 
    or speech does not constitute a matter of personal privi

[[Page 1665]]

    lege, nor does misrepresenting a Member's vote.''
        The Chair personally would be delighted to have the gentleman 
    from New York given the opportunity to address himself to the 
    membership of the House on the question presented by him. The 
    Chair, however, is constrained to rule in this instance as well as 
    all others according to the precedents of the House and therefore 
    rules that the matter complained of does not, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, constitute a matter of personal privilege.

Sec. 24.5 A newspaper article asserting that a Congressman's staff 
    greeted a labor union delegation with copies of a pamphlet critical 
    of the union and questioning the use of a Congressman's office as a 
    distribution center for such material was held not to give rise to 
    a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 23, 1945,(9) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
presented as involving a question of personal privilege a newspaper 
article asserting that his office staff had greeted a CIO delegation 
with copies of ``Join the CIO and help build a Soviet America,'' and 
questioning the use of a Congressman's office as a distribution center 
for such material. After the Member's presentation of the objectionable 
article the Speaker (10) in his ruling on the question 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 2665, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        What the gentleman has read so far is hardly sufficient to 
    entitle the gentleman to recognition on a question of personal 
    privilege.

Sec. 24.6 Language in a newspaper stating that a Member was ``very 
    generous with government money,''and that he had introduced bills 
    which would cost the government $125 billion, was held not to give 
    rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Jan. 30, 1950,(11) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, submitted as involving the question of personal privilege 
a newspaper article which stated in part
that ``Representative Rankin is very generous--with Government money,'' 
and declaring that he had introduced bills which would cost the 
government $125 billion. The Speaker (12) ruled that the 
remarks referred to did not involve a question of personal privilege. 
However, the Member was granted recognition for one minute to answer 
the allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 1093, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 1666]]


 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 25. Charges Before a Governmental Agency or Committee

Communist Party Affiliation

Sec. 25.1 Testimony by a government witness before a government agency 
    charging a Member of the House as being a Communist gave rise to a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On Oct. 18, 1951,(13) Mr. Franck R. Havenner, of 
California, rising to a question of personal privilege, read, from the 
transcript of deportation hearing proceedings, certain testimony by a 
government witness in which he [Havenner] was identified as a former 
member of the Communist Party. Upon hearing the objectional matter, the 
Speaker (14) ruled that the transcript gave rise to a 
question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 97 Cong. Rec. 13483, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alteration of Official Transcript

Sec. 25.2 A statement before a Senate committee which challenged the 
    integrity of an official transcript of a hearing before a committee 
    of the House, thus impugning the integrity of those Members 
    responsible for its preparation, gave rise to a question of 
    personal privilege.

    On May 21, 1959,(15) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
presented as involving a question of personal privilege a statement 
made before a Senate committee inferring that he had provided the 
committee with an altered transcript of a hearing held before a 
committee of the House. Thereupon, the Speaker (~16), 
recognized Mr. Cannon on a question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 8868, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 105 Cong. Rec. 
        11587, 11588, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 23, 1959.
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 26. Charges by Fellow Member

Charges Involving Unnamed Members

Sec. 26.1 A statement on the floor by the Majority Leader ``there is 
    nothing to stop a man from making a damn fool of himself if he 
    wants to'' which was carried in the press as referring to a 
    particular Member, gave rise to

[[Page 1667]]

    a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 19, 1945,~(17) Mr. Earl Wilson, of Indiana, rose 
to a question of privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 2415, 2416, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (18) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Indiana rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the ground for the 
    question of personal privilege.
        Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the ground on which I make my request 
    is the report which has gone all over the land through the press, 
    leaving the inference that the distinguished majority leader 
    referred to me in his remarks that there is nothing to stop a man 
    making a damn fool of himself if he wants to.
        Also, Mr. Speaker, the concluding sentence in which the 
    majority leader is quoted as saying, now that it has served its 
    purpose, he agrees to erase his remarks from the Record.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman from Indiana is certain that the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts was referring to him, the Chair thinks 
    he has a right to proceed on the question of personal privilege.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.

Sec. 26.2 Statements in the press that a Member had said other Members 
    were giving atomic secrets to the enemy while under the influence 
    of liquor, which the Member denied having made, gave rise to a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On May 5, 1952,(19) Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall, of New York, 
presented as involving a question of personal privilege several 
newspaper articles in which he was attributed as a source of the 
statement that other Members ``were in all probability giving away 
atomic secrets to the enemy while under the influence of liquor.'' 
There ensued some discussion as to the validity of the question of 
personal privilege, during the course of which Mr. Hall denied having 
made the statement. The Speaker (20) then recognized him to 
debate the question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 98 Cong. Rec. 4787, 4788, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improper Political Influence

Sec. 26.3 A newspaper article which stated that one Member had involved 
    the name of another Member as secretary of a corporation, reported 
    to be a party to a government contract in relation to which ``gross 
    political interference

[[Page 1668]]

    and influence'' were alleged, gave rise to a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On July 16, 1958,(1) Mr. Perkins Bass, of New Hampshire, 
rose to a question of personal privilege and was recognized to reply to 
a newspaper article which stated that Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, had 
involved the name of Mr. Bass as secretary of a corporation reported to 
be a party to a government contract in relation to which ``gross 
political interference and influence were alleged.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 104 Cong. Rec. 13989, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abuse of Power

Sec. 26.4 A Member's press release charging another Member with an 
    abuse of personal power and of sponsoring a political smear was 
    held to give rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 30, 1953,(2) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the 
House to a press release distributed by another Member in which he [Mr. 
Hoffman] was charged with a disgraceful abuse of personal power and 
accused of sponsoring a political smear show. In ruling on the question 
of personal privilege, the Speaker (3) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 99 Cong. Rec. 2468, 2469, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has read the statement of the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Hoffman], and upon examination the Chair feels that the words 
    ``disgraceful abuse of personal power,'' and also where it is 
    stated that ``political smear show'' justify the establishment of 
    the point made by the gentleman.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman for one hour.

Traitorous Acts

Sec. 26.5 A Member was recognized on a question of personal privilege 
    to answer a newspaper article which purportedly quoted him as 
    implying that three Members of the House may have been guilty of 
    traitorous acts.

    On Jan. 28, 1944,(4) Mr. Samuel A. Weiss, of 
Pennsylvania, rose and presented as a matter of personal privilege a 
newspaper article in which he was quoted as saying ``if the grand jury 
that indicted thirty for traitorous acts recently had gone another step 
they would have indicted three Members of Congress.'' At the conclusion 
of the Member's statement of the question, the Speaker pro tempore 
(5) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 90 Cong. Rec. 876, 877, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

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

[[Page 1669]]

        The Chair has read the news item referred to by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weiss]. The Chair feels it raises a matter 
    of personal privilege.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.

Sec. 26.6 A newspaper statement quoting a Member of the House as saying 
    that a colleague was a ``pimp of Joe Stalin'' gave rise to a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On Jan. 13, 1949,(6) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of personal privilege to call attention to a 
newspaper that purported to quote another Member of the House as saying 
that Mr. Hoffman was a ``pimp of Joe Stalin.'' At the conclusion of Mr. 
Hoffman's preliminary statement, the Speaker (7) said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 266, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair believes the gentleman from Michigan has stated 
    grounds for addressing the House on a question of personal 
    privilege. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.

Impugning Veracity

Sec. 26.7 An article in a newspaper quoting a Member of the House as 
    ``issuing the direct lie charge'' to another Member was held to 
    present a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 4, 1942,(8) Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, 
rising to a question of personal privilege, read from a newspaper 
article which quoted Mr. Thomas H. Eliot, of Massachusetts, as 
``issuing the direct lie charge'' to Mr. Dies. The Speaker 
(9) granted Mr. Dies recognition on a question of personal 
privilege
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 88 Cong. Rec. 1920, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.8 A press release issued by a Member containing allegations 
    impugning the motives and veracity of another Member gave rise to a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On July 28, 1970,(10) Mr. Augustus F. Hawkins, of 
California, rose to a question of personal privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 26002, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state his 
    question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Crane), in a recent press release which I send to the desk, has 
    made certain allegations with respect to the additional views which 
    I filed to accompany the report of the Select Committee To 
    Investigate

[[Page 1670]]

    U.S. Military Involvement in Southeast Asia. His allegations 
    include charges which directly impugn my motives and veracity in 
    submitting those additional views. I therefore rise to a question 
    of personal privilege to respond to the statement of the gentleman 
    from Illinois.
        The Speaker: The Chair has examined the press release sent to 
    the desk by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hawkins), and the 
    Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman from California has 
    stated a question of personal privilege under rule IX of the rules 
    of the House.
        The gentleman from California (Mr. Hawkins) is recognized.



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


 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 28. Published Charges of Impropriety

``Vote Selling''

Sec. 28.1 A newspaper article accusing a Member of selling his vote 
    gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On July 24, 1957,(15), Mr. H. Carl Andersen, of 
Minnesota, on a question of personal privilege, called the attention of 
the House to a newspaper article which included allegations of his 
involvement in a conflict-of-interest case. After receipt of the 
objectionable articles, the Speaker (16) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 103 Cong. Rec. 12583, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has read the headline, to which the gentleman refers, 
    and it does, in effect, accuse a Member of Congress of selling his 
    vote, and this is carried forward in the second paragraph.
        The Chair thinks the gentleman has stated a question of 
    personal privilege and therefore, recognizes the gentleman from 
    Minnesota [Mr. H. Carl Andersen].

Implying Reprehensibility

Sec. 28.2 A newspaper article referring to a Member as 
    ``reprehensible'' or ``punk'' gave rise to a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On Jan. 25, 1944,(17) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, rose to a question of personal privilege and was 
recognized to reply to a newspaper article in which he was referred to 
as ``reprehensible'' Rankin and ``punk'' Rankin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 90 Cong. Rec. 751, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Business Associations

Sec. 28.3 Newspaper articles accusing a Member of promoting and 
    participating in an organization being investigated by a Senate 
    investigating committee gave rise to a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On July 8, 1946,(18) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
presented as

[[Page 1677]]

involving a question of personal privilege certain newspaper articles 
which were submitted to the Speaker's desk. Thereupon, the Speaker 
(19) stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 8391, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair has looked over these papers and 
    headlines, as well as the body of the articles. One headline states 
    ``Documents show May had financial stake in Garsson's empire.''
        The article further states:

            Documentary evidence that Representative May, Democrat, of 
        Kentucky, chairman of the House Military Committee, had a 
        financial interest in the Illinois munitions empire he is said 
        to have promoted at the War Department and his vehement denial 
        featured explosive development yesterday before the Senate War 
        Investigation Committee.

        The Chair thinks that these entitle the gentleman to the 
    question of personal privilege in his Representative capacity, 
    therefore, it recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. May].

Ethnic Slur

Sec. 28.4 On one occasion, a Member took the floor for a one-minute 
    speech to respond to a newspaper article which included a reference 
    to him as ``one of the few Italian American undesirables in 
    Congress.''

    This precedent was occasioned by certain House proceedings on Nov. 
22, 1967.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 33693, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See Sec. 22.4, supra, 
        for a detailed discussion of this precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 29. Published Charges of Illegality

Unspecified Illegal Acts

Sec. 29.1 A newspaper article charging that a Member did something 
    illegal in his representative capacity gave rise to a question of 
    personal privilege.

    On Jan. 18, 1954,(1) the Chair recognized Mr. Clare E. 
Hoffman, of Michigan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 100 Cong. Rec. 388, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of 
    personal privilege. I have previously submitted the question to the 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: (2) The Chair may say that the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] has very kindly given him the 
    opportunity of looking over the question of personal privilege. In 
    one instance it is stated that the gentleman did something illegal 
    in his representative capacity, so therefore the gentleman 
    qualifies to present his question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 1678]]

Forgery

Sec. 29.2 A statement in a newspaper accusing a Member of forgery 
    constituted sufficient grounds for raising a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On June 8, 1950,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered as a question of personal privilege a statement appearing in a 
newspaper alleging that the Member had ``stooped to using outright 
forgery in a strikebreaking attempt.'' In his ruling granting 
recognition, the Speaker (4) stated that sufficient grounds 
to constitute a question of personal privilege had been stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 8331, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Receipt of Illegal Fees

Sec. 29.3 A newspaper article charging that a Member of the House 
    received an illegal fee in a matter connected with his work as a 
    Member was held to give rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On June 15, 1950,(5) Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, rose 
to a question of privilege to call attention to a newspaper article 
charging that he had received an illegal fee in a matter connected with 
his work as a Member. After examining the article, the Speaker 
(6) recognized Mr. Wood to proceed on a question of personal 
privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 8653, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tax Irregularities

Sec. 29.4 A newspaper article charging a Member with involvement in a 
    tax scandal gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Feb. 4, 1954,(7) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
sought the floor on a question of personal privilege, and read to the 
Chair headlines from several newspaper articles charging him (Mr. 
Celler) with involvement in a tax scandal. After the presentation of 
the objectionable articles to the Chair, the Speaker pro tempore 
(8) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 100 Cong. Rec. 1353, 1354, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Charles A. Halleck (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the headlines and the newspaper articles 
    and believes the gentleman has stated a question of personal 
    privilege. The gentleman is recognized.

Criminal Conspiracy, Perjury, and Tax Evasion

Sec. 29.5 Newspaper accounts of a grand jury indictment of a

[[Page 1679]]

    Member for alleged criminal conspiracy, perjury, and tax evasion 
    gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Apr. 19, 1972,(9) Mr. Cornelius E. Gallagher, of New 
Jersey, rising to a question of personal privilege, stated that he 
wished to answer charges stemming from published accounts of a grand 
jury indictment brought against him for alleged criminal conspiracy, 
perjury, and tax evasion. At the conclusion of his statement, the 
Speaker (10) granted Mr. Gallagher recognition for one hour 
on a question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 118 Cong. Rec. 13491-97, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sedition

Sec. 29.6 Any pamphlet, newspaper, or document which accuses a Member 
    of being seditious presents a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 26, 1946,(11) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of personal privilege and presented a publication in 
which he was accused of sedition. In ruling on the question, the 
Speaker (12) said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 2624, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. For additional 
        illustrations involving accusations of sedition, see 91 Cong. 
        Rec. 12456, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 20, 1945; 90 Cong. Rec. 
        2908, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 22, 1944; 90 Cong. Rec. 2519, 
        78th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1944; and 90 Cong. Rec. 816, 78th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 27, 1944.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . [T]he Chair states that any pamphlet or 
    newspaper or document that accuses the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Hoffman] of being seditious certainly presents a question of 
    personal privilege.
        The gentleman is recognized.



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 30. Published Charges Involving Legislative Conduct

Misuse of Public Funds

Sec. 30.1 A newspaper article to the effect that certain union 
    delegates ``left for home determined to raise hell about the misuse 
    of government funds'' by a Member gave rise to a question of 
    personal privilege.

    On Feb. 22, 1945,(13) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
on a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the House 
to a newspaper article which stated that certain union delegates

[[Page 1680]]

from Mr. Hoffman's district left for home ``determined to raise hell 
about [his] misuse of government funds.'' The Speaker pro tempore 
(14) stated his belief that Mr. Hoffman had presented a 
question of personal privilege and recognized him for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 91 Cong. Rec. 1368, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deceptive Conduct

Sec. 30.2 An advertisement in a newspaper charging that a Member 
    ``sneaked'' a permanent committee through the House gave rise to a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 15, 1946,(15) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, claiming the floor on a question of personal privilege, 
read a newspaper advertisement charging that, ``In the confusion of the 
first day of the 1945 Congress, Rankin sneaked over a permanent House 
Committee on Un-American Activities.'' In his ruling recognizing the 
Member on the question, the Speaker (16) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 92 Cong. Rec. 2328, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks that the gentleman states a question of 
    personal privilege in that the paper charges that he sneaked 
    something over on the House.
        The gentleman is recognized.

Dereliction of Duties

Sec. 30.3 A newspaper editorial implying nonperformance by a Member of 
    his representative duties in relation to the poor people of his 
    constituency gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On June 14, 1938,(17) Mr. John J. Boylan, of New York, 
presented as involving a question of personal privilege a newspaper 
editorial which stated ``Isn't it about time for the poor people of the 
15th district of New York to ask themselves just whom Mr. Boylan 
represents. He surely doesn't represent them.'' After the editorial had 
been submitted to the Speaker (18) for his inspection, he 
ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 83 Cong. Rec. 9234, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair finds in one of the marked paragraphs of the 
    editorial an implication which the Chair thinks involves the 
    gentleman's dignity, standing, and reputation as a Member of the 
    House. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York on a 
    question of personal privilege.

Confiscation of Evidence

Sec. 30.4 Newspaper headlines circulated through the mails indicating 
    that a Member had confiscated evidence

[[Page 1681]]

    needed to prosecute certain individuals was held to involve a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On Sept. 29, 1941,(19) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New 
York, rose to a question of personal privilege and sent to the desk 
extracts from certain newspapers. The following exchange then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 87 Cong. Rec. 7576, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (20) The Chair sees here what seems to 
    be the front page of some newspaper. but it is not identified here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: It is PM, a newspaper in New York. The Chair can see 
    it on the front of the page.
        The Speaker: Does this paper circulate through the mails?
        Mr. Fish: It does circulate through the mails, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: In large headlines covering more than half of the 
    front page appear these words:

            Ham Fish snatches evidence wanted in U.S. Nazi hunt.

        The Chair thinks the gentleman states a question of personal 
    privilege.

Crippling War Controls

Sec. 30.5 During World War II, a newspaper article charging a Member 
    with actions which could leave certain administrators helpless and 
    which could cripple war controls was held to give rise to a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On June 7, 1944,(1) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
rose to a question of personal privilege and read from a newspaper 
article charging him with leading a ``raid'' in the House which could 
leave price stabilization administrators helpless to combat rising 
prices and which could cripple war controls. In his ruling on Mr. 
Smith's question of personal privilege, the Speaker (2) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 90 Cong. Rec. 5460, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the language read is a 
    sufficient reflection on the gentleman to raise the question of 
    personal privilege, and the Chair will recognize the gentleman.

Conflicts of Interest

Sec. 30.6 A newspaper article alleging improper lobbying activities by 
    a Member to preserve his financial interests in a relative's estate 
    gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On June 6, 1962,(3) Mr. H. Carl Andersen, of Minnesota, 
rose to a question of privilege regarding a

[[Page 1682]]

newspaper article which alleged improper lobbying activities on his 
part to preserve his own financial interests in his brother's estate. 
The Speaker (4) then recognized Mr. Andersen on a question 
of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 9792-97, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.7 A Member was recognized on a question of personal privilege 
    following publication of a newspaper column implying that he had 
    introduced legislation to repeal excise taxes on cars and trucks at 
    a time when the clients of his law firm included a trucking firm.

    On June 22, 1966,(5) Mr. Charles E. Chamberlain, of 
Michigan, rose to a question of privilege to call attention to a 
newspaper column in which it was alleged that he had introduced 
legislation to repeal excise taxes on cars and trucks but failed to 
list the name of his law firm or its clients, including a trucking 
firm, in the Congressional Directory. After the Member's statement of 
the question, the Speaker (6) recognized him on a question 
of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 112 Cong. Rec. 13907, 13908, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abuse of Powers or Rank

Sec. 30.8 A newspaper story to the effect that a Member sullied 
    congressional honor and held a congressional hearing for the 
    political purpose of influencing a local election gave rise to a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On July 20, 1953,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
as a question of personal privilege, offered a newspaper editorial 
captioned ``Representative Hoffman Sullies Congressional Honor,'' and 
which stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 99 Cong. Rec. 9242, 9243, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The immorality of holding a congressional hearing for the 
    political purpose of influencing a local election gave off such a 
    stench that the full committee apparently wanted no part of it.

The Speaker (8) then ruled on the question, observing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman does not have to proceed any further. He has 
    stated a question of personal privilege and is recognized for 1 
    hour.

Sec. 30.9 A newspaper article to the effect that a committee chairman 
    used a subcommittee for an improper purpose was held to give rise 
    to a question of personal privilege.

[[Page 1683]]

    On July 21, 1953,(~9~) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, rose on a question of personal privilege to call attention to 
a newspaper article which asserted that he had used a subcommittee 
which he had chaired to investigate the Air Force for refusing to award 
a contract to certain constituents. The Speaker (10) was of 
the opinion that Mr. Hoffman had stated a question of personal 
privilege and recognized him for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 99 Cong. Rec. 9412-14, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.10 A newspaper editorial charging a Member with having no 
    scruples about using the power which seniority had brought him for 
    personal reprisals, and that he seemed unfit to govern, gave rise 
    to a question of personal privilege.

    On July 12, 1955,(11) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, claiming the floor on a question of personal privilege, 
read from a newspaper editorial which referred to him in the following 
language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 101 Cong. Rec. 10304, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        He seems to have no scruples about using the power which 
    seniority has brought him as a member of the Judiciary Committee to 
    attempt personal reprisals against those whom he dislikes. . . .
        A man with so little capacity for government himself seems 
    scarcely fit for the governing of his countrymen.

After hearing the objectionable words, the Speaker (12) 
stated that a question of personal privilege had been stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improprieties as Committee Chairman

Sec. 30.11 A newspaper article charging that the chairman of a 
    committee had ``rammed through'' a resolution pending before his 
    committee gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On July 16, 1962,(13) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
sought the floor for a question of personal privilege and proceeded to 
discuss a newspaper article charging that, as Chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations, he had ``rammed through'' a resolution pending 
before his committee, without allowing debate and without explanation. 
After the submission of the article to the Chair, the Speaker 
(14) recognized Mr. Can

[[Page 1684]]

non on a question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 108 Cong. Rec. 13681, 13682, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.12 A newspaper editorial to the effect that a chairman of a 
    committee so discredited himself by irresponsible actions that his 
    committee voted to strip him of power to name subcommittees gave 
    rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On July 29, 1953,(15) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of personal privilege, read from a newspaper 
editorial which asserted that he, as Chairman of the Committee on 
Government Operations, had so discredited himself by irresponsible 
actions that the committee voted to strip him of power to name 
subcommittees. In his ruling granting the Member recognition on his 
question of personal privilege, the Speaker (16) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 99 Cong. Rec. 10351, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair believes that the gentleman is justified in rising to 
    a question of personal privilege on the ground that the matter to 
    which he has referred is a reflection on him in his representative 
    capacity.

Sec. 30.13 A statement in a magazine article asserting that a committee 
    report contained ``stale lies and shabby calumnies'' and inferring 
    that the chairman of the committee failed to give minority members 
    an opportunity to file minority views was held to present a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On Jan. 16, 1941,(17) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
presented as involving a question of privilege a magazine article which 
stated, ``We do not have the space at this time to disentangle and 
answer all the stale lies and shabby calumnies rehashed in the final 
report of the Smith committee'' and which alleged that the chairman of 
the committee had failed to give minority Members an opportunity to 
file minority views with the majority report. The Speaker 
(18) then granted recognition to Mr. Smith on the question 
of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 87 Cong. Rec. 158, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Avoidance of Committee Responsibilities

Sec. 30.14 A newspaper article to the effect that certain named Members 
    of the House, who originally accused an individual of communistic 
    affiliations, had ducked the com

[[Page 1685]]

    mittee session in which the individual was cleared of such charges, 
    was held to involve a question of personal privilege.

    On Dec. 17, 1941,(19) Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of 
Illinois, rose and proposed as a question of personal privilege to call 
attention to a newspaper article which asserted that Mr. Dirksen and 
two other Members, who had originally accused David Lasser of 
communistic affiliations, had failed to attend the committee session 
when Lasser was cleared of the charges. In his ruling granting 
recognition to the Member, the Speaker (20 stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 87 Cong. Rec. 9913, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The rule covering this matter states:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
        integrity of its proceedings; second, the rights, reputation, 
        and conduct of Members individually in their representative 
        capacity only.

        The Chair thinks the gentleman states a question of personal 
    privilege.

``Disgraceful'' Conduct Reflecting on the House

Sec. 30.15 An insertion in a newspaper editorial that the conduct of a 
    Member had been so disgraceful as to reflect upon the membership of 
    the House was held to be sufficient grounds for a question of 
    personal privilege.

    On Feb. 18, 1936,(1) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, on 
a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the House to 
a newspaper editorial which read in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 2320, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The case of the people of Washington against Thomas L. Blanton 
    is clearly posed. It is one of ignorant and prejudiced domination 
    over local appropriations by a Congressman whose chief reliance in 
    an argument seems to be epithets and fists. It is an important case 
    for Congress as well as for the voteless Capital City. . . .
        Indeed, the disgrace that such tactics bring upon the National 
    Legislature--aside from their deplorable effects upon Washington--
    should result in a speedy transfer of Mr. Blanton.

    The Speaker (2) ruled that the editorial gave rise to a 
question of personal privilege, observing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Without entering into a discussion of the language which 
    has been read by the gentleman from Texas, the Chair clearly thinks 
    that the publication which charges that his conduct has been so 
    disgraceful as to reflect upon the Members of the House entitles 
    the gentleman to be heard on the question of privilege, and the 
    Chair

[[Page 1686]]

    therefore recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 1 hour.

Sec. 30.16 A newspaper article charging that a Member of Congress had 
    long disgraced himself by being ``anti-United Nations, antiSemitic, 
    anti-Negro, [and] antilabor'' was held to involve a question of 
    personal privilege.

    On Jan. 8, 1945,(3) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
on a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the House 
to a newspaper article which repeated charges as described above. The 
Speaker (4) then ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 107, 108, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair believes that the gentleman from Mississippi has 
    stated a question that involves the privileges of the House, it 
    being an attack on his integrity as a Member of the House.

Improper Conduct in Agency Dealings

Sec. 30.17 A notation on the margin of a letter sent to the press to 
    the effect that a Member had visited the office of the director of 
    an agency while intoxicated and had ``cussed out'' the director's 
    clerks in such a manner that the director refused to see him, was 
    held to give rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Apr. 16, 1943,(5) Mr. Paul Stewart, of Oklahoma, 
claimed the floor for a question of personal privilege and proceeded to 
discuss the contents of a notation on the margin of a letter sent to 
two newspapers which asserted that the Member had visited the office of 
the director of the Office of Price Administration ``half drunk'' and 
had ``cussed out'' the clerks there in such a manner that the director 
refused to see him. The Speaker (6) then ruled that a 
question of personal privilege had been stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 89 Cong. Rec. 3471, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abuse of Franking Privilege

Sec. 30.18 A newspaper article quoting a book containing an accusation 
    that a Member permitted the use of his frank by one of questionable 
    character gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Jan. 28, 1944,(~7~) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, on a question of personal privilege, called the attention of 
the House

[[Page 1687]]

to a newspaper article quoting a book which asserted that the Member 
had permitted the use of his frank by a man of questionable character. 
The Speaker pro tempore (8) then recognized the Member on 
the question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 90 Cong. Rec. 879, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 31. Published Charges Involving Patriotism

Generalized Allegations and Innuendos

Sec. 31.1 A letter addressed to several newspapers and to Members of 
    the House to the effect that in Russia a certain Congressman would 
    have been liquidated long ago as an enemy of his country, gave rise 
    to a question of personal privilege.

    On July 3, 1947,~(9) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered as involving a question of personal privilege a letter 
addressed to several newspapers and Members of the House which stated 
that, ``In Russia, Congressman Hoffman would have been liquidated long 
ago as an enemy of his country.'' Upon hearing Mr. Hoffman's statement, 
the Speaker (10) recognized him for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 93 Cong. Rec. 8260, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.2 An article in a newspaper charging a Member of the House as 
    being ``the most un-American politician'' was held to present a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On Jan. 29, 1941,(11) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
on a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the House 
to a newspaper article in which he was identified as being ``about the 
most un-American politician that ever went to Congress.'' The Speaker 
(12) granted the Member recognition, saying:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 348, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks that the gentleman has stated a question of 
    personal privilege. . . .
        The Chair bases his opinion upon the words that the gentleman 
    from Michigan refers to in this article, which refer to his un-
    Americanism. The Chair thinks those words present a charge which 
    entitles the gentleman to rise to a question of personal privilege.

Sec. 31.3 Language in a newspaper asserting that a Member was among 
    those who would divide the Nation and that he was a spokesman for

[[Page 1688]]

    the forces of betrayal was held to involve a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On June 3, 1943,~(13) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the 
House to a newspaper article which stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 5294, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Because labor recognizes this for what it is, the fatal policy 
    of defeat and disaster, labor too has been the target of the 
    slander of those who would divide our Nation in its hour of crisis 
    and peril. The Hoffmans, the Dieses, the Rickenbackers, and the 
    forces of betrayal for whom they speak, have conspired against and 
    viciously attacked the millions of men and women who are today 
    providing the weapons needed by the armed forces of democracy.

    In his ruling on the question of personal privilege, the Speaker 
14 stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair must assume some latitude. It is only by implication, 
    the Chair may say, that this impugns the honor and integrity of the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman]. It is a very close question. 
    The Chair will recognize the gentleman, but he wants it understood 
    that it is a very close question.

Fascist Sympathies

Sec. 31.4 Language in a publication accusing a Member of being one of 
    the most influential spokesmen for America's fascists, 
    isolationists and labor baiters gave rise to a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On Jan. 13, 1948,(15) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of personal privilege, read the statement below 
from a news paper:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 121, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All during the war and since its end, Hoffman's record has been 
    one of constant support for the crackpot fringe of native fascism. 
    A report on his activities by the Friends of Democracy (vol. 3, No. 
    20) says:

            America's Fascists, pro-Fascists, isolationists, and labor-
        baiters have long recognized Representative Hoffman as one of 
        their most influential spokesmen. The sharp-tongued Congressman 
        first gained attention from Fascist circles in 1937 when he had 
        served in Congress 3 years. From that time on, Hoffman, whose 
        arch enemies have been Roosevelt, Stalin, Britain, world 
        cooperation, labor, and aliens, has steadily risen to top 
        prominence with the Nazi lovers. . . .

        Today, this same Congressman is embarked on the boldest 
    campaign of intimidation of newspapermen yet undertaken by any 
    individual or group in the Congress, including the Committee on Un-
    American Activities. With few exceptions, the press whose freedom 
    he would curb maintains a monumental silence.

    After hearing the objectionable remarks, the Speaker pro tem

[[Page 1689]]

pore (16) granted the Member recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Charles A. Halleck (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.5 A Member having been charged in a newspaper article with 
    seeking to pave the way for fascism rose to a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On Mar. 9, 1944,(17) Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, 
claiming the floor on a question of personal privilege, read from a 
newspaper article in which he was accused of seeking to pave the way 
for fascism in the United States. Interrupting the Member's recitation 
of the article, the Speaker (18) interjected, ``The Chair 
thinks the gentleman has gone far enough to establish a question of 
privilege.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 90 Cong. Rec. 2434, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.6 A statement in a newspaper article to the effect that a 
    Member had repeated an ``insinuation of Fascist propaganda 
    concerning liberated Poland'' and that he ``spoke like Goebbels'' 
    was held to give rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Feb. 21, 1945,(19) Mr. Alvin E. O'Konski, of 
Wisconsin, presented as involving a question of personal privilege a 
newspaper article which contained statements to the effect that he 
``had repeated a dirty insinuation of Fascist propaganda concerning 
liberated Poland'' and that ``from the tribune of the House of 
Representatives he spoke like Goebbels.'' The Speaker (20) 
granted the Member recognition, saying, ``The Chair thinks the 
gentleman is entitled to speak on the question of personal privilege 
under the statement made by him.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 1323, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.7 Language in a pamphlet charging a Member of the House with 
    being a fascist was held to give rise to a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On Apr. 30, 1949,(1) the Speaker (2) 
recognized Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, on a question of personal 
privilege following the Member's presentation, as the basis for raising 
the question, of a pamphlet identifying him as a fascist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 91 Cong. Rec. 3955, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.8 A newspaper article charging a Member with being a fascist 
    and asserting

[[Page 1690]]

    that he stands for the violent overthrow of the government by force 
    was held grounds for a question of personal privilege.

    On Jan. 27, 1944,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
on a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the House 
to a newspaper article which referred to him as a fascist and asserted 
that he stands for the violent overthrow of the government by force. 
The Speaker (4) then recognized him on a question of 
personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 90 Cong. Rec. 816, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.9 A newspaper article asserting that a Member was wanted for 
    questioning by a federal grand jury that already had indicted 
    several Nazi sympathizers was held to give rise to a question of 
    personal privilege.

    On Apr. 13, 1942,(5) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
on a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the House 
to a newspaper article which stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 3449, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Hoffman is wanted for questioning by the Federal grand jury 
    that already has indicted George Sylvester Vierick, Nazi 
    propagandist; George Hill, Fish's former secretary-clerk; and 
    several others for helping spread the gospel according to Hitler in 
    the United States of America.

    The Speaker,(6) observing that the statement as read 
presented a question of personal privilege, recognized Mr. Hoffman for 
one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.10 Newspaper remarks that a Congressman by his actions in 
    Congress was rendering a service to nazism was held to challenge 
    the Member's patriotism and to raise a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On May 28, 1942,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of personal privilege to call attention to a 
newspaper article which stated ``Congressman Hoffman, by his present 
actions in Congress, is rendering a service to nazi-ism.'' On hearing 
the objectionable language, the Speaker (8) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 88 Cong. Rec. 4724, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair holds that the language printed in the Michigan 
    paper, which contains the words ``Congressman Hoffman, by his 
    present actions in Congress, is rendering a service to nazi-ism,'' 
    challenges the patriotism of the

[[Page 1691]]

    gentleman from Michigan and raises a question of personal 
    privilege.

Sec. 31.11 A pamphlet charging that for four years a Member and his 
    committee have obscured activities of the Nazi network, that their 
    tactics have been the tactics of Goebbels and that they jeopardized 
    national unity, gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Sept. 24, 1942,(9) Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, 
claiming the floor as a question of personal privilege, read from a 
pamphlet which asserted that for four years Mr. Dies and his committee 
had obscured activities of the Nazi network, that their tactics had 
been the tactics of Goebbels and of seditionists, jeopardizing national 
unity. Upon concluding his statement, the Member was recognized by the 
Speaker (10) on a question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 7441, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conduct Inimical to National Security

Sec. 31.12 A newspaper story to the effect that a Member was barred as 
    a security risk from all naval districts and from witnessing 
    nuclear tests gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On July 14, 1953,(11) Mr. Robert L. Condon, of 
California, on a question of personal privilege, called the attention 
of the House to two newspaper articles which asserted that not only was 
he barred from witnessing an atom bomb test as a security risk but also 
that the Navy notified the commandants of all naval districts that he 
was to be considered persona non grata. The Speaker,(12) 
after ruling that Mr. Condon had presented a question of personal 
privilege, recognized him for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 99 Cong. Rec. 8790, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.13 Newspaper editorials charging that a Member was playing low-
    grade politics and that he had participated in wrecking the 
    country's defense gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On July 1, 1955,(13) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
rose to a question of personal privilege and presented two newspaper 
editorials charging that he was playing lowgrade politics and that he 
clearly had a part in wrecking the

[[Page 1692]]

country's defense. In his ruling granting the Member recognition, the 
Speaker (14) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 101 Cong. Rec. 9741, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks that the editorials indicate that the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] is trying to wreck the defense 
    program and entitles him to the floor on the question of personal 
    privilege.

Collaboration With a Foreign Enemy

Sec. 31.14 A statement in a newspaper implying that a Member 
    collaborated with convicted Nazi agents and indicted fifth 
    columnists gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 27, 1944,(15) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose and proposed as a question of personal privilege to call attention 
to a newspaper article in which it was implied that he had collaborated 
with convicted Nazi agents and indicted fifth columnists. Having 
presented a matter of personal privilege, the Member was recognized by 
the Speaker pro tempore (16) to address the House on the 
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 90 Cong. Rec. 3128, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.15 A publication stating among other things that a Member was 
    ``working with Hitler and his agents in this country'' was held to 
    give rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Jan. 22, 1945,(17) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of personal privilege, read from a publication 
which stated that he ``was working with Hitler and his agents in this 
country to defeat the President's policy of preparing America in the 
time of dangerous world conditions.'' In ruling on the question, the 
Speaker (18) gave his opinion that Mr. Hoffman had stated a 
matter upon which he deserved recognition on a question of personal 
privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 417, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.16 A newspaper article containing the statement that a labor 
    union required no defense against a Congressman ``who would cover 
    up for a gang of conspirators against our Nation'' was held to give 
    rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 23, 1945,(19) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
claiming the floor as a question of personal

[[Page 1693]]

privilege, read from a newspaper article a statement which in reference 
to him said: ``The C.I.O. requires no defense against a Congressman who 
would cover up for a gang of conspirators against our Nation.'' On 
hearing the objectionable words, the Speaker (20) recognized 
the Member on a question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 2665, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.17 A pamphlet identifying a Member and his committee as ``the 
    secret weapon with which Adolf Hitler hopes to soften up our 
    Nation'' gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Feb. 1, 1943,(1) Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, 
presented as involving a question of personal privilege a pamphlet 
which described the Member and his committee as ``the secret weapon 
with which Adolf Hitler hopes to soften up our Nation for military 
conquest.'' Upon his presentation of the objectionable material, the 
Member was recognized by the Speaker (2) for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 89 Cong. Rec. 474, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.18 A newspaper editorial referring to a Member as one who 
    cooperated with the Nazi propaganda ring was held to give rise to a 
    question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 2, 1943,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of personal privilege, read from a newspaper 
editorial the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 1490, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Representative Clare Hoffman, of Michigan . . . who cooperated 
    with the Nazi propaganda ring before Pearl Harbor, wants to 
    investigate us.

    In his ruling granting recognition to the Member, the Speaker 
(4) declared, ``The Chair thinks the gentleman states a 
point of personal privilege and he may proceed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 32. Published Charges Impugning Veracity

Presenting Falsehoods

Sec. 32.1 A newspaper editorial charging a Member with falsehoods gave 
    rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Feb. 28, 1956,(5) Mr. Craig Hosmer, of California, 
claiming the floor on a question of personal

[[Page 1694]]

privilege, read from a newspaper editorial charging him with falsehoods 
during House consideration of a certain bill. Following the submission 
of the editorial to the Chair, the Speaker pro tempore (6) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 3477, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks the gentleman raises a question of personal 
    privilege.The gentleman from California is recognized.

Stating Lies

Sec. 32.2 A newspaper article in which a statement of a Member was 
    characterized as ``an outright lie,'' gave rise to a question of 
    personal privilege.

    On Mar. 11, 1957,(7) Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, 
submitted as involving a question of personal privilege a newspaper 
article in which a statement he had made was characterized as ``an 
outright lie.'' The Speaker (8) said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 3395, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair the gentleman has stated a question 
    of personal privilege.
        The gentleman is recognized.


 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 33. Criticism of Members Collectively

Criticism of Unnamed Members

Sec. 33.1 A statement in a radio address by a cabinet officer that 
    persons advocating a certain measure were deliberately misleading 
    the public was held not to give grounds for a question of personal 
    privilege to a Member who had advocated the measure, but who had 
    not been named in the address.

    On Apr. 17, 1935,(9) Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts, as an advocate of the repeal of a certain textile 
processing tax, presented as involving a question of personal privilege 
the statement made during a radio address by a cabinet officer that 
persons advocating the repeal of the tax were deliberately misleading 
the public. A point of order was made by Mr. Hampton P. Fulmer, of 
South Carolina, that she had not stated a question of personal 
privilege. In his ruling sustaining the point of order, the Speaker 
(10) stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 79 Cong. Rec. 5854, 5855, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
11. 79 Cong. Rec. 5855, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 1695]]

        The Chair will state that the rule provides that a Member may 
    rise to a question of personal privilege where the rights, 
    reputation, and conduct of Members in their individual capacity 
    only are assailed.
        The name of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts was not 
    mentioned, in the first place, and the Chair fails to see where 
    there is a question of personal privilege involved in the statement 
    referred to by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, and therefore 
    must, of course, rule that she has not raised a question of 
    personal privilege.

Sec. 33.2 A newspaper article charging Members of the House with 
    demagoguery and willingness to punish the District of Columbia was 
    held a criticism of the House and not to constitute a question of 
    personal privilege.

    On May 21, 1941,(12) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman; of Michigan, 
rose to a question of personal privilege and read from a newspaper 
article which charged the Members of the House with demagoguery and 
with a willingness to punish the District of Columbia to win votes at 
home. After the submission of the article for the Chair's inspection, 
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 4307, 4308, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) Where does the article refer to 
    the gentleman from Michigan personally?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: It does not so refer, but it refers to all those 
    Members of the House who voted in opposition to that bill. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will read that part of the rule which 
    affects Members, so far as personal privilege is concerned:

            Second, the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members 
        individually in their representative capacity only.

        There is nothing in this matter that refers to the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] either individually or in his official 
    capacity. The Chair would hesitate to hold a question of personal 
    privilege of Members of the House lies in a general criticism of 
    the action of the House. Therefore, the Chair is inclined to hold 
    that the gentleman has not stated a question of personal privilege.

Sec. 33.3 A newspaper article incorporating the statement that anyone 
    who charged the CIO with communistic control was ``a knave, a liar, 
    and a poltroon,'' was held not to give rise to a question of 
    personal privilege.

    On Mar. 27, 1939,(14) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rising to a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the 
House to a newspaper article quoting labor union leader John L. Lewis 
as saying that anyone who charged the CIO with com

[[Page 1696]]

munistic control was ``a knave, a liar, and a poltroon,'' it being 
acknowledged that the Member had made such charges in debate on June 1, 
1937. After the Member's presentation of the question, the Speaker 
(15) made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 3362, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule on this question of personal 
    privilege presented by the gentleman from Michigan.
        The question now raised is the following language that was 
    purported to have been quoted in the March 23, 1939, issue of the 
    New York Times as coming from John L. Lewis, chairman of the 
    Congress of Industrial Organizations:

            Maintaining that the C.I.O. was an American institution, 
        Mr. Lewis denied that it was controlled by Communists, saying 
        that anyone who charged such communistic control was a knave, a 
        liar, and a poltroon.

        The gentleman from Michigan takes the position that because of 
    something that he may have said heretofore on the floor of the 
    House, brings him within the purview of the definition given by Mr. 
    Lewis. But in the language quoted there is certainly no reference 
    to any particular individual. The gentleman is not named, and for 
    aught appearing in this statement that has been made, the gentleman 
    who is quoted may have been referring entirely to some other 
    individual or some other group of individuals rather than the 
    gentleman from Michigan.
        The Chair is clearly of the opinion that it would be stretching 
    the rule too far to construe the general statement here made as 
    giving the gentleman from Michigan a question of privilege.
