[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[F. Disorder in Debate]
[Â§ 44. Reference to Senate or to Senators]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10572-10626]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 44. --Reference to Senate or to Senators

    The principle of comity governs the propriety of certain references 
in debate to the Senate or to individual Senators.(6) The 
basis for applying the principle of comity is drawn from Jefferson's 
Manual:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. The common definition of comity is kindly, courteous behavior or 
        mutual consideration between equals. The term also refers to 
        the legal principle whereby courts of one sovereignty defer to 
        the laws of another. Webster's Third New International 
        Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co. (Springfield, 1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said 
    on the same subject in the other House, or the particular votes or 
    majorities on it there; because the opinion of each House should be 
    left to its own independency, not to be influenced by the 
    proceedings of the other; and the quoting them might beget 
    reflections leading to a misunderstanding between the two 
    Houses.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 371 (1995).
            Jefferson's Manual is a part of the standing rules of the 
        House where not inconsistent with them. Rule XLII, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 938 (1995).
            In the procedure of the House of Commons, the rule has been 
        held ``not to apply to reports of committees of the other 
        House, even though they have not been communicated to the 
        commons, nor is the rule extended to the votes or proceedings 
        of either House, as they are recorded and printed by 
        authority.'' Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 451, 452, 
        Butterworth & Co. Ltd. (London, 1964) (17th ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Jefferson's Manual specifically prohibits reference only 
as to what has been said on the same subject in the other House, the 
weight of precedent favors the position that Members are not allowed to 
refer to any debates or proceedings in the Senate, to individual 
Senators, or even to speeches and statements made by Senators on or off 
the Senate floor.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. Sec. 44.32, 44.33, infra, for the prohibition against 
        reference to a Senator's statements outside the Senate; 
        Sec. 44.45, infra, for the prohibition against reference to a 
        Senator's vote on legislation; Sec. Sec. 44.24, 44.25, 44.45, 
        infra, for the prohibition against quoting Senate proceedings 
        in the Congressional Record; and Sec. Sec. 44.12, 44.16, 44.23, 
        infra, for the prohibition against reference to Senate 
        proceedings on propositions before the House.
            Although the Vice President presides over the Senate, he is 
        not a Member thereof, and comity does not prohibit references 
        to the Vice President in his capacity as an executive branch 
        official (see Sec. 47.9, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standards established by precedent were somewhat changed 
beginning in the 100th Congress and were in part codi

[[Page 10573]]

fied by a further amendment to the rules which became effective in 
1989.(9) Clause 1 of Rule XIV, now provides that debate may 
include references to actions taken by the Senate or by committees 
thereof which are a matter of public record, references to the pendency 
or sponsorship in the Senate of bills, resolutions, and amendments, 
factual descriptions relating to Senate action or inaction concerning a 
measure then under debate in the House, and quotations from Senate 
proceedings on a measure then under debate in the House and which are 
relevant to the making of legislative history establishing the meaning 
of that measure, but may not include characterizations of Senate action 
or inaction, other references to individual Members of the Senate, or 
other quotations from Senate proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72; House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 
        (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the references now specifically permitted by the 
rule, there are other relevant precedents which help define the 
parameters of debate. While it has normally been considered a breach of 
order to quote from Senate 
proceedings in the Congressional Record, unanimous consent has been 
granted for the insertion in the Record of portions of remarks made in 
the Senate on a particular bill.(10) Members have on 
occasion been permitted to refer to speeches made by Senators which 
appeared in newspapers, without denominating the persons quoted as 
Senators.(11) Where a Member is discussing a question 
involving conference committee procedure, he may state what occurred in 

the conference committee session without referring to a named 
Senator.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 44.24, infra.
            It has been generally stated that the Senate may be 
        referred to properly in debate if the principles of the rule of 
        comity are not violated. See 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5098, 5099, 5107-5111, 5114-5120.
11. See Sec. 44.25, infra.
12. See Sec. 44.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to such references to the Senate or Senators as are 
still prohibited, the rule is of such positive force in the House that 
it has always been considered the particular duty of the Speaker or the 
Chair to intervene in debate and to prohibit references to the Senate 
on his own responsibility.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 44.7, 44.8, infra. Jefferson's Manual states ``it is 
        the duty of the House, and more particularly of the Speaker, to 
        interfere immediately, and not to permit expressions to go 
        unnoticed which may give a ground of complaint to the other 
        House, and introduce proceedings and mutual accusations between 
        the two Houses, which can hardly be terminated without 
        difficulty and disorder.'' House Rules and Manual Sec. 374 
        (1995).

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

[[Page 10574]]

    The rule of comity applies in the Senate, but in the enforcement of 
the rule much is left to the discretion of the Senators and to the 
Presiding Officer of the Senate.(14) However, the extent to 
which the rule is enforced or not enforced in the Senate is irrelevant 
to its application to the House.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 46, infra.
15. See Sec. 44.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A difficult question arises when debate or proceedings in the 
Senate infringe upon the privileges of the House.(16) Where 
a Representative alleges that statements were made in the Senate 
impugning the intergrity of the House or of its Members, the proper 
procedure is the adoption of a resolution to be messaged to the Senate 
and requesting corrective action, such as expungement of remarks from 
the Congressional Record.(17) It has been held that a 
resolution offered in the House requesting the Senate to expunge from 
the Record statements in criticism of a Member of the House was in 
violation of the rule prohibiting references to the Senate in debate; 
(18) on the other hand, a properly drafted resolution 
referring to language published in the Record on a designated page of 
Senate proceedings as constituting a breach of privilege and requesting 
the Senate to take appropriate action concerning the subject was 
considered to present a question of the privileges of the House, and, 
having been agreed to, was messaged to the Senate.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. ``Neither House can exercise any authority over a Member or officer 
        of the other, but should complain to the House of which he is, 
        and leave the punishment to them. . . . Where the complaint is 
        of words disrespectfully spoken by a Member of another House, 
        it is difficult to obtain punishment. . . .'' Jefferson's 
        Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 373, 374 (1995).
17. Where the House or a Member is assailed in the Senate, the question 
        must be raised in the House without discussing Senate debate or 
        criticizing the Senator involved. See Sec. 44.9, infra, and 5 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5123, 5126.
            For an instance where such a resolution was messaged to the 
        Senate but no Senate action was taken, see Sec. 46.13, infra.
18. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2519.
19. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the new provisions of Rule XIV, clause 
1,(20)

[[Page 10575]]

added in the 101st Congress,(1) have changed some of the 
ground rules on what is a permissible reference to ``the other body'' 
and its actions. Certain precedents carried in section 44 must be 
considered in light of this new rule and practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995): Debate may include 
        references to actions taken by the Senate or by committees 
        thereof which are a matter of public record, references to the 
        pendency or sponsorship in the Senate of bills, resolutions, 
        and amendments, factual descriptions relating to Senate action 
        or inaction concerning a measure then under debate in the 
        House, and quotations from Senate proceedings on a measure then 
        under debate in the House and which are relevant to the making 
        of legislative history establishing the meaning of that 
        measure, but may not include characterizations of Senate action 
        or inaction, other references to individual Members of the 
        Senate, or other quotations from Senate proceedings.
 1. See H. Res. 5, 135 Cong. Rec. 72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 
        1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In one instance, a Member in debate referred to a Senator's 
participation, at the Member's invitation, in meetings on the House 
side of the Capitol with House Members; and to the Senator's position 
on issues discussed.(2) Even in this instance, however, the 
Member should have been requested to avoid specific references to 
members of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 131 Cong. Rec. 6438, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 27, 1985 
        (remarks of Mr. William V. Alexander, Jr., of Arkansas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member may not refer to confirmation proceedings in the Senate by 
criticizing the action of a Senate committee, as by describing the 
committee as ``continuing its downhill slide'' in recommending a 
judicial nominee.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See the proceedings at 138 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        July 9, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
House-Senate relations generally, see Ch. 32, infra.
Question of privilege, see Ch. 11, supra.
References in Senate to House or to Representatives, see Sec. 46, 
    infra.

                         Collateral References
Reference in Senate debate to the House of Representatives and to 
    Representatives, see Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, pp. 745-48, 
    S. Doc. No. 101-28 
    (1992).                          -------------------

Explanations of the Rule of Comity

Sec. 44.1 Historically, it has been held that a Representative could 
    not in debate comment either directly or indirectly, even for 
    complimentary remarks, on the action, speeches, or proceedings of a 
    Senator or of the Senate itself.

    On May 31, 1946,(4) Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, of 
Wisconsin, cited recent remarks made on the floor

[[Page 10576]]

of the Senate criticizing the proceedings of the House on a certain 
legislative measure. He inquired whether such Senate references were 
not a violation of the rule of comity between the two Houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 6043, 6044, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, delivered the following statement 
and analysis:

        Ever since the present occupant of the chair has held that 
    position he has sustained the point of order each and every time it 
    has been made when there was any reflection on a Member of the 
    other body that might disturb the comity of the two bodies, and has 
    even taken it upon himself on various occasions voluntarily to call 
    the attention of Members to Jefferson's Manual, upon which we base 
    our rules and upon which the comity of the Houses has been 
    preserved so long.
        In Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 2519, we find the 
    following:

            It is not in order in debate to criticize the action of 
        Members of the Senate in connection with their legislative 
        duties. Members may not in debate reflect upon the actions or 
        speeches of Senators or upon the proceedings in the Senate.

        This question has been raised many times in connection with 
    actions of individual Members of the House. The rule, I believe, is 
    rigid and the decisions have followed along that line. An inquiry 
    was made of one Speaker as to whether it was proper to speak of a 
    Senator or actions of the Senate if the remarks were not critical. 
    The then Speaker held:

            The rule is that a Member of the House cannot discuss a 
        Senator at all, not even complimenting him, because if you do 
        compliment him somebody might jump up and say that he was the 
        grandest rascal in the country and you would then have on your 
        hands a debate of a very acrimonious nature.

        The Chair at that time went on to say, and this is the rule 
    that the present occupant of the chair has consistently followed 
    and will:

            The Chair is firm and he believes that the House will 
        remain firm to our adherence to the rules of sportsmanship and 
        comity as laid down in Jefferson's Manual.

        The House of Representatives, if the Chair can control the 
    situation, will live up to that rule of comity now and hereafter. 
    That is the statement the Chair desires to make.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, the statement 
    referred to was made in the other body, therefore is [it] not 
    before the House at all?
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot rule on that and the Chair made 
    no reference to a statement made in another body. He was very 
    careful about that.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. A series of important rulings and statements on comity between the 
        Houses was made between 1930 and 1935; See 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 2503, 2506, 2518-2520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.2 The purpose of the rule prohibiting reference in debate to 
    speeches of Senators

[[Page 10577]]

    or to the proceedings of 
    the Senate is to preserve 
    harmony between the two Houses.

    On Jan. 16, 1946,(6) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry as to whether references to the other body were proper on the 
floor of the House, Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 92 Cong. Rec. 40, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state, without the response being other than a 
    general expression of the Chair's opinion on a matter which is not 
    before the Chair to decide at the present time, that of course 
    under the rules of the House and under the rules of any legislative 
    body reference to debate in another body, generally speaking, 
    violates the rules and tends to create lack of harmony between the 
    branches.

    Mr. Reid F. Murray, of Wisconsin, then arose to inquire whether a 
letter that he had written to a Member of the other body could be 
included in an extension of remarks in the Record. The Speaker Pro 
Tempore informed him that a point of order could always be raised 
following the insertion in the Record of material that violated a House 
rule. Further discussion then took place:

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin, [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I 
    am raising this question not because of this particular instance 
    concerning which I have no desire to enter into any discussion, but 
    in the interest of proper observance of the rules of the House I 
    believe we ought to have a clear-cut decision as to whether we can 
    mention in debate the name of a person who is a Member of the other 
    body. I understand, of course, that the Chair has not been called 
    upon to make a rule in this particular case because no objection 
    was raised, but I do not think the matter should be left with the 
    understanding that, generally speaking, it would not be in order. 
    We ought to know whether it is in order or not in case an objection 
    is raised. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Martin] is right, so far as 
    mentioning the name of a Member of the other body as a Senator. But 
    when a man arises here and mentions the name of a distinguished 
    citizen of a State as a candidate for President, who happens to be 
    a Member of the other body and does not mention that fact, I doubt 
    if he violates the rules of the House. That rule is to create and 
    maintain comity between the two Houses. It is to prevent the 
    criticism of Members of the other body as such on the floor of the 
    House. The same thing applies in the Senate. However, the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin was a little late. A while ago when some Member here 
    mentioned the fact that the other body was not in session and 
    referred to it in that respect, I think he violated the rules of 
    the House. But if you merely refer to a man, a distinguished 
    citizen of the United States who happens to be a Member of the 
    other body and do not

[[Page 10578]]

    refer to that fact, I do not think it violates the rule.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The whole purpose of the rule, of 
    course, is to maintain and preserve comity between the two 
    legislative bodies, which is of paramount importance.

Sec. 44.3 Speaker Longworth ruled that references to the Senate or its 
    proceedings were not in order in House debate under the principles 
    of Jefferson's Manual, notwithstanding contrary Senate practice.

    On May 16, 1930, following a point of order against reference to 
the proceedings of a Senate committee, Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New 
York, quoted those sections of Jefferson's Manual pertinent to the 
subject of comity between the two Houses. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, 
of Ohio, delivered a lengthy statement on the development of Senate 
practice and on the recent decisions in that body holding that the 
sections of Jefferson's Manual did not apply to the Senate and that 
Senators could use their own discretion in commenting or reflecting 
upon House speeches or House proceedings.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Since the Senate has not adopted Jefferson's Manual, the rule of 
        comity in debate has been less strictly enforced there than in 
        the House. See Sec. 46, infra, for Senate precedents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Longworth stated that he would nevertheless insist upon 
strict adherence to both the letter and the spirit of Jefferson's 
Manual, prohibiting reflections ``in any way on the floor of the House 
against the actions, speeches, or proceedings of another Member [of the 
Senate] or of the body itself.''

Sec. 44.4 It is a violation of the rules of parliamentary procedure to 
    refer by name to the remarks or actions of a Senator occurring in 
    the Senate or elsewhere, and where a Member in debate or through an 
    insertion in the Record transgresses this rule the Speaker calls 
    him to order under Rule XIV clause 4.

    Where a Member had on a previous day made an unchallenged reference 
in debate and in a Record insertion to the actions of a named Senator 
outside of the Senate, the Speaker, in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, indicated that those remarks were in violation of the rule of 
comity between the two Houses (8) and by unanimous consent 
the remarks were stricken from the permanent Record. The proceedings of 
Oct. 7, 1975,(9) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See House Rules and Manual (Jefferson's Manual) Sec. 374 (1995).
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 32055, 32056, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 10579]]

        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    have asked for this time for the purpose of addressing the Chair so 
    that I may make an inquiry, which will be in the nature of a 
    parliamentary inquiry, of the Chair, in regard to the following 
    matter:
        On last April 17, at page H2884 of the Record, I was commenting 
    on the manner in which the Senate was handling aspects of the New 
    Hampshire Senate election, remarks were critical of the Senate and 
    the Speaker at this time called me to order, and, quoting from the 
    Speaker's remarks, the Speaker asked me to desist and stated that 
    my remarks were in violation of the rules of the House and the 
    rules of comity.
        For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring this to the 
    attention of the Chair: I noticed on October 1 that at pages H9424-
    H9425 of the Record the gentleman from New York (Mr. Koch) 
    addressed the House under the 1-minute rule and had been extremely 
    critical of the junior Senator from New York (Mr. Buckley).
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the remarks of the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Koch), like those of mine earlier in 
    the year, are in violation of the rules of the House and the rules 
    of comity.
        The Speaker: (10) Does the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Koch) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward I.] Koch [of New York]: I do, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        In Cannon's Precedents, Mr. Speaker, there is a statement that 
    it is not in order in debate to criticize Members of the other 
    body, but such rule does not apply to criticisms of statements made 
    by Members of the other body outside the Chamber.
        In my remarks to which the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
    Cleveland) refers, I did discuss the remarks of a Member of the 
    other body, the younger brother of a noted columnist. . . .
        In any event, as a result of those remarks, this noted 
    columnist, for whom I have high regard . . . took exception to my 
    remarks in his column.
        In examining the precedents, I have come to the conclusion that 
    I ought not to have mentioned the exact name of that Member of the 
    other body. Therefore, with the Chair's permission, I would consent 
    to a withdrawal of that unutterable name and have substituted in 
    each and every case where that name was mentioned a reference to 
    the fact that I was referring to the younger brother of a noted 
    columnist.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair will state that not only was this matter brought to 
    his attention today, but the Chair noted the 
    remarks of the gentleman from New York when they appeared in the 
    Record of October 1, 1975, and anticipated that this question might 
    arise.
        The Chair has, accordingly, checked the precedents. The 
    precedents of the House indicate that it is not in order for a 
    Member of this body to refer to the actions or remarks of a Member 
    of the other body occurring either within the other body or 
    elsewhere--Speaker Rayburn, May 5, 1941. The motives of the Member 
    making the remarks are

[[Page 10580]]

    not relevant to a determination of whether they are or are not in 
    order, as even complimentary remarks have been held to violate the 
    rule of comity between the two Houses--Volume VIII, 2509.
        Speaker Rayburn succinctly stated the reason for the rule in 
    1941, subsequent to the citation given by the gentleman from New 
    York, observing that--

            If there is a thing in the world that is important, it is 
        that there be comity and good feeling between the two 
        legislative bodies.

        To allow references in one body to the actions of Members of 
    the other, he continued:

            In all probability would lead to a situation which might 
        make ordered legislative procedure impossible. (May 5, 1941, 
        Record, pp. 3566-3567).

        The present and all previous occupants of this Chair have 
    attempted to preserve the comity between the two Houses.
        The Chair notes that the remarks in question were in part 
    delivered from the floor of the House and in part inserted for 
    printing in the Record. Had the Chair been aware of the content of 
    the remarks when uttered or been informed of the contents of the 
    matter to be inserted, he would have enforced the rule of comity at 
    that time.
        The rule of comity has clearly been violated and, without 
    objection, the remarks of the gentleman from New York will be 
    stricken from the Record.
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Rayburn ruling of May 5, 1941, to the 
extent that it is inconsistent with the precedent cited by Mr. Koch (5 
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5112) overruled that prior precedent and it is 
no longer proper to refer to a Senator's statement made outside the 
Senate.

Sec. 44.5 Although the Senate does not strictly incorporate Jefferson's 
    Manual as a rule and is not bound by the prohibitions against 
    reference to Members of the House, the Speaker strictly enforces 
    the House rule on his own initiative and may deny an offending 
    Member further recognition; thus, in anticipation of debate 
    potentially critical of the Senate and its members, the Speaker 
    announced his intention to strictly enforce section 374 of 
    Jefferson's Manual prohibiting improper references to the Senate, 
    including a denial of further recognition to offending Members 
    subject to House permission to proceed in order.

    On June 16, 1982,(11) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, made a statement re

[[Page 10581]]

garding comity in debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 128 Cong. Rec. 13843, 13873, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair appreciates the fact that there is an 
    amendment that will be offered very shortly concerning the Senate.
        The Chair deems it necessary to make a statement at this time 
    to firmly establish an understanding that improper references to 
    the other body or its Members during debate are contrary to the 
    rules and precedents of the House and will not be tolerated. The 
    Chair will quote from section 374 of Jefferson's Manual which is a 
    part of the rules of the House:

            It is the duty of the House, and more particularly of the 
        Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit 
        expressions to go unnoticed which may give a ground of 
        complaint to the other House, and introduce proceedings and 
        mutual accusations between the two Houses, which can hardly be 
        terminated without difficulty and disorder.

        Traditionally when a Member inadvertently transgresses this 
    rule of the House, the Chair upon calling the Member to order 
    prevails upon that Member to remove the offending remarks from the 
    Record. With the advent of television, however, the Chair is not 
    certain that such a remedy is sufficient. Henceforth, where a 
    Member's references to the other body are contrary to the important 
    principle of comity stated in Jefferson's Manual, the Chair may 
    immediately deny further recognition to that Member at that point 
    in the debate subject to permission of the House to proceed in 
    order. The Chair requests all Members to abide by this rule in 
    order to avoid embarrassment to themselves and to the House.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, in order to abide by the rules, which 
    are very difficult, does the Senate have the same rule? Does the 
    other body?
        The Speaker: No; the Senate does not have the same rule, but it 
    is a rule of our House and we are going to abide by it as long as I 
    am Speaker.
        Mr. Conte: Is it permissible to refer to them as ``the other 
    body''?
        The Speaker: That is permissible, the other body. . . .
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: If the gentleman will yield 
    on that point, I do not want to behave like the other body. I am 
    fed up with Members of the other body posing for holy pictures on 
    congressional pay and then running around, collecting $60,000 in 
    outside income.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is constrained to admonish 
    the body, in accordance with the warning of the Speaker earlier, 
    that the Members should be careful in their references to the other 
    body.

--Criticism of the Idea of ``Comity''

Sec. 44.6 A Member took the floor to advocate a change in that 
    provision of House rules contained in Jefferson's Manual 
    prohibiting references to actions of the Senate and to Senators.

[[Page 10582]]

    The following remarks were made in the House on Dec. 20, 1985: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 38731, 38732, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Frank asked and was given permission to address the House 
    for 1 minute.)
        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: . . . A couple of 
    hundred years ago there was a proposal that said the Houses ought 
    not to comment on each other. It has become very clear that it has 
    become difficult to transact business and impossible to transmit 
    intelligent information while we have that constraint.
        So I hope that in the session that begins in 1987 we will 
    change that archaic rule and we will be able in the House and 
    Senate to talk about each other and to stop this pretense that each 
    is off on some other planet 
    somewhere uninfluenced by and uninfluenceable by the other.

Role of the Speaker

Sec. 44.7 It is the duty of the Chair to interrupt a Member in debate 
    when the Member proposes to refer to the opinions or statements of 
    Senators or to Senate proceedings in violation of the rules.

    On May 25, 1937,(13) when a Member proposed to read a 
letter from a member of the Senate in Committee of the Whole, Chairman 
John J. O'Connor, of New York, on his own responsibility called him to 
order for reading a letter from a member of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on Apr. 18, 1939,(14) when a Member referred 
to the action of the Senate on a particular appropriation bill then 
before the House, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, stated as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 4404, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to call the attention of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania to the fact that under the rules of the House he is 
    not permitted to refer to any action taken in the Senate of the 
    United States.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. ``[I]t is the duty of the House, and more particularly of the 
        Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit 
        expressions to go unnoticed which may give a ground of 
        complaint to the other House. . . .'' Jefferson's Manual, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 374 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Announcements as to Enforcement of Rule of Comity

Sec. 44.8 The Speaker has on occasion addressed the House in relation 
    to violations of the rule prohibiting references to the Senate in 
    debate, and has stated his intention to prevent violations thereof.

[[Page 10583]]

    On May 5, 1941,(16) following a ruling by Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, on a violation of the House rules, whereby a Member 
inserted in his extension of remarks in the Congressional Record 
critical references to the speeches of a Senator made off the floor of 
the House, the Speaker addressed the House on the unprecedented 
frequency with which the particular rule was being violated in the 77th 
Congress. The Speaker stated that thereafter he would on his own 
initiative call the attention of Members to violations of the 
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 3566, 3567, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, on Jan. 17, 1955,(17) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 101 Cong. Rec. 386, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to make this statement at the beginning of 
    this session with reference to something that has been maintained 
    by every Speaker of the House since the present occupant of the 
    Chair has been a Member of this body, and that is that the House of 
    Representatives, regardless of what any other body or any other 
    individual does, has maintained strictly those rules and 
    regulations which protect and perpetuate the comity between the two 
    Houses. And when any Member of this House rises to make remarks 
    about what has happened in another body or about any individual in 
    that body, the present occupant of the Chair will certainly see 
    that the rules of the House and the rules of comity between the two 
    Houses are enforced.

    On Mar. 26, 1964,(18) after ruling on a point of order 
based on House references to the Senate, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 6365, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is going to be very strict in the future with 
    relation to references to speeches made in the other body or to 
    references to Members of the other body. The Chair feels at this 
    time it might be well to read the rule of the House covering this 
    subject:

            It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been 
        said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular 
        votes or majorities on it there; because the opinion of each 
        House should be left to its own independency, not to be 
        influenced by the proceedings of the other; and the quoting 
        them might beget reflections leading to a misunderstanding 
        between the two Houses.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The Speaker cited the provisions of parliamentary law contained in 
        Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 371 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment on Senate Proceedings Critical of House

Sec. 44.9 A Member may not in debate comment on Senate proceedings 
    impugning the integrity of the House, the

[[Page 10584]]

    proper procedure being the introduction of a resolution requesting 
    corrective action by the Senate.

    On May 11, 1932,(20) Mr. Fred A. Britten, of Illinois, 
stated his intention in the Committee of 
the Whole (which was considering H.J. Res. 149) to read from the 
Congressional Record proceedings in the Senate which impugned the 
honesty of purpose of every Member of the House. Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, 
of Texas, arose to make the point of order that ``in order to preserve 
the friendliness and the amity and the comity that exists and should 
exist between the two Houses of Congress, it has always been the rule 
that no criticism or censure could be made from this floor concerning 
any Member of the body in the other end of the Capitol.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 10019, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman Gordon Browning, of Tennessee, ruled that Mr. Britten 
could neither quote from the Congressional Record nor quote from 
newspaper reports of Senate speeches or proceedings. The Chairman 
referred to the precedent of May 6, 1930, wherein Speaker Nicholas 
Longworth, of Ohio, had held that a Member could not reflect in any way 
in debate on the floor of the House on the actions, speeches, or 
proceedings of a Senator, or of the Senate itself.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For the exhaustive opinion of Speaker Longworth on May 6, 1930, see 
        8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2518.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Britten appealed the Chairman's decision, but withdrew his 
appeal after William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, then Speaker of the 
House, was granted five minutes' time. Mr. Bankhead supported the 
Chairman's ruling and alluded to the ``very elaborate and very learned, 
and in my opinion very correct'' ruling of Speaker Longworth. Mr. 
Bankhead added that when the Committee of the Whole rose Mr. Britten 
could raise his question of privilege by introducing a resolution to be 
sent to the Senate asking that any language impugning the House or its 
Members be corrected.

Comment on Conference Proceedings

Sec. 44.10 It is in order in debate while discussing a question 
    involving conference committee procedures to state what occurred in 
    a conference committee session, without referring to a named 
    Senator.

    On July 29, 1935,(2) Mr. John G. Cooper, of Ohio, was 
discussing

[[Page 10585]]

the procedure followed at a conference committee and stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 79 Cong. Rec. 12011, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I will say that the Senator, who 
    is chairman of the conference committee, stated to us that if Mr. 
    Cohen could not sit in at the conference there would be no 
    conference.
        He further said:

            I doubt if I know enough about the bill to give it an 
        intelligent discussion unless Mr. Cohen sits in here with me.

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point of order against 
Mr. Cooper's remarks on the ground that he had ``no right to criticize 
Members of the Senate on the floor of the House, whether he calls them 
by name or not. This tirade against the Senate is in violation of the 
rules of the House.''
    Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:

        The rule provides that Members shall not criticize a Member of 
    the other body in a discussion on the floor. As the Chair 
    understands the gentleman, he is not referring to a Senator by 
    name, but stating what occurred in the conference committee.

Comment on Senate Proceedings on Measure Pending in House

Sec. 44.11 Under the old rule, it was not in order in debate to quote 
    Senate proceedings on a bill or resolution then before the House.

    On Aug. 24, 1935,(3) while the House was considering 
Senate Joint Resolution 175, amending the Independent Offices 
Appropriation Act of 1934, Mr. Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, quoted 
from Senate debate on the joint resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 14599, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Then Senator Black says about his resolution:

            I am not trying to throw this matter into a state of chaos.

    Mr. Edward C. Moran, Jr., of Maine, made the point of order that 
Mr. Bland was quoting from Senate proceedings and Mr. Bland responded:

        For heaven's sake, has the Senate gotten to the place where its 
    Senators cannot be quoted, and Senator Black, the great apostle of 
    these gentlemen, cannot have his views presented for your 
    consideration?

    Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:

        The Chair reads from Jefferson's Manual, as follows:

            It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been 
        said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular 
        votes or majorities on it there; because the opinion of each 
        House should be left to its own independency, not to be 
        influenced by the proceedings of the other; and the

[[Page 10586]]

        quoting them might beget reflections leading to a 
        misunderstanding between the two Houses.

        Mr. Bland: I beg the Chair's pardon.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the point of 
    order is well taken. The gentleman from Virginia will proceed in 
    order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. For the provisions cited by the Speaker, see Jefferson's Manual, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 371 (1995). See Rule XIV clause 1, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995), for current rule on 
        Senate references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.12 Although it is a breach of order in House debate to quote 
    from Senate debate, Members may by unanimous consent insert in the 
    Record Senate remarks on bills pending before the House.

    On May 23, 1968,(5) during consideration of H.R. 8578, 
amending the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Mr. Hale Boggs, 
of Louisiana, asked unanimous consent that the Senate debate on a 
certain amendment to the bill be printed in the Record. No objection 
was heard, and a lengthy excerpt from Senate proceedings of April 23, 
1968, was inserted.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 114 Cong. Rec. 14640-51, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Senate practice is similar, unanimous consent being required to 
        refer to House proceedings on a proposition then before the 
        Senate (see Sec. 46.6, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.13 As provided in Jefferson's Manual,(7) it is a 
    breach of order in debate to notice what has been said on the same 
    subject in the Senate, or to refer to particular Senators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 371, 372 (1995). Following 
        changes made in Rule XIV clause 1 beginning in 1987, the quote 
        from Senate proceedings would be considered permissible, as 
        helping to illuminate the legislative history of the bill under 
        consideration in the House. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 
        (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 21, 1981,(8) during consideration of the Food 
and Agriculture Act of 1981 (H.R. 3603) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 127 Cong. Rec. 24748, 24753, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Shamansky [of Ohio]: I thank the gentleman for 
    yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from Senator Hatfield, from 
    the Congressional Record of September 17, 1981----
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Shamansky) that it is not in order to 
    quote from the proceedings of the other body. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joel] Pritchard [of Washington]: That is an excellent 
    question and I intend to address that very question with the rest 
    of my remarks.

[[Page 10587]]

        First of all, let us remember where this bill is going to go. 
    It is going to go to conference committee. And the gentleman from 
    North Carolina in the other body is the chairman of the Senate 
    delegation.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that 
    reference to a particular Member of the other body is not in order.

Sec. 44.14 Under clause 1 of Rule XIV, the range of permissible 
    references in debate to the Senate does not extend to 
    characterizations of Senate actions or to votes of individual 
    Senators; thus, the Chair sustained a point of order against 
    remarks in debate to the effect that certain Senators had, by their 
    votes in that body, given an imprimatur of reasonableness to a 
    particular position.

    On Nov. 2, 1989,(10) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 221 (supporting Central American peace and 
democracy) in the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 135 Cong. Rec. 26918, 26919, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee feels that 
    there has been an agreement. . . .
        We have a consensus document and the chairman with great 
    diplomacy, wants to get a document that everybody can support. I do 
    not object to our resolution. It is an adequate resolution, but it 
    lacks substance. It is more cotton candy than T-bone steak.
        The Senate, on the other hand, the other body, passed a real 
    resolution that is awfully tough. I would like the opportunity to 
    vote for the Senate language rather than our rather pastel, pallid, 
    accurate-as-far-as-it-goes but mild resolution.
        Now first of all I would be interested to see how the gentleman 
    on the other side could not vote for something because it is too 
    abrasive when it is supported by both of the distinguished Senators 
    from California, both of the distinguished Senators from Ohio, both 
    of the distinguished Senators from Connecticut, the majority 
    leader, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the 
    other body. It would seem to me that would qualify it, having their 
    imprimatur, to get the support from everybody in this Chamber.
        Mr. [Ted] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, is it in order discussing what went on in the 
    Senate and what the motivations were of the people in the Senate? . 
    . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The gentleman may 
    report the general collective action taken by the other body, but 
    may not characterize the votes of individual Senators as good or 
    bad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jim McDermott (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Senators as Sponsors of Legislation

Sec. 44.15 Under clause 1 of Rule XIV, debate ordinarily may

[[Page 10588]]

    include references to individual Senators only to identify them as 
    sponsors of legislation; the range of permissible references to the 
    Senate does not extend to the opinions or policy positions of 
    individual Senators.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 12, 1990: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 136 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous 
    for the Senate Democratic leader to publicly demand higher taxes 
    and a massive 25-percent increase in the income tax top rate. The 
    Senate Democratic leader is threatening to destroy the budget 
    summit.
        Mr. Speaker, Senator Mitchell does not attend summit meetings. 
    He publicly demands tax increases. Senator Mitchell does not offer 
    serious budget reforms. He publicly demands tax increases. Senator 
    Mitchell does not offer spending cuts.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask that 
    the words of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] be taken 
    down.
        The Speaker: (13) The Chair will merely caution the 
    gentleman from Georgia that such references to Members of the other 
    body are not in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gingrich: I would inquire of the Speaker, if it is in 
    reference to a public newspaper account of public activity by a 
    political leader, and I believe in this House we have a remarkably 
    wide range of free speech, and this is not a reference to any 
    action by the Senator of Maine in the Senate.
        The Speaker: Under clause 1, rule XIV, it is an improper 
    reference to a Member of the other body. . . .
        Mr. Gingrich: . . . Would the Speaker, and I am not trying to 
    play games with the Speaker, would the Speaker simply instruct the 
    gentleman what precisely are the ground rules for discussing 
    publicly the activities of the Democratic leader of the other body 
    when they appear in public and not in the other body? . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will remind the gentleman of clause 1 of 
    rule XIV which states that when any member desires to speak or 
    deliver any matter to the House:

            He shall rise and respectfully address himself, Mr. 
        Speaker, and on being recognized may address the House from any 
        place on the floor or from the Clerk's desk, and he shall 
        confine himself to the question under debate, avoiding 
        personality. Debate may include references to actions taken by 
        the Senate or by committees thereof, which are a matter of 
        public record, references to the pendency or sponsorship of 
        Senate bills, resolutions or amendment, factual description 
        relating to Senate action or inaction concerning those then 
        under debate in the House and questions from Senate proceedings 
        on a measure then under debate in the House and which are 
        relevant to the making of legislative history establishing the 
        meaning of that measure, but may not include characteristics of 
        Senate action or inaction, other references to individual 
        Members of the Senate or other quotations from Senate 
        proceedings.

[[Page 10589]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: As indicated above, in the House, the Chair 
takes the initiative in calling to order a Member for making 
unparliamentary references to the Senate or its members.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For further discussion of procedures relating to calls to order, or 
        control by the Chair of disorderly proceedings, see Sec. 48, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical or Derogatory References to Senators

Sec. 44.16 The Speaker held out 
    of order a statement on a 
    pending bill ``[i]f Senators in 
    a moment of aberration approve such language, I do not approve. . . 
    .''

    On Jan. 29, 1946,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4437, to return public employment offices to state 
operation. Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, offered an amendment, 
which was opposed by Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York. Mr. Dirksen 
informed him that the language of the amendment had been approved by 
two Senators, whom he named, and Mr. Celler responded ``[i]f Senators 
in a moment of aberration approve such language, I do not approve. . . 
.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 92 Cong. Rec. 533, 534, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The words were taken down in the House on the demand of Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, and stricken from the Record, after Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled the language ``unparliamentary in referring to 
the action of the membership in another body.''

Sec. 44.17 It is a violation of the rule of comity to criticize in 
    debate the actions of a Senator with regard to legislation, and it 
    is the duty of the Chair to call to order a Member who violates the 
    rule.

    During consideration of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act of 1979 (H.R. 39) in the Committee of the Whole on May 
15, 1979,(16) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 11133, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: I just want to put it in 
    the record. I do not think it has much to do with what we are doing 
    today, but on May 8 the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling), on 
    page H2851, tells this whole story chapter and verse. I want to 
    endorse what he said. It is a different ball game. It is akin to 
    being in a poker game 10 minutes to midnight and I have a pair of 
    deuces, and my opponent says, ``I will split the pot with you.'' 
    Time is about to run out.
        Under this December 18 deadline we made a deal, the best deal 
    we could make. Then, some guy named Gravel comes on and the chips 
    are all over the

[[Page 10590]]

    floor. Then, we decide to play until 3 o'clock and we redeal the 
    cards and we find that we do not have that situation in our hand 
    and nobody asks to split the pot. We want a strong bill. That was a 
    pretty lousy compromise. I made it and I would have fought for it 
    on the floor, but it was upset by the Senator from Alaska and it 
    has no status here today.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair would simply point out 
    that references to actions taken in the other body are contrary to 
    the rules of the House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul Simon (Ill.).
18. See Jefferson's Manual, section 371. Mr. Udall subsequently revised 
        his remarks to delete the references to Senator Gravel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.18 It is a breach of order under clause 1 of Rule XIV to 
    characterize Senate action or inaction, such as mocking the 
    resolve, courage or conviction of the Senate or referring to that 
    body as ``jello''.

    Speaker Thomas S. Foley, of Washington, made an announcement 
regarding comity between the House and Senate following certain remarks 
made in debate in the House on Aug. 4, 1989.(19) The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 135 Cong. Rec. 19314, 19315, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 1 minute. . . .
        Mr. Frank: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Speaker, having consulted with the very distinguished and 
    objective parliamentarians and with the Speaker, on reflection it 
    did seem to me that my comparison of the U.S. Senate to Jell-O was 
    not totally in keeping with the traditions of this institution and 
    I thought it would be appropriate for me to indicate that fact to 
    the House.
        Mr. [Dennis E.] Eckart [of Ohio]: Continuing my reservation of 
    objection on this matter, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman should 
    offer his apology to General Foods.
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is 
    recognized for 1 minute.
        Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, as I said in foolish answer to the 
    gentleman from Ohio, while I was not enthralled with the 
    performance of our constitutional equal, the U.S. Senate, my 
    comparison to them as Jell-O did not seem to me, on sober second 
    thought, to be entirely appropriate, and I therefore apologize.

                        ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

        The Speaker: The Chair will take this occasion to state that 
    the Chair appreciates the good humor of debate, but the Chair also 
    believes that all Members should observe the rules of

[[Page 10591]]

    comity with respect to the other body. I am glad the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts has made his statement.

Sec. 44.19 It is a violation of the rule of comity as expressed in 
    section 374 of Jefferson's Manual, to read into the Record critical 
    references to members of the Senate, even if the criticism was 
    stated in a letter written by a non-Member.

    During consideration of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 
(H.R. 2230) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 4, 
1983,(20) the Chair admonished the Committee that references 
to either the other body or members thereof were not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 23135, 23136, 23145, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: . . . I have 
    in my possession a letter dated July 15 from Albert Shanker, 
    president of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, to 
    Senator Biden which states in part:

            Rarely have I been as outraged at the behavior of a fellow 
        Democrat as I was watching you on the evening news Wednesday. 
        Your performance at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on 
        the Civil Rights commission nominees may as well have been 
        bought, paid for and delivered by the Republican National 
        Committee. Do you really believe, Senator Biden, that Democrats 
        or fair minded people anywhere are going to think you a fit 
        representative for telling the nation that you've made up your 
        mind how you're going to vote on a nomination before you've 
        heard one word of testimony from the nominees? . . .
            Your anti-quota and anti-busing rhetoric at the hearing 
        will not mask your action on these nominations. I can imagine 
        no finer candidates for the Civil Rights Commission than Morris 
        Abram, John Bunzel and Robert Destro . . . .
            Senator Biden, you have before your committee four 
        excellent nominees with impeccable civil rights credentials. 
        You will irreparably harm yourself and other Democrats next 
        year if you insist on obstructing action on these nominees. You 
        give Ronald Reagan an excellent issue on which to run next year 
        if you and your colleagues insist on protecting the pro-quotas, 
        pro-busing interests and attacking staunch civil rights 
        veterans like Abram, Bunzel, Destro and Chavez. . . .

        The Chairman: (1) Before recognizing another Member 
    to speak, the Chair would like to make a statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Regardless of the effect that pending legislation may have on 
    proceedings in the other body, reference to actions or proceedings 
    in that body or remarks critical of Members of that body are not in 
    order under the rules and precedents of the House.

Sec. 44.20 It is a breach of order in debate to refer to the motives of 
    the Senate or Senators in passing certain legislation; nor is it in 
    order to read from the Congressional Record as to specific actions 
    taken in the Senate on legislative issues.

[[Page 10592]]

    On Oct. 17, 1985,(2) the Chair took the initiative to 
admonish a Member against references to the Senate or Senators. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 131 Cong. Rec. 27772, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Speaker, with all due 
    respect to my well-meaning friends, what the Gramm/Rudman movement 
    over in the other body really did was simply provide a way by which 
    at least 30-some Senators can get past the next election without 
    having to face the tough proposition of how you really cut the 
    budget. That was proven.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The Chair would advise 
    the gentleman that it is against the rules of the House to refer to 
    the motives of the other body or its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Howard E. Wolpe (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lowry of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I would not even consider 
    inferring the motives of the other body.
        Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is read the record of the 
    other body of the day after the Gramm-Rudman passed and they voted 
    specifically on the items not to cut the budget.
        On the Bradley amendment to cut the defense budget----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    that he must not refer to actions of the other body in that way.

Sec. 44.21 The Chair admonished a Member during debate not to refer to 
    a Senator in a critical manner although not identified by name.

    On Dec. 18, 1985,(4) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 131 Cong. Rec. 37813, 37814, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: . . . Mr. 
    Speaker, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania is a member of our 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, I would like to 
    state that it has come to my attention that the other body has 
    placed in the continuing resolution some special legislation for 
    special people. There is a Member of the other body who, in 1983, 
    fought tooth and nail to prevent a housing bill from being adopted 
    in the Congress.
        Again this year, Members will recall we put our housing bill 
    into reconciliation. Once again, the same individual Member of the 
    other body is saying, ``No, no, no.'' He is using parliamentary 
    chicanery to deny the people of this Nation safe, decent, sanitary 
    housing.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman should 
    not refer to the other body and he is skirting very closely on 
    offensive language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.22 It is not in order under clause 1 of Rule XIV to cast 
    reflections on remarks made by a Senator, occurring in the Senate 
    or elsewhere, even if the Senator is not identified by name.

    On Feb. 23, 1994,(6) a Member in debate criticized 
remarks made

[[Page 10593]]

by a Senator, by referring to the Senator as ``a person who resides in 
the State of South Carolina.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Res. 343, expressing the Sense of Congress on the Senior 
        Representative of the Nation of Islam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kweisi] Mfume [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
    offer a friendly amendment to the amendment in hopes of bringing 
    balance and substance to this debate and to this issue of 
    repudiation that go directly to the heart of remarks made by a 
    gentleman of the other body. . . .
        Mr. [Charles B.] Rangel [of New York]: I am trying to find out 
    from the author of this amendment how could it be related to this 
    amendment and whether it is inviting, whether it has been 
    distributed, what it is that you bring before this House at this 
    time. . . .
        Mr. Mfume: The amendment that I had hoped to offer was an 
    amendment that would have brought balance to this debate in which 
    all of us have a sense of outrage and revulsion at remarks that 
    were made at Kean College, but many of us also have a sense of 
    outrage and revulsion at remarks made by a Member of the other body 
    recently in which black people were referred to as darkies, 
    Hispanics were referred to as wetbacks, and Africans were referred 
    to as cannibals. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Chair would like to 
    remind the gentleman in the well that he cannot refer to Members of 
    the other body and statements made by that Member of the other 
    body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Robert G. Torricelli (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mfume: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Chair. Is the 
    Chair telling me that I cannot say or make mention of a Member of 
    the other body as long as I do not use that person's name?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman, under the rules, cannot 
    refer to statements made by the Members of the other body.
        Mr. Mfume: If I could ask further, may I have permission to 
    refer to statements made from someone from South Carolina?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If that is a Member from the other 
    body, the gentleman cannot do that.
        Mr. Mfume: With all due respect, there are many people from 
    South Carolina. I am not necessarily mentioning a Member of the 
    other body but a resident of the State of South Carolina.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman would proceed in order 
    at the Chair's request.

    Similarly, on June 30, 1995,(8) the Chair addressed the 
issue of references to Senators (as well as to the President), in 
response to remarks made by Mr. Robert K. Dornan, of California:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dornan: I am going to get justice here. I am going to get 
    justice for all the Vietnamese who were tortured to death in those 
    so-called reeducation concentration camps. . . .
        I will tell you this: This ex-member here, now a Senator, is 
    from a Bible Belt State. . . .
        I will tell you, if you are from Iowa, you know most of this 
    material. I can

[[Page 10594]]

    not believe what you have sent to represent your country. I hope 
    you enjoy your Fourth of July in Iowa and New Hampshire, because 
    you are going to have U.S. Senators and, God forbid, the three 
    House Members from the minority, one of them a distinguished Army 
    captain from the D-Day period. I hope they are not toasting the 
    terrorists and the Communist victors who brought such human rights 
    abuse and grief to all of Southeast Asia. . . .
        I am going to go over with the parliamentarians how I can 
    recoup my honor from January 25 of this year, when I used the 
    expression ``aid and comfort to the enemy.'' I know it is in the 
    Constitution. I know there is a technicality when war is not 
    declared. But I am going to discuss every dictionary definition, 
    British and American, of aid, of comfort and of what constitutes an 
    enemy. . . .
        When I tell you that Clinton gave aid and comfort to the enemy 
    in Hanoi by his Moscow trip and his demonstrations in London, where 
    they were called the fall offensive, so named by the same 
    Communists in Hanoi that will be toasting Americans today----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair would caution 
    the Member to be very cautious of any statements about the 
    President of the United States. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Constance A. Morella (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to also point out for the Record something 
    that the Representative does know, just to remind him, that 
    personal references to members of the other body, even though not 
    mentioned by name, when it is very clear to whom the references are 
    made, should be avoided, and this is something that had been 
    mentioned on February 23, 1994, by the Chair.

Reading Senate Proceedings From the Record

Sec. 44.23 It is not in order in debate to read from the Record 
    statements made in the Senate or Senate proceedings which are not 
    related to a pending measure in the House.

    On Aug. 24, 1935,(10) the following exchange and ruling 
by Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 14599, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: . . . Then Senator 
    Black says about his resolution:

            I am not trying to throw this matter into a state of 
        chaos.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The resolution under discussion was S.J. Res. 175, amending the 
        Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward C.] Moran [Jr., of Maine]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the present speaker is quoting from the Senate 
    proceedings.
        Mr. Bland: For heaven's sake, has the Senate gotten to the 
    place where its Senators cannot be quoted, and Senator Black, the 
    great apostle of these gentlemen, cannot have his views presented 
    for your consideration?
        Mr. Moran: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ruling on the point of 
    order.

[[Page 10595]]

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I understand 
    the gentleman is reading from the Congressional Record.
        Mr. Bland: Yes.
        Mr. O'Connor: And is not referring to a Senator in any 
    disparaging manner.
        Mr. Bland: Not in the slightest--I am commending him.
        Mr. Moran: If the Speaker will refer to the discussion of the 
    Bland bill upon the floor of the House, he will find that the same 
    point of order was made against me--that is how I recall it--and 
    the point of order was sustained.
        The Speaker: The Chair reads from Jefferson's Manual, as 
    follows:

            It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been 
        said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular 
        votes or majorities on it there; because the opinion of each 
        House should be left to its own independency, not to be 
        influenced by the proceedings of the other; and the quoting 
        them might beget reflections leading to a misunderstanding 
        between the two Houses.

        Mr. Bland: I beg the Chair's pardon.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the point of 
    order is well taken. The gentleman from Virginia will proceed in 
    order.

Sec. 44.24 Although in certain circumstances it is a breach of order to 
    refer to Senate debate, on one occasion a Member by unanimous 
    consent secured permission to include in the Record portions of 
    remarks made in the Senate.

    On May 23, 1968,(12) during consideration of H.R. 8578, 
amending the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Mr. Hale Boggs, 
of Louisiana, asked unanimous consent that the Senate debate on a 
certain amendment be printed in the Record. No objection was heard, and 
a lengthy excerpt from Senate proceedings of Apr. 23, 1968, was 
inserted.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 14640-51, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Insertions in the Record, see Ch. 5, supra. Under the more liberal 
        practice beginning in the 100th Congress, such references, if 
        related to a measure then pending in the House, would be 
        permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.25 On one occasion, the Speaker declined to rule on a point of 
    order directed against a critical reference to the views of a 
    Senator, expressed in a speech on the Senate floor, and, after 
    noting the applicable rule, permitted the Member to proceed in 
    order.

    On Mar. 26, 1964,(14) while making a one-minute speech 
in the House, Mr. Louis C. Wyman, of New Hampshire, expressed his 
disagreement with remarks of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations made

[[Page 10596]]

on the Senate floor on the preceding day. A point of order was made 
against reference to a member of the other body and the following 
exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 6361, 6362, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, I want to express myself as being in 
    wholehearted disagreement with the amazing, incredible, and 
    dismaying remarks regarding American foreign policy of the chairman 
    of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made on the Senate floor 
    yesterday wherein he has indicated in regard to Cuba that Castro is 
    here to stay; that we will not fight to oust him because it is not 
    worth it, and has implied that such a policy is called ``daring 
    thinking'' for America, a policy I might say that invites surrender 
    on the installment plan of the rest of the free world to communism 
    bit by bit and piece by piece.
        May the Lord help us should this sort of policy be in effect--
    --
        Mr. [Ken] Hechler [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's remarks are directed 
    to a Member of the other body, which is a violation of the rules of 
    the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair will say that under the rules no Member 
    may refer to a Member of the other body, or to a speech another 
    Member has made in that body.
        The gentleman from New Hampshire will proceed in order.
        Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to violate the rules 
    of the House. The speech is a matter of record. It was made by the 
    chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, and I do 
    not know how I could refer to it otherwise. The speech is in the 
    Record, and it is before us at our seats.

        May I inquire as to how I may now properly refer to the speech 
    and disassociate myself from its views without referring to its 
    author?
        The Speaker: The Chair has stated what the rules of the House 
    are. The Chair did not use the word ``violate.'' The Chair did not 
    go that far. The Chair simply says reference to a Member of the 
    other body is not proper, and is not consistent with the rules of 
    the House. The gentleman was recognized to proceed in order.
        Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, accord with the rule 
    and I will therefore refer only to prominently publicized remarks 
    appearing on the front pages of the Nation's newspapers of last 
    night and this morning.

Indirect Reference to the Senate

Sec. 44.26 It has been held that the restriction against certain 
    references to ``the Senate'' applies equally to comments critical 
    of ``the other body'' or members thereof.

    On Feb. 17, 1936,(16) Mr. Harold Knutson, of Minnesota, 
on the

[[Page 10597]]

floor delivered the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 2218, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . A very remarkable address was delivered in another body a 
    week ago today that I feel should not go unanswered. In that 
    address the speaker virtually served notice on Japan that if the 
    Japanese do not live up to the obligations which she has assumed in 
    certain treaties this country would go to considerable lengths to 
    compel her to do so. In view of the fact that the speaker to whom I 
    have reference occupies a position unusually close to the 
    administration, I am wondering whether he spoke by the card.

    In response to a point of order, Mr. Knutson stated that he did not 
mention the Senate but simply some remarks that had been made in 
another body. Speaker Pro Tempore John J. McSwain, of South Carolina, 
ruled as follows:

        The Chair sustains the point of order. The implication is plain 
    that the reference is to the Senate of the United States. The point 
    of order is sustained. The gentleman will please proceed in order.

    On May 19, 1948,(17) Mr. Herman P. Eberharter, of 
Pennsylvania, referred to inaction of ``the other body'' on H.R. 5852, 
the subversive activities control bill of 1948. A point of order was 
made against the reference to the Senate, and Chairman James W. 
Wadsworth, Jr., of New York, ruled that the point of order was well 
taken and that Mr. Eberharter must proceed in order. Mr. Eberharter 
stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 6112, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding under the rules of the 
    House that a Member of the House is not permitted to refer to the 
    Senate of the United States and is not permitted to refer to any 
    Senator by name. However, it is my understanding, and I think it 
    has been so ruled on many occasions, that it is perfectly within 
    the rules of the House to refer to the other branch of the Congress 
    as ``the other Body.'' I did not mention the word ``Senate,'' Mr. 
    Chairman, nor did I mention the name of any Senator. I submit that 
    the point of order is not well taken, and I hope the Chairman will 
    so rule.

    The Chairman then called the attention of Mr. Eberharter to the 
provision on the subject in Jefferson's Manual and directed Mr. 
Eberharter to proceed in order.

Sec. 44.27 A Senator may not be referred to, even indirectly, in debate 
    on the floor of the House.

    On Mar. 24, 1961,(18) a point of order was made against 
remarks in debate by Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, who referred indirectly 
to the Goldwater Department Store in Arizona, in an apparent ref

[[Page 10598]]

erence to Senator Barry M. Goldwater, of Arizona. Mr. Smith stated that 
``some people call it the Goldwater-Ayres Bill because it is an example 
of exempting multi-million dollar stores in Arizona.'' The Committee of 
the Whole rose and the objectionable words were reported to the House 
where they were ordered stricken from the record, after Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that a reference to a member of the other body 
by name is a violation of the rules of the House. Mr. John H. Dent, of 
Pennsylvania, then raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If a trade name or the name of a product bears the same name as 
    a Member of the Senate, are we forbidden from mentioning that 
    particular product or chain or store, or whatever the item may be?
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair will pass on that 
    question when it arises. The Chair may say that the gentleman's 
    inquiry is not a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.28 A Member may not in debate refer to a Senator indirectly by 
    the use of the term ``senior Senator'' from a particular state.

    On May 2, 1941,(20) after Speaker Pro Tempore Fadjo 
Cravens, of Arkansas, ruled out of order a reference to a Senator, he 
stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that such reference would 
not be corrected by referring to the Senator as the senior Senator from 
a state. He stated that a Member could not do indirectly what he could 
not do directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 87 Cong. Rec. 3536, 3537, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complimentary References to Named Senator

Sec. 44.29 It is not in order in debate in the House to refer to a 
    Senator by name, even in a complimentary way.

    On Mar. 24, 1961,(1) Mr. James Roosevelt, of California, 
inquired of Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, do I correctly understand that the rules of the 
    House do not prevent a Member from mentioning a Senator's name as 
    long as he does not mention it in a derogatory manner?

    Chairman Keogh ruled:

        It is the understanding of the Chair that under the rules of 
    the House, the name of a Member of the other body may not be 
    mentioned in any fashion.

    The Speaker of the House and the presiding Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole have so ruled on numerous 
occasions.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For a discussion of the prohibition against naming a Senator, see 
        Sec. 44.2, supra. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 1985, 88th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Feb. 7, 1963; 96 Cong. Rec. 3131, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Mar. 9, 1950; 87 Cong. Rec. 3536, 3537, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        May 2, 1941; and 79 Cong. Rec. 12011, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 29, 1935. For the current practice, which permits certain 
        references to legislative actions by a Senator, see Rule XIV 
        clause 1 as amended in the 100th and 101st Congresses. House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).

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

[[Page 10599]]

Sec. 44.30 It is in violation of Jefferson's Manual to quote from 
    Senate proceedings even if the intent is to commend and not to 
    criticize.

    On Mar. 31, 1982,(3) during consideration of House 
Resolution 378 (providing investigative funds for House committees), 
the Speaker Pro Tempore took the initiative to call a Member to order 
for making improper references to the Senate. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 128 Cong. Rec. 6081, 6083, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on House Administration, I call up a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 378) providing amounts from the contingent fund 
    of the House for expenses of investigations and studies by standing 
    and select committees of the House in the 2d session of the 97th 
    Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
        In answer to a defeated motion to reduce the Senate resolution 
    by an additional $409,000, Senator Mathias informed his colleagues, 
    just like I did several weeks ago:

            We will get to the point where we will damage the 
        effectiveness of the committees. I think that we have to ask 
        the Senate what it would cost the taxpayers in not being able 
        to deal efficiently and, most important, effectively with the 
        problems that beset this country.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Will the gentleman 
    suspend momentarily?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Timothy E. Wirth (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would remind the gentleman that he should not refer 
    to specific debate in the other body.
        The gentleman from Illinois will resume.
        Mr. Annunzio: I am quoting; I am not saying anything 
    derogatory. I am just quoting from the Record, and it is 
    complimentary.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would only remind the 
    gentleman from Illinois of the rules of the House, in which the 
    House should not refer to specific proceedings of the other body, 
    even in a complimentary way.
        Mr. Annunzio: I appreciate the suggestion from the Chair. But I 
    thought that I was abiding by the rules because I was saying some 
    nice things about a Republican Senator from Maryland.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair respects the respectful 
    nature of the gentleman in the well, but would again only remind 
    the gentleman of the rules of the House and the Chair's 
    responsibility thereunder to take the initiative he has taken.

[[Page 10600]]

Reference to Statements Made Off Senate Floor

Sec. 44.31 It has been held a breach of order in debate to notice what 
    a Senator has said in his official capacity, even if his statements 
    were made for newspaper publication.

    On June 26, 1935,(5) in the Committee of the Whole Mr. 
Charles V. Truax, of Ohio, quoted a statement made by a Senator and was 
challenged on a point of order by Mr. Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia. 
Mr. Truax then stated a parliamentary inquiry whether it was against 
the rules of the House to notice what a Member of the other body had 
said for a newspaper publication. Chairman Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, 
stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 10189, 10190, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If made as a Senator in his official capacity, yes. The 
    gentleman understands the English language, and the Chair has read 
    the rule of the House. [Sec. 371 of Jefferson's Manual.] It was 
    held by Mr. Speaker Clark that it is improper for a Member of the 
    House to refer to a Senator even in complimentary terms.

Sec. 44.32 It is a breach of order in debate to refer to speeches by 
    Senators made outside of the Senate.

    On May 2, 1941,(6) after a point of order was made 
against a reference by a Member to a certain Senator, Speaker Pro 
Tempore Fadjo Cravens, of Arkansas, ruled that such reference 
constituted a violation of the rules. The Member whose remarks were 
objected to stated that his violation of the rules was unintentional, 
since he had not realized that the House rules also covered statements 
made by members of the Senate outside the Capitol walls.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 87 Cong. Rec. 3536, 3537, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. This ruling represents the current line of precedent; for the 
        former practice, see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2519 (``The 
        rule against criticism of Senators in debate applies only to 
        words spoken on the floor and does not extend to speeches and 
        interviews outside the House.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker Pro Tempore then stated in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry that a Member could not do indirectly what he could not do 
directly, and that the violation of the rules would not be corrected by 
referring to the Senator in such a way as to avoid specifically naming 
him.

Sec. 44.33 It is a breach of order in debate for a member to read a 
    letter from a member of the Senate.

    On May 25, 1937,(8) a Member remarked that he had 
letters from

[[Page 10601]]

members of the Senate voicing their sympathy with a political movement 
and stated his immediate intention to read one of those letters. 
Chairman John J. O'Connor, of New York, intervened to rule ``the Chair, 
on its own responsibility, makes the point of order against the reading 
of the letter from a member of another body.'' (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. In earlier practice, reference was permitted to a letter expressing 
        a Senator's views on legislation; see 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 5112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.34 The principle of comity between the two Houses prohibits any 
    reference in debate to actions of Senators within or outside the 
    Senate.

    On June 13, 1974,(10) a Member demanded that another 
Member's references in debate to a Senator be stricken from the Record, 
but did not demand that the words be ``taken down'' (pursuant to Rule 
XIV clause 5). The Speaker Pro Tempore sustained the point of order 
against violation of the principle of comity (11) but did 
not submit to the House the question 
of striking the unparliamentary words. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 19083, 19085, 19086, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
11. See Jefferson's Manual Sec. 374, House Rules and Manual (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) Under a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Steiger) is 
    recognized for 45 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Steiger [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, with a petulance 
    usually reserved to Secretaries of State, Mo Udall and Henry 
    Jackson have blamed the defeat of the land-use planning bill on 
    ``impeachment politics.'' Mr. Udall states that the President 
    changed his position on land-use planning in order to retain the 
    support of conservative Members of the House regarding impeachment. 
    . . .
        We can fully appreciate that the gentleman from Washington, who 
    is an active candidate for President, might be seeking ways to 
    present his case in some kind of a different manner.
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    gentleman will suspend for a minute, I would like to make a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I pose the parliamentary inquiry, whether or not discussion of 
    the motives of a Member of the other body is in order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. It is not in 
    order, in view of the rule of comity between the two Houses.
        The gentleman will proceed.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) that I am about to 
    continue to yield him the time; that I, too, think it is very 
    presumptive of the gentleman from Washington, who is running for 
    President; all I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Rousselot) say was that the Senator was a candidate for President.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: He is a potential 
    candidate for President. If that is impugning his motives, I do not 
    see how it is.

[[Page 10602]]

        Mr. Foley: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The remarks of the 
    gentleman from California and the remarks of the gentleman from 
    Arizona are out of order. I ask that they be stricken.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, might I be heard on that 
    point of order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will proceed on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: I would restate what I said, that in my 
    view it is presumptuous of the gentleman from Washington to hold 
    himself up as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. 
    I fail to see that that is impugning the gentleman's motives.
        It is an accepted fact in political life that the gentleman 
    from Washington is, indeed, a candidate for the Presidency, at 
    least in his own eyes.
        I suspect, and I am certainly entitled to a view of that 
    candidacy and I have stated that view, with no intent at all of 
    demeaning the gentleman from Washington.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: While the gentleman has not demanded 
    that words be taken down, the Chair will state that under the rules 
    of debate it is not in order for a Member to voice an opinion or 
    cast a reflection on either Members of the House or Members of the 
    other body and it is not in order to refer to Senators by name or 
    in terms of personal criticism, or even for the purpose of 
    complimenting and the inhibition extends to comments of criticism 
    of their actions outside the Senate.
        The Chair would also point out to the gentlemen who are 
    carrying on this debate that it is Thursday afternoon and there is 
    no need to get involved in a big political debate.

        So the gentleman in the well will proceed in order.

Sec. 44.35 It is a violation of the rules of parliamentary procedure to 
    refer by name to the remarks or actions of a Senator occurring in 
    the Senate or elsewhere, and where a Member in debate or through an 
    insertion in the Record transgresses this rule the Speaker calls 
    him to order under Rule XIV clause 4.

    See the proceedings of Oct. 7, 1975, at Sec. 44.4, supra.

Sec. 44.36 On one occasion, a Member upon being cautioned by the Chair 
    not to refer to a Senator in debate, obtained unanimous consent to 
    refer to correspondence between the Senator and a federal official.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 25, 1986,(13) during consideration of H.R. 5052 
(military construction appropriations):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 132 Cong. Rec. 15492, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dennis M.] Hertel of Michigan: . . . Let me talk about the 
    defense side of this and read a letter from Barry Goldwater, the 
    chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. . . .

[[Page 10603]]

        The Chairman: (14) The Chair would caution the 
    gentleman not to refer to Members of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hertel of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, is it in order to refer 
    to the letter?
        The Chairman: Without objection, it may be submitted.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Hertel of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I refer to this letter 
    from Mr. Goldwater. He writes: . . .
        Hon. Caspar Weinberger,
        Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

            Dear Cap: The issue of homeporting for navy ships is soon 
        to come up before the Senate and quite frankly I'm opposed to 
        it. . . .

        This is a letter from the chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
    Committee. This is his opinion.

Sec. 44.37 It is improper in debate to refer to quotations of 
    Senators appearing in outside publications (``Senator 
    Proxmire was quoted in 
    The American Banker as saying . . .'').

    During consideration of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance 
Corporation Revitalization Act of 1987 (H.R. 27) in the Committee of 
the Whole on May 5, 1987,(15) 
a Member made reference to a quotation from a Senator that had been 
published whereupon the Chair reminded the Members that it was against 
the rules to quote a member of the other body. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 133 Cong. Rec. 11214, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: . . . Furthermore 
    Mr. Chairman, a distinguished Member of the other body was quoted 
    in a publication dated May 5, The American Banker, as saying that 
    the condition of the FSLIC is being deliberately exaggerated by the 
    U.S. Treasury and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to pressure 
    Congress into acting on a $15 billion ``clean FSLIC bill.''. . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair would like to remind 
    Members that it is not in accordance with our rules to quote an 
    individual Member of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Dan Glickman (Kans.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference to Senate Votes

Sec. 44.38 Reference in debate to Senate votes on a legislative 
    proposition is not in order.

    On Aug. 17, 1961,(17) after Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of 
New Jersey, moved to strike out the last word on a pending proposition, 
he read into his remarks a newspaper editorial referring to the vote of 
some Republicans on a proposition before Congress. A point of order was 
made that it was contrary to the rules of the House to mention the vote 
of a

[[Page 10604]]

Senator and Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, sustained the point 
of order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 107 Cong. Rec. 16210, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See also 78 Cong. Rec. 1111, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 22, 1934.
            References to the votes of Senators on legislative 
        propositions are specifically prohibited by Jefferson's Manual: 
        ``It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been 
        said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular 
        votes or majorities on it there. . . .'' House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 371 (1995). See Sec. 44.14, infra, for current decisions 
        on references to Senate votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.39 Under section 371 of Jefferson's Manual, it is not in order 
    in the House to refer to particular votes in the Senate or to the 
    positions taken by individual Senators.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
July 29, 1981,(19) during consideration of H.R. 4242 (Tax 
Incentive Act of 1981):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 18244, 18249, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Kemp [of New York]: I appreciate the comments of my 
    friend from Georgia. They are very important to all of us and in 
    the same spirit of bipartisanship I am pleased to announce that the 
    Senate, in an overwhelming vote of 89 to 11, passed substantially 
    the same bill as the Conable-Hance substitute. . . .
        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    favor of the Conable-Hance bill, and I bring the Members' attention 
    to a list of 23 more Democratic Senators who have just supported 
    this fine bill.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will suspend. As 
    the gentlemen from New York know, the action of the Senate and 
    individual votes in that body may not be mentioned in debate. The 
    Members will keep that in mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.40 Jefferson's Manual prohibits reference in debate to specific 
    votes in the Senate.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 371 (1995). However, this 
        proscription has been relaxed somewhat by virtue of the new 
        language in Rule XIV, clause 1, added in the 101st Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During consideration of the conference report on S. 1503 (Standby 
Petroleum Allocation Act) in the House on Mar. 2, 1982,(2) 
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 128 Cong. Rec. 3117, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Timothy E.] Wirth [of Colorado]: This is a conference 
    report and this has been through the Senate, as the gentleman said. 
    Has this not already been voted on?
        Mr. [Philip R.] Sharp [of Indiana]: The Senate voted for this 
    86 to 7.
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        Mr. Wirth: The Senate voted for it 86 to 7.
        Mr. Broyhill: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

[[Page 10605]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The gentlemen are 
    reminded that they should not refer to the specific vote in the 
    other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.41 It is a violation of the rule of comity to refer in debate 
    to the votes of particular members of the Senate, and the Chair has 
    called Members to order on his own initiative for quoting the vote 
    totals on a measure when it was before the Senate.

    On Apr. 12, 1984,(4) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 290 (expressing the sense of Congress that no 
appropriated funds be used for the purpose of mining the ports or 
territorial waters of Nicaragua) in the House, the Chair exercised his 
initiative in admonishing the Members against references to the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 130 Cong. Rec. 9474, 9477, 9478, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: . . . I have this hopelessly 
    old-fashioned notion that as leader of the free world we have an 
    obligation to resist handing Central America over to 
    the Fascists of the left, the Communists. . . .
        I would remind you that a few days ago the senior Senator from 
    New York stood on the floor of the other body and reminded his 
    colleagues that as of the moment he was talking, half of the arms 
    and 80 percent of the ammunition being used by the guerrillas to 
    kill and to bomb and to maim and to destroy powerlines and schools 
    and to burn buses in El Salvador was coming through Nicaragua. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, might I 
    remind the distinguished minority leader in this House that the 
    other body, under the leadership of its Republican leader, by a 
    vote of 84 to 12 adopted this identical resolution. The Foreign 
    Affairs Committee, with the dissent of only three members of the 
    minority party, by a vote of 32 to 3 reported out this resolution. 
    . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Chair would remind 
    the Members of the House that it is not within the purview of the 
    rules to state a vote of the other body. That has now been done 
    twice and the Chair would caution the Members of the House not to 
    do that. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: . . . Tonight I will act 
    in a bipartisan way, and I will not repeat 
    the overwhelming bipartisan vote in 
    the other body on this identical resolution, but tonight I will 
    join in a bipartisan way voting with people who 
    have names like Armstrong, Baker, D'Amato, Garn, Grassley, Laxalt, 
    Percy, Simpson, Stevens, and Warner.
        This should be a bipartisan vote in this House as well.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would again remind the 
    Members that it is not within the purview of the rules either to 
    state a specific vote on an issue in the other body or to

[[Page 10606]]

    reference specific Members of the other body as to how they vote.

Sec. 44.42 It is a breach of order in debate to notice particular votes 
    in the Senate, even on a subject related to that under House 
    debate, and it is the duty of the Chair to take the initiative in 
    enforcing this rule.

    On July 31, 1984,(6) during consideration of House 
Resolution 555 (expressing the sense of the House that it disapproves 
the appointment of Anne M. Burford) in the House, the Speaker Pro 
Tempore, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, admonished the Members 
against references to votes occurring in the other body:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 130 Cong. Rec. 21670, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman E.] D'Amours [of New Hampshire]: . . . I would like 
    to compliment my very good friend from Alaska (Mr. Young) . . . for 
    having completely avoided injecting partisan politics into his 
    approach to this resolution. . . .
        The Senate last week voted in a fully bipartisan way to object 
    to the appointment of Anne Burford. As a matter of fact, the 
    Republicans voted overwhelmingly against her appointment. I think 
    the vote was 33 to 19, in the Republican Party 19 supporting her. 
    This truly is bipartisan.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .

        Mr. Speaker, on occasions in the recent past, Members of the 
    minority on the floor have been cautioned about utilizing votes in 
    the Senate or referring to the Senate's deliberations in any way on 
    this floor.
        Is that something which is only going to apply to the minority 
    and references such as we just heard used extensively in the debate 
    of the gentleman from New Hampshire go unreprimanded by the Chair?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Chair would 
    indicate that those references should not have been made to 
    specific votes in the other body. Members on both sides of the 
    aisle will refrain from those kinds of references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.43 Although it is proper to refer to the fact that particular 
    matters have been sent from the Senate, it is not in order in 
    debate to refer to specific votes in the Senate or to criticize 
    members of the Senate who voted a particular way.

    During consideration of the conference report on House Joint 
Resolution 372 (to extend the public debt limit) in the House on Nov. 
6, 1985,(8) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 131 Cong. Rec. 30852, 30853, 30863, 30864, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks, 
    announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of 
    conference on the dis

[[Page 10607]]

    agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to 
    the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 372) entitled ``Joint resolution 
    increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.'' . . .
        The message also announced that the Senate concurs in House 
    amendment to Senate amendment No. 2, with an amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Connie] Mack [III, of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mack moves to take from the Speaker's table House Joint 
        Resolution 372, with the Senate amendment to the House 
        amendment to Senate amendment No. 2 and to concur in the Senate 
        amendment as follows: . . .

        Mr. Mack: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, earlier this 
    afternoon, the other body once again voted on this issue that we 
    have been debating, the deficit reduction package known as the 
    Gramm-Rudman-Hollings-Mack deficit reduction package. The vote was 
    almost identical to the vote that occurred some 3 weeks ago, I 
    guess now, 74 to 24.
        I understand from talking to our colleagues in the other body 
    that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) added an amendment 
    that was an improvement on the bill and that was accepted.
        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, is it not against the rules of the 
    House to refer to actions in the other body, either Members of the 
    other body or votes in the other body?
        The Speaker: Under normal circumstances, the answer is in the 
    affirmative. But we are referring to a matter that has just been 
    sent over from the other body, so the gentleman may refer to that 
    fact.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, does that include that announcement of 
    the actual vote in the other body?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that that 
    would not be in order.

Sec. 44.44 It is not in order in debate to refer to specific votes in 
    the Senate, and the Chair calls to order Members on his or her own 
    initiative for violating the rule of comity.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 13, 1986: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 4636, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Gray [3d] of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I rise 
    in strong support of the rule allowing for consideration of House 
    Concurrent Resolution 296, the concurrent resolution on the budget 
    for fiscal year 1987. . . .
        Last week the Senate Budget Committee considered the 
    President's budget and voted against its adoption. In considering 
    the President's budget, the Senate Budget Committee was able to 
    gain some idea of the level of support

[[Page 10608]]

    for that plan and use that experience in setting out to formulate 
    an alternative. Then after the vote, they started to work on an 
    alternative and they are still working. They did not have an 
    alternative when they voted on the President's budget. They voted 
    and they are now working, and I propose the same thing.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Chair would ask 
    that Members not refer to any specific vote in the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insertions in the Record

Sec. 44.45 Inserting references to Senate speeches or proceedings in 
    the Congressional Record Extension of Remarks is a violation of 
    House rules.

    On May 2, 1941, Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, inserted in the 
Extension of Remarks of the Congressional Record extensive references 
to speeches made by a certain Senator, principally off the floor of the 
Senate.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 87 Cong. Rec. 3609, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 5, 1941, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, raised a 
question of the privilege of the House.(13) Mr. Hoffman 
referred to the extension of remarks of Mr. Sabath and introduced a 
resolution to have those remarks expunged from the Record since they 
were in violation of the rules of the House prohibiting reference in 
debate to Senators and their proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 3566, 3567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Sabath then addressed the House and was granted unanimous 
consent to withdraw the objectionable remarks from the permanent 
Record.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See also Sec. 44.2, supra (where a Member inquired whether a letter 
        written by him to a Senator could be inserted in the Record as 
        an extension of his remarks, the Speaker stated that a point of 
        order could be based on the objectionable insertion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical References to Senate or its Committees

Sec. 44.46 It is not in order in debate to criticize actions of the 
    Senate or its committees, and it is the duty of the Speaker to call 
    the offending Member to order; (15) thus, where improper 
    reference to the Senate has been made by a Member, the Speaker has 
    called the Member to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Jefferson's Manual Sec. 374, House Rules and Manual (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 17, 1975,(16) the proceedings described above, 
relative to a violation of the principle of

[[Page 10609]]

comity, occurred in the House, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 10458, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Cleveland asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I am 
    amazed that four Democratic members of the Rules Committee of the 
    other body, reviewing the challenge of Democrat John Durkin to the 
    seating of Senator-elect Louis Wyman, should have yesterday voted 
    to take away from Wyman 10 straight Republican ballots that had 
    been properly counted for him in New Hampshire. These critically 
    important votes belong to Mr. Wyman by settled New Hampshire law in 
    a contest with an existing margin of two votes.
        As even Durkin's counsel acknowledged before the committee, the 
    ballots were and would have consistently been counted for Wyman in 
    New Hampshire. On each the voter had voted a cross in the straight 
    Republican circle with no marks on the Democratic side of the 
    ballot. He had also voted a cross in every voting square except Mr. 
    Wyman's. By operation of statute and court decision in New 
    Hampshire for 60 years--as well as in other States having the 
    straight ticket option--a vote in the straight ticket circle is a 
    vote for every candidate under the circle and a vote in every box 
    under the circle by operation of law.
        Worse yet, similar ballots for Durkin in the original New 
    Hampshire recount had not been challenged by Wyman because under 
    settled New Hampshire law they were recognized as valid votes. 
    These remain in the totals relied on by the Senate committee, 
    counted for Durkin.
        On April 9 in this Record I called for a new election in New 
    Hampshire and surely this has now become a compelling necessity, 
    unless we are to witness a legislative Watergate.
        The Speaker: (17) The Chair must ask the gentleman 
    to desist and must call to the attention of the gentleman from New 
    Hampshire that his remarks are in violation of the rules of the 
    House and rules of comity. The Chair has been very lenient, but 
    this goes far beyond the bounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is not proper to criticize the actions of the other body, or 
    any committee of the other body, in any matter relating to official 
    duties.
        Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for me to 
    quote a Member of the other body who characterized this?
        The Speaker: No, it would not be. The Chair was very lenient by 
    letting the gentleman make his point, but the Chair is going to be 
    strict in observing the rules of comity between the two bodies. 
    Otherwise we cannot function as an independent, separate 
    legislative body under the Constitution of the United States.

Removing Remarks Violative of Comity From Record

Sec. 44.47 The Speaker, upon hearing words in debate which were 
    critical of a Senator, assumed the duty imposed upon him by 
    Jefferson's Manual (18) and in

[[Page 10610]]

    formed the offending Member that his words were in violation of the 
    principle of comity and should be removed from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 374 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Nov. 18, 1975,(19) the proceedings described above 
occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 37010, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania] asked and was 
    given permission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and 
    extend his remarks, and include extraneous matter.)
        [Mr. Coughlin addressed the House and in his remarks was 
    critical of Senator Proxmire and his support for the Joint 
    Committee on Defense Production.]
        The Speaker: (20) The Chair, in view of the noise 
    that was in the Chamber, was unable to hear all of the remarks of 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania which, I understand, referred to 
    activities of the Senate and to Members of the other body. This is 
    in violation of the Rules of the House, and any remarks made by the 
    gentleman from Ohio should not touch upon that subject. Any remarks 
    made by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania that touched upon that subject should 
    be removed from the Record and should not be put in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.48 It is not in order in debate to refer critically to members 
    of the Senate, and the Chair is required on his own initiative by 
    both clause 4, Rule XIV, and section 374 of Jefferson's Manual to 
    call a Member to order for such remarks unless the Member 
    voluntarily withdraws them from the Record (prior to demand by 
    another Member that the words be ``taken down'').

    In the proceedings of Aug. 20, 1980,(1) the Chair, in 
inquiring whether a Member wished to withdraw his remarks concerning a 
Senator, referred to section 374 of Jefferson's Manual, which relates 
to the duty of the Speaker to prevent expressions offensive to the 
other House. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 22151-53, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . The FEC, through 
    its Office of General Counsel, has allowed an elected Federal 
    official, just like ourselves, to keep for over 1 year, $1,150 of 
    acknowledged illegal corporate campaign contributions. The 
    corporation--whatever it did is somewhat unclear--laundered $13,000 
    into my opponent's campaign and $23,150 of illegal corporate money 
    into this elected Federal official's campaign coffers. . . .
        And now a convicted felon down 
    at the Talladega Prison in Alabama . . . denies that this Federal 
    official ever returned the money to him. I direct my colleagues to 
    read the relevant

[[Page 10611]]

    Jack Anderson columns. I was told while at the Talladega Federal 
    prison in Alabama in the presence of an FBI agent and an assistant 
    U.S. district 
    attorney from Birmingham that my young opponent merely went through 
    the motions of returning illegal $1,000 corporate campaign 
    contributions. I was told that this $13,000 was returned. The money 
    never left California. It was reloaned to my young opponent by his 
    original Alabama benefactor. . . .
        Mr. [Ronnie G.] Flippo [of Alabama]: . . . I wish the gentleman 
    would refrain from referring to the Senator from Alabama, and give 
    the Senator an opportunity to do what he needs to do to explain the 
    situations. He does not need to be tried by the Jack Andersons of 
    this world. We have a proper court procedure and a way to proceed 
    in that regard.
        I would hope that the gentleman would refrain from bringing up 
    the name of any official from Alabama, or any other State 
    official's name up, in a manner that would tend to encourage people 
    to believe that they had done something wrong, when no such thing 
    exists or it has not been proven in a court of law. I know the 
    gentleman's high regard for court proceedings.
        Mr. Dornan: If the gentleman will yield, I believe I have 
    discovered a major coverup; a terribly inept, if not illegal 
    obstruction of justice by Justice Department people assigned to the 
    fair State of Alabama. I gave the Senator mentioned before a face-
    to-face opportunity, alone in his office, to explain his 
    involvement but he would not do so.
        Mr. Flippo: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman's words be 
    taken down.

        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman may not refer to 
    Members of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flippo: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman's 
    words be taken down. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Dornan) that under the rules of the House it is not 
    in order to refer to Members of the other body and in the light of 
    that the Chair would ask the gentleman from California if he wishes 
    to withdraw his remarks concerning the Member of the other body.
        Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, as of about a year-and-a-half ago, 
    videotape records of House proceedings have been made. Taking that 
    into consideration I will accede to the Chair's suggestion and 
    remove all statements in the written Record pertaining to Members 
    of the other body.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed. The gentleman has 
    agreed to remove all the statements in question from the Record. 
    Otherwise the Chair would exercise his authority under section 374 
    of Jefferson's Manual [relating to the duty of the Speaker to 
    prevent expressions in debate offensive to the other House].

Sec. 44.49 It is against the rules of order stated in Jefferson's 
    Manual to read into the Record remarks critical of members of the 
    Senate or to the actions of individual Senators, and while the 
    Speaker does not have unilateral au

[[Page 10612]]

    thority to expunge improper references from the Record, he may 
    request Members who have made improper references to Senators to 
    omit those references from the Record.

    While under section 374 of Jefferson's Manual it is the duty of the 
Speaker to interfere ``so as not to permit expressions to go unnoticed 
which may give a ground of complaint to the other House,'' the Speaker 
has not been presumed to have unilateral authority to expunge improper 
references from the Record, but merely to request the offending Member 
to delete the references. The House and not the Speaker controls the 
Record and the Speaker must rely on the good faith of Members to heed 
his admonition to delete the offending material. (Of course, the 
Speaker may deny further recognition to Members violating the 
prohibition against improper references.) (3) A request that 
offending material be deleted from the Record was made by the Speaker 
Pro Tempore (4) on May 8, 1984.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See the proceedings of June 16, 1982, discussed in Sec. 44.5, 
        supra.
 4. Theodore S. Weiss (N.Y.).
 5. 130 Cong. Rec. 11421, 11425, 11428, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House, 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) is recognized for 60 
    minutes.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, recently 
    Frank Gregorsky, from the Republican Study Committee, prepared a 
    paper entitled ``What's the Matter with Democratic Foreign 
    Policy?'' . . . I am going to begin presenting this paper as Mr. 
    Gregorsky has written it.

             part one: a world view in search of a world . . .

        Everyone knows that Senator Ted Kennedy has a ``dovish'' voting 
    record on defense and foreign policy matters. . . .
        Kennedy chose to write in Rolling Stone on March 15, 1984:

            Reagan is the best pretender as president that we have had 
        in modern history. Some White House aides talk of ``the peace 
        issue'' as if it were mostly a political problem for Ronald 
        Reagan. Others imply that they only need to play for time 
        before launching a wider war in Central America in 1985. . . .

        That definitive prose is worth more for insight than a printout 
    of Kennedy's 21 plus years of Senate votes; there's a comprehensive 
    way of viewing America and the world behind it. . . .
        To be a rising Democrat today requires a certain view of what 
    shaped the present. It was stated with a flourish by a man elected 
    to the House in 1974 and the Senate in 1978, Paul Tsongas of 
    Massachusetts, in a floor speech January 29, 1980:

            Twenty years ago, Mr. President, people stood up on the 
        floor of this Chamber and said, ``Well, maybe Batista was not 
        such a great soul after all,'' but they never said any

[[Page 10613]]

        thing about him when he was in power. ``And this fellow, Fidel 
        Castro, we do not like the way he combs his beard.''

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the gentleman pause just a 
    moment. The Chair does request the gentleman to omit those portions 
    of the paper which he is reading which refer to specific sitting 
    Members of the other body and to their actions in that body.
        As you know, there is a rule against it, and the Chair is 
    required to take the initiative to enforce that rule.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the gentleman to 
    whom I am referring was a Member of the House during the period of 
    the time that this speech was made.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: As long as it is not a reference to 
    his actions in the other body, in the Senate, or critical of him as 
    a Senator.
        There are a couple of other references a bit earlier that the 
    Chair would respectfully request the gentleman to omit when he has 
    finished his reading today.

Sec. 44.50 In response to a point of order, the Speaker Pro Tempore 
    called to order a Member for referring to proceedings in the Senate 
    and ordered the remarks stricken from the Record without objection.

    On Dec. 10, 1980,(6) a point of order was made against 
the following remarks of Mr. Don Edwards, of California:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 126 Cong. Rec. 33204, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a moment 
    that will long be remembered with bitterness by the minorities, 
    women, and the handicapped of America, the Congress sounded the 
    death knell for the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1980. . . .
        We must also fully recognize why the measure failed. Republican 
    leaders, intimidated by a small minority of their own party, aided 
    and abetted this abdication of responsibility. President-elect 
    Reagan himself, asked to reassure minorities, that a Republican 
    administration will not turn its back on their needs, issued 
    meaningless platitudes instead of support for a bill that the House 
    of Representatives adopted by a 3-to-1 margin. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the gentleman's remarks. They are not in 
    keeping with the rule that requires no mention of the other body.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Edwards) is referring to the proceedings of the 
    other body. He will please restrict them. They are out of order and 
    without objection, will be stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Ray Roberts (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.51 On his own initiative, the Speaker Pro Tempore called a 
    Member to order for referring to the Senate in a critical manner.

[[Page 10614]]

    On Dec. 10, 1980,(8) Mr. Robert S. Walker, of 
Pennsylvania, was called to order by the Chair for remarks made in the 
following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 33205, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Walker asked and was given permission to address the House 
    for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it appears as though Washington 
    lameducks are lining up for one last major rape of the American 
    taxpayer. In the continuing appropriations bill that has emerged, 
    section 155 builds in the potential for severance pay for the 
    Senate staff members displaced by the transition to a Republican 
    majority.
        I took a look at the figures and figured out that in one 
    committee, in the Foreign Relations Committee, if everybody draws 
    the maximum permitted under that bill, that one committee will be 
    eligible for $426,500 in severance pay.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair will advise 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the Chair just had to call to 
    order a Member from the other side of the aisle. The gentleman 
    simply cannot refer to the other body in those terms. Will the 
    gentleman please remove these remarks?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Ray Roberts (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair for his correction. I thought the 
    Chair ruled in favor of it in the previous instance.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may proceed.

Historical References to Senate Actions

Sec. 44.52 The inhibition against referring in debate to members or 
    proceedings of the Senate does not extend to historical discussion 
    of previous members of the Senate; on one occasion, where a point 
    of order was made that a Member was violating the rule of comity by 
    referring to past members of the Senate, the Chair did not directly 
    rule on the point of order but advised the Member having the floor 
    to continue to proceed in order.

    On May 18, 1977,(10) the proceedings described above 
occurred in the Committee of the Whole as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 15388, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I might say 
    that the passage of this act had something to do with the 
    personalities and personal conflict between two Senators from the 
    State of New Mexico, one whose name bears the title of this bill, 
    the Hatch Act. Senator Hatch, even though a Democrat, had not been 
    privy to the political spoils system because he was an opponent of 
    Franklin Roosevelt, so his counterpart in the Senate was the 
    recipient of all of the political jobs under the WPA and other 
    relief programs.

[[Page 10615]]

        Consequently, in an effort to get back at this counterpart and 
    at Franklin Delano Roosevelt----
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: The gentleman is referring to the other body and 
    actions in the other body. Under our rules, that is forbidden.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may proceed in order.
        Mr. Clay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought I was referring to 
    history. If the other body is not a part of history, I am sorry.

Members Wishing To Discuss Actions of Senate Should Do So Off the Floor

Sec. 44.53 A Member stated in a one-minute speech that because the 
    rules of comity prohibited him from referring in debate to the 
    actions or statements of a member of the Senate, he would make his 
    comments elsewhere.

    On May 10, 1978,(12) Mr. David R. Obey, of Wisconsin, 
made the following statement in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 13211, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Obey asked and was given permission to address the House 
    for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I wish House rules did not prevent me 
    from saying on this floor what I would like to say about a speech 
    delivered Monday by a certain Member of the other body but, because 
    they do, I will make my comments elsewhere.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Obey objected to statements by Senator 
Weicker reported in the press, criticizing the administration's policy 
in the Middle East, but was advised that any statement in debate 
criticizing or referring to a member of the Senate or his remarks 
either on or off the Senate floor would violate the rule of comity.

References to Senators Who Are Presidential Candidates

Sec. 44.54 The rule of comity in debate, which has been strictly 
    construed to prohibit references to the words or actions of members 
    of the Senate, does not prohibit references to Senators in their 
    capacity as candidates for the Presidency or other office, but 
    references attacking the character or integrity of a member of the 
    Senate are improper (and the Chair on his own initiative enforces 
    the rule of comity in debate).

[[Page 10616]]

    On Oct. 30, 1979,(13) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 30150, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Dornan asked and was given permission to address the House 
    for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I support 
    what the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 
    called for: The resignation of Robert Strange McNamara from the 
    World Bank. Only one Member of the Congress of the United States 
    has ever negotiated the Chappaquiddick Channel by swimming it. Only 
    one Member of Congress has ever made it across that channel on his 
    own power. And he was not a Member of the U.S. Senate. That person 
    is this Congressman standing here before this body, me. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) It is a violation of 
    the rules of the House to attack the character or integrity of a 
    Member of the other body and the rule of comity also prohibits 
    references either directly or indirectly to words or actions of a 
    Member of the other body, with respect to his actions in that body. 
    There is a delicate line which lies sometimes almost invisibly 
    between a Member in his capacity as a Member of Congress, and that 
    same individual in his capacity as a candidate for the Presidency 
    or other office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair hopes and trusts that Members will exercise 
    sufficient prudence and sufficient good taste that they will 
    respect that difference.
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I will not 
    demand that the secretary take down the words of the previous 
    speaker, but in the light of the ruling that the Chair just made, 
    if similar outbursts occur I will make that demand.

Sec. 44.55 Remarks in debate ordinarily may not include references to 
    members of the Senate other than to identify their sponsorship of 
    legislation; but where a Senator is also a candidate for President 
    or Vice President his official policies, actions, and opinions as a 
    candidate may be criticized in terms not personally offensive.

    On Sept. 29, 1988,(15) during the period for one-minute 
speeches in the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 134 Cong. Rec. 26683, 26684, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Williams asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Pat] Williams [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, yesterday 
    Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Dan Quayle was in Texas. He 
    visited, he was kind enough to go by and visit a Job Corps center 
    in El Paso, and while there he looked 300 Job Corps students in the 
    eye and said, ``We believe in you.''
        He did not tell them that he had voted to shut that center 
    down. He did

[[Page 10617]]

    not tell them that the Reagan-Bush administration in fact has 
    demanded that every Job Corps center in America, bar none, be 
    closed.
        This is the same Senator Quayle that supports wars that he 
    won't fight, the same Senator Quayle who got into law school under 
    an entry minority program that he later votes against.
        There is a word for it, my colleagues, it is called hypocrisy.
        Mr. [Dan] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the 
    gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Speaker: (16) The Clerk will report the words of 
    the gentleman from Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            This is the same Senator Quayle that supports wars that he 
        won't fight, the same Senator Quayle who got into law school 
        under an entry minority program that he later votes against.
            There is a word for it, my colleagues, it is called 
        hypocrisy.

        The Speaker: The Chair has considered closely the question of 
    the use of words to distinguish policies as opposed to individuals. 
    There are precedents touching on proper and improper references in 
    debate and dealing with the preservation of comity between the 
    House and Senate. It is important to recognize that the individual 
    referenced in the remarks not only is a candidate for Vice 
    President of the United States but is a Member of the other body.
        The precedents relating to references in debate to the 
    President, Vice President, or to a Member of the other body who is 
    a nominated or declared candidate for President or Vice President 
    permit criticisms of official policy, actions and opinions of that 
    person as a candidate, but do not permit personal abuse, do not 
    permit innuendo and do not permit ridicule, and they do require 
    that the proper rules of decorum must be followed during any debate 
    relating to the President of the United States or a Member of the 
    other body.
        It could be argued that there is a distinction between calling 
    an individual a hypocrite, for example, and referring to some 
    policy as hypocrisy, but the Chair has discovered a precedent that 
    seems to be directly in point. In 1945, a Member of the House from 
    Georgia referred to another Member and said, ``I was reminded that 
    pretexts are never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to add malice to 
    falsehood or cowardice to stab a foe who cannot defend himself.'' 
    Speaker Rayburn ruled that this was out of order as an 
    unparliamentary reference to another Member of the body.
        By extension, the same identical words should be held out of 
    order in reference to a Member of the other body whether or not he 
    were a candidate for a high office, and under these circumstances 
    and citing this precedent, the Chair would suggest that the 
    gentleman from Montana withdraw the offending remarks, including 
    the particular word ``hypocrisy,'' and either amend his reference 
    in the permanent Record or delete it. . . .
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that the 
    Speaker's ruling is based upon my characterization of a U.S. 
    Senator, in this case Senator Quayle, that had the Republican Vice-
    Presidential candidate not been at

[[Page 10618]]

    this time a U.S. Senator, that my remarks would, in fact, be in 
    order? . . .
        The Speaker: . . .The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from 
    Montana that there are standards that apply in the Chamber and in 
    the precedents with respect to nominated candidates for President 
    and Vice President. The Chair is not certain if they are precisely 
    the same as applied to a Member of the other body or a Member of 
    this body, but in this instance, it is not necessary to make that 
    hypothetical distinction since the individual involved is a Member 
    of the other body.
        Mr. Williams: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker: Would 
    it be within the rules of the House if the last sentence of my 1-
    minute, the one which characterizes Senator Quayle's actions as 
    hypocrisy, be removed by unanimous consent from my 1-minute 
    statement?
        The Speaker: The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from 
    Montana that this might be a satisfactory solution.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    last sentence of my 1-minute statement, the sentence in which I 
    characterized Senator Quayle's actions as hypocrisy, be stricken.
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Please, the Chair will recognize the gentleman for 
    a parliamentary inquiry, but, first, please permit the gentleman 
    from Montana to complete his request. . . .
        Mr. Lungren: I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: That is fine. The gentleman may reserve his right 
    to object, but in the interests of orderly procedure, permit the 
    Chair to allow the gentleman from Montana to complete his request.
        Mr. Williams: Let me be sure the Chair understands my request: 
    I have asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of my 1-
    minute statement be stricken. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . Has the gentleman from Montana completed his 
    request?
        Mr. Williams: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. Both times I have 
    been interrupted as I have attempted to ask unanimous consent that 
    the last sentence of my 1-minute statement be eliminated. That was 
    the sentence which referred to Senator Quayle's actions as 
    hypocrisy. I seek unanimous consent to strike the last sentence of 
    my 1-minute statement.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Montana?
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, Mr. 
    Speaker, under normal circumstances and in the interests of comity 
    of this House and the relationship of this House and the other 
    body, I would not object. However, as is very obvious from the 
    statements of the gentleman, the insult, the language that is not 
    to be used under our rules was repeated three times in an effort to 
    make a point which violates, in my judgment, the sense of the rules 
    of the House and, therefore, since it is not, I believe, 
    appropriate to do that, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Sept. 29, 1988,(17) Speaker 
Wright

[[Page 10619]]

ruled that although it is not in order in debate to criticize a member 
of the Senate, where the Senator is also a candidate for President or 
Vice President, his official policies, actions, and opinions as a 
candidate may be criticized so long as those references are not 
personally offensive. That ruling was consistent with an earlier ruling 
of Oct. 30, 1979,(18) also cited in the House Rules and 
Manual at Sec. 371. Similar rulings prohibiting personally abusive 
references to the President or Vice President are cited in Sec. 370 of 
the Manual. Thus, it is clear that a standard exists under the 
precedents under which personally offensive references to a sitting 
President, Vice President, or Senator are out of order although that 
person may be a candidate for office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 134 Cong. Rec. 26683, 26684, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 30150, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Sept. 29, 1988,(19) Speaker Wright was asked whether 
a similar standard applied to references in debate to a candidate who 
did not happen to hold any of those offices. The Speaker responded that 
``there are standards that apply in the Chamber and in the precedents 
with respect to nominated candidates for President and Vice President. 
The Chair is not certain if they are precisely the same as applied to a 
member of the other body or a Member of this body . . .'' but in that 
instance it was only a hypothetical question which the Chair declined 
to answer with any greater specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 134 Cong. Rec. 26683, 26684, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Referring to Senate Inaction on Subject Under Debate in House

Sec. 44.56 Jefferson's Manual (20) proscribes references in 
    debate to specific proceedings of the Senate or to Senators by 
    name, and the Chair should take the initiative to prevent such 
    references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 371, 374 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 29, 
1981,(1) during consideration of S. 815 (Department of 
Defense authorization for fiscal year 1982):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 127 Cong. Rec. 26051, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I 
    would simply like to say I am a member of the Special Procurement 
    Procedures Panel that was started this year on the Armed Services 
    Committee. In fact, we have held a large number of hearings. . . .
        But we have a problem with accepting the Senate 
    recommendations,

[[Page 10620]]

    which I understand came about without benefit of hearings.
        I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado if 
    she could address that point.
        Is that true, that Senator Nunn had no hearings on this?
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: I would be delighted 
    to respond if the gentleman will yield.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair would observe 
    it is not appropriate to refer to the proceedings of the other 
    body. It is not in order to refer to Senators by name. It is not in 
    order to refer to debates, probable action or procedure of the 
    Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James L. Oberstar (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.57 Under Jefferson's Manual,(3) the Chair takes the 
    initiative in calling Members to order who make improper references 
    during debate to Senate legislative inaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 374 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During debate in the House on Mar. 23, 1982,(4) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 128 Cong. Rec. 5014, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, as the 
    Members know, it is a difficult job to try to bring out these bills 
    responsibly. We are working on a timetable with the administration. 
    There are several bills, the health and education and labor bill 
    and the Post Office and Treasury bill, that have not been passed by 
    the Congress.
        But it is not the fault of this House. They passed this House 
    early last year. They have been sitting over there in the Senate. 
    If you have a gripe, go over there and tell them to pass those 
    bills.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman will 
    observe regular order. The gentleman will be advised that such 
    characterizations of the proceedings in the other body are 
    inappropriate on this floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.58 While it is not in order in debate to refer to actual 
    proceedings or debate in the Senate, it is in order to state 
    whether or not the Senate has acted on House-passed legislation; 
    and in making an appropriate reference to the other body, the term 
    ``Senate'' may be used and is not in itself a violation of the rule 
    of comity.

    Although it is traditional in debate to refer to the Senate as 
``the other body,'' Jefferson's Manual does not totally proscribe use 
of the word ``Senate'' during debate if merely a reference to that 
body's existence, particularly if the reference is not critical in 
nature and does not mention specific actions taken by that body nor 
specific members thereof. A ruling to that effect was made on Oct. 4, 
1984: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 130 Cong. Rec. 30046, 30047, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. In an isolated 
        instance, however, the Chair did sustain a point of order 
        against the use of the word ``Senate'' in a context 
        descriptive merely of the existence 
        of that body (see 130 Cong. Rec. 22270, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Aug. 2, 1984).

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

[[Page 10621]]

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: . . . Today at the White 
    House in a ceremony the President of the United States was asked 
    why he is shutting down the Government. . . .
        ``This has been very typical,'' said the President, ``of what 
    has happened ever since we have been here. You can lay this right 
    on the majority party of the House of Representatives.''
        The President went on to say, ``Just once it would be great to 
    have a budget on time.''
        Now, I think it is important that we recite the chronological 
    facts in order that the honor of the House as an institution may be 
    defended. . . .
        Now, that is inaccurate in the extreme. He can have a second 
    simple extension to sign if the Senate will act. The House already 
    has done so, and it is pending in the Senate right now.
        The House passed the first continuing resolution on the 25th of 
    September. The other body has not acted upon it yet.
        So, in light of that, the House on the 1st of October, Monday, 
    the first day of the new fiscal year, sent a second continuing 
    resolution to the Senate. It was a simple 2-day extension to give 
    the Senate additional time to act upon the first one. This bill was 
    passed and sent to the President on Monday, the 1st of October.
        The President allowed the Government to go on and continue 
    operating without even signing that bill until 3 o'clock yesterday, 
    2 days after the lapse of time in which a legalistic interpretation 
    would have required him to close the Government. Then finally he 
    signed that bill and now it is expiring again. So the House on the 
    4th of October, today, has sent yet another continuing 
    appropriation bill to the other body and we are still awaiting 
    Senate action. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, is it not against the rules of the House to be 
    referring to the actions of the other body?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman has not 
    referred to actions of the other body. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William R. Ratchford (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: The other body was just referred to as the Senate. 
    Is that not against the rules of the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: According to the precedents, reference 
    can be made to the fact of the legislative product of the other 
    body, which the gentleman from Texas has done.

Sec. 44.59 While a Member in debate may refer to the pendency of a 
    House-passed bill in the Senate, it is a breach of order in debate 
    to refer to a House bill as ``languishing'' in the Senate and it is 
    the duty of the Chair to call to order an offending Member.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 31, 
1986,(8) during the period allocated for special-order 
speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 132 Cong. Rec. 18253, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 10622]]

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, the trade 
    deficit, which is closing American factories and throwing Americans 
    out of work, took another upward bound last month. It is time for 
    the Senate to act on the House-passed trade bill which has been 
    languishing there for 10 weeks. . . .
        If the Senate fails to take up H.R. 4800, it will do the Nation 
    a grave injustice and the American people will expect more than a 
    mere apology for its inaction.
        Mr. [Robert W.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, is it not against the rules of the House for 
    someone to refer to legislative action in the Senate and that ``the 
    House bill languishing in the Senate'' is beyond the scope of the 
    House rules?
        The Speaker: (9) . . . The Chair would respond to 
    the inquiry by reminding Members that a Member may refer to where 
    legislation is in the Senate; that is within the rules. Members 
    cannot be critical of the Senate or name any Senator by name. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend my 
    statement to say that, ``This important legislation has been 
    languishing without action in the honorable Senate for the past 10 
    weeks.''
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, even in the gentleman's amended 
    version, the gentleman is beyond the scope of the House rules. . . 
    .

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Speaker did not rule on the 
latter point, Mr. Walker's observation was correct, in that 
``languishing'' implies suffering neglect or inaction.

Advocating Senate Action on Nomination

Sec. 44.60 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker Pro 
    Tempore indicated that it is a breach of order under section 371 of 
    Jefferson's Manual for a Member to refer in debate to confirmation 
    proceedings in the Senate by advocating that that body take a 
    certain action with regard to a Presidential nominee.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 7, 1984: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 130 Cong. Rec. 1978, 1979, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jim] Moody [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, our colleagues in 
    the Senate will soon consider President Reagan's nomination of 
    Edward Meese as Attorney General. I urge our colleagues in the 
    other body to take an extremely close look at the record of this 
    man who would shape our country's policy on Justice-related issues. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .

[[Page 10623]]

        Mr. Speaker, is it correct that we are not supposed to refer in 
    any way to actions of the Senate on the floor of the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The gentleman is 
    correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Mario Biaggi (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under section 374 of Jefferson's Manual, 
the Chair may take the initiative to call a Member to order for 
attempting to influence the Senate in debate. A mere reference to the 
fact of confirmation proceedings 
in the other body, however, in 
the absence of characterization of those proceedings, would not be out 
of order.

Referring to Remarks Made by Senator at Time He Was a Member of the 
    House

Sec. 44.61 References in debate 
    to a former Member of the House who is presently a member of the 
    Senate are permissible only if they merely address prior House 
    service and are not implicitly critical of the individual as a 
    Senator.

    On May 8, 1984,(12) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 130 Cong. Rec. 11428, 11431, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Under a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is 
    recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Ike Skelton (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am going to 
    pick up where the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) left off 
    in the document entitled, ``What is the Matter With the Democratic 
    Foreign Policy,'' by Mr. Frank Gregorsky. . . .

            Somehow, some day, this country has got to learn to live 
        with revolution in the Third World. It's endemic. It's 
        relatively easy to suppress revolution in Grenada, so we 
        congratulate ourselves. . . .

        Savimbi was quoted in the Washington Post May 29, 1983: . . .

            . . . These Westerners say we should not take aid from 
        South Africa for our struggle. But they will never give us aid 
        themselves. They seem to be asking us to commit suicide, to 
        accept being crushed by the Cubans and the Russians in our own 
        country. We do not want to be an African Hungary. To avoid it, 
        we have to take help from wherever it is on offer.

        It won't come from a Democratic House. It won't come from 
    Democrats like Chris Dodd, who is more entranced than Jonas Savimbi 
    by the thought of another Hungary.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is sure the gentleman is 
    aware of the rule that he cannot make reference to sitting Members 
    of the other body or to the activities or proceedings in that body.
        Mr. Gingrich: In the body. All right. . . .
        Let me ask the Chair for just a moment, to insure the Chair 
    understands what I am now doing, I have a series of quotations from 
    a gentleman who is

[[Page 10624]]

    currently in the other body, but the quotations are from the floor 
    of the House when he was in this body. I presume they are, 
    therefore, legitimate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If they are not references to or 
    critical of him as a Senator.
        Mr. Gingrich: All right.
        Messrs. Dodd and Downey are two who've been saying the same 
    thing since they got to Washington over nine years ago.
        Chris Dodd on Cambodia, March 12, 1975: . . .

            . . . The greatest gift our country can give to the 
        Cambodian people is not guns but peace. And the best way to 
        accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now.

        Chris Dodd on Angola, December 19, 1975:

            Mr. Speaker, I am urging my colleagues . . . to denounce 
        equivocally the blatant intrusion on the part of the Ford 
        Administration, the Soviet Union, and the South African and 
        Cuban regimes in the domestic affairs of [Angola].

Speculating on Senate Legislative Action

Sec. 44.62 It is not in order in debate to refer to legislative actions 
    which might be taken by named members of the Senate, or by Senators 
    designated by position, and the Chair calls Members to order on his 
    own initiative for violating this rule of comity.

    On Oct. 11, 1984,(14) Speaker Pro Tempore Steny H. 
Hoyer, of Maryland, exercised his initiative in calling a Member to 
order for references to members of the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 32151, 32153, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: If the gentleman will 
    continue to yield, it is too late in effect, for another rule. It 
    is too late for another bill, too late for another conference, too 
    late for another amendment. It is this or nothing.
        Mr. Speaker, if this is adopted, we have reason to believe that 
    it can pass in the Senate. Senator Heinz, who has been one of the 
    key actors in this whole drama in the other body, is committed to 
    moving it forward.
        We understand the very distinguished majority leader is looking 
    sympathetically on this approach in the other body.
        There is strong support for it, but if this goes down, it is 
    all over.
        I know that we are not supposed to mention other names in other 
    bodies, but several Members have done it here today. But I can tell 
    you that the chairman of the Banking Committee, when you have taken 
    away his authority and put something in here, he is not going to 
    accept that. Neither is the majority leader, and neither is----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman should not refer, as the 
    Chair observed earlier, to possible actions of Members of the other 
    body.

Sec. 44.63 The Chair admonished Members that statements in

[[Page 10625]]

    debate speculating as to the intent of the Senate or of individual 
    Senators as to action in that body on legislation pending in the 
    House was a violation of the rule of comity.

    During consideration of the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984 
(H.R. 6027) in the House on Oct. 11, 1984,(15) the Speaker 
Pro Tempore called Members to order for references to specific 
Senators:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 130 Cong. Rec. 32221-23, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Martin O.] Sabo [of Minnesota]: . . . Are certain Senators 
    serious when they say they would leave all the municipalities in 
    the country subject to antitrust suits unless they can have their 
    way in overriding this rider? I cannot make that judgment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair would 
    observe that the discussion about the other body, of course, and 
    what they may or may not do is speculation and that is not 
    consistent with the rules and would urge Members to try to refrain 
    from such expressions. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Philip M. Crane [of Illinois]: I respect the statement of 
    the Speaker, but I have before me a letter from 
    the National Association of Counties, signed by Matthew Coffey, who 
    is executive director, indicating that from the standpoint of 
    county government this is the most important issue to come through 
    the 98th Congress and that they reluctantly went along with this 
    FTC provision added to it because, in their own words, the Senate 
    has made it clear that they will not accept protective legislation 
    unless this FTC provision is included.
        Senate is a broad term. How can anyone read the mind of the 
    Senate? My interest is that if there is anybody who is conversant, 
    because I certainly know the mechanisms whereby that could be an 
    obstructionist body to passage if this legislation were made, but 
    can anyone provide any insight as to specifics with regard to 
    Senate objections? . . .
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: . . . The problem was not a 
    Senate conferee, but another Member who would exercise his full 
    powers as a Member of that body.
        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, would the 
    gentleman yield further?
        Mr. [Charles] Wilson [of Texas]: I yield.
        Mr. Hyde: I think the gentleman is talking about a different 
    Member of the other body. This illustrates the terrible confusion 
    on this issue.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlemen are out of order and 
    should delete specific references to the other body's Members.

Sec. 44.64 The Chair will call to order Members who make improper 
    references in debate to proceedings in the Senate.

    On Feb. 27, 1985,(17) the Speaker admonished a Member 
not to

[[Page 10626]]

refer to proceedings in the other body:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 131 Cong. Rec. 3850, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Glickman asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, reports are that 
    the leadership of the other body, fearing the votes might be there 
    to pass farm credit legislation similar to that which we are taking 
    up today, has been delaying votes.
        The Speaker: (18) Under the rules the gentleman is 
    not to refer to proceedings in the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addressing Remarks to Members of Senate

Sec. 44.65 It is improper in debate to call on Senators to act or to 
    characterize action or inaction of the Senate.

    On Apr. 29, 1986,(19) the Speaker Pro Tempore exercised 
his initiative in calling to order a Member for references to the 
Senate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 132 Cong. Rec. 8855, 8856, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Schumer asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.).
        Mr. [Charles E.] Schumer [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, it was 
    with some confusion that I read in today's New York Times that a 
    distinguished Member of the other body said that Congress had 
    become ``so enmeshed in political maneuvering'' that it cannot 
    produce a Federal budget. A little later in the article he said he 
    wanted to wait until he could get a majority of his party to agree 
    on a budget before he would bring one to the floor. And the 
    confusion about this, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. There are 24 
    Republicans generally on the right side of the other body who are 
    saying that they will not go for a budget unless XYZ is met.
        That is no way to produce a budget, Mr. Speaker. If on our side 
    of the aisle we decided that we had to bring every Member along and 
    every Member's specific interest had to be weighed without 
    compromise, we would not have a budget either. . . .
        I say to my colleagues in the other body, it is about time you 
    tried to reach a consensus, as some of your Members are starving to 
    do, and move on a budget in the Senate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair wishes to 
    point out that the gentleman should not refer to proceedings from 
    the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard B. Ray (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------