[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§ 46. References in Senate to House]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10631-10644]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 46. References in Senate to House

    No standing rule of the Senate prohibits reference in debate to 
proceedings of the House, to individual Representatives, or to their 
remarks in debate.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. The Senate rule governing order in debate is Rule XIX, Standing 
        Rules of the Senate Sec. 19. For an unsuccessful attempt in the 
        88th Congress to amend Rule XIX by prohibiting reference in 
        debate to the House, see Sec. 46.1, infra.
            For a summary of the Senate precedents on references in 
        debate to Representatives or to the House, see Riddick/Frumin, 
        Senate Procedure, pp. 745-48, S. Doc. No. 101-28 (1992).
            For a discussion of procedure in the House for challenging 
        unparliamentary remarks made in the Senate relating to the 
        House or the Members, see Sec. 44 (introductory discussion), 
        supra.

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

[[Page 10632]]

    The Senate has not adopted as part of its rules Jefferson's 
Manual,(1) which prohibits reference in either the House or 
in the Senate to Members or proceedings of the other 
body.(2) And it has been said that since the Senate is a 
self-governing body it is for the Senate to determine how far Senators 
might go in commenting upon language used or proceedings in the other 
body.(3) Nevertheless, the Senate generally follows the 
parliamentary principle that it is a breach of order, as interfering 
with the independence of the two Houses, to allude to what has been 
done in the other House as a means of influencing the judgment of the 
one in which a question is pending.(4) References to the 
House or its Members have on occasion been ruled out when a point of 
order was raised, but it is not the custom in the Senate for the Chair 
to initiate action with respect to such remarks.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 46.2, infra.
 2. Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 371 (1995).
 3. Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, pp. 745-48, S. Doc. No. 101-28 
        (1992).
            For similar statements made by the Presiding Officer on 
        more recent occasions, see Sec. Sec. 46.2, 46.3, infra.
 4. See Sec. 46.7, infra, and Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 371 (1995) for the parliamentary principle that 
        ``the opinion of each House should be left to its own 
        independency.''
 5. See Sec. 46.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reference to House proceedings on a bill being considered in the 
Senate has been permitted by unanimous consent,(6) or where 
the propriety of House action or procedure on a Senate measure is in 
issue.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 46.6, infra.
 7. On one occasion, the Senate was considering a resolution of inquiry 
        into allegedly improper action by the Speaker of the House on a 
        Senate joint resolution. The Presiding Officer ruled that 
        Senators could use their own discretion in mentioning the 
        Members or the proceedings of the House. See Sec. 46.2, infra. 
        Under normal practice, Senators may not refer to the actions of 
        the Speaker of the House (see Sec. 46.7, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Presiding Officer of the Senate has ruled that, when refer

[[Page 10633]]

ring to a Member of the House, a Senator may not refer to the Member by 
name (8) or impute to him unworthy motives or 
falsehood.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 46.9, infra.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 46.10-46.12, infra. As those precedents indicate, 
        Senators are allowed wider latitude, in referring to and 
        criticizing Representatives, than Members of the House are 
        allowed in mentioning Senators. See Sec. 44, supra, for House 
        precedents on the rule of comity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House has on a very few occasions messaged resolutions to the 
Senate, characterizing language by a Senator in debate as 
unparliamentary and as a reflection on the House or on its Members. 
Pursuant to one such message the Senate ordered the objectionable 
language expunged from the Record,(10) but more recently the 
Senate took no action on a similar House resolution.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2516 (cited as support for similar 
        resolution in Sec. 46.13, infra).
11. See Sec. 46.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Senate has messaged a resolution to the House concerning 
objectionable language by a Representative in debate impugning a 
Senator; although the House returned the resolution to the Senate on 
the ground that it was a breach of privilege (because declaring a 
Representative's statement untrue), the House later expunged the 
objectionable remarks from the Record on the grounds they violated the 
rules of the House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Communications from the Senate, see Ch. 32, infra.
House references to Senate, its proceedings, or Members, see Sec. 44, 
    supra.
House-Senate relations generally, see Ch. 32, infra.

                         Collateral References
Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, pp. 745-48, S. Doc. No. 101-28 
    (1992).                          -------------------

Senate Rules Provisions

Sec. 46.1 In the Senate a resolution providing for amendment to Senate 
    Rule XIX on debate to prohibit references in debate to certain 
    conduct or motives of Representatives was referred to committee but 
    was not acted on.

    On Feb. 6, 1963,(13) after discussing the need for 
comity between the two Houses, Senator Wayne L. Morse, of Oregon, 
introduced in the Senate Senate Resolution 84, to prohibit by standing

[[Page 10634]]

rule certain references in debate to Members of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 1929, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That rule XIX be amended to add a new paragraph at 
    the end thereof, as follows:
        ``8. No Senator in debate shall by any form of words impute to 
    any Member of the House of Representatives any conduct or motive 
    unworthy or unbecoming a Representative.''

    The resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration, but no action was taken in the 88th Congress.

Sec. 46.2 In contrast to earlier decisions, the President of the Senate 
    ruled in the 71st Congress that since the Senate had not adopted 
    Jefferson's Manual as a part of its standing rules, references to 
    the proceedings of the House were left to the discretion of 
    Senators.

    On Apr. 21, 1930, Senator George W. Norris, of Nebraska, discussed 
at length in the Senate the alleged action of the House in retaining a 
Senate joint resolution for more than 10 months rather than referring 
it to committee (S.J. Res. 3, the so-called ``lame-duck'' 
constitutional amendment).(14) Senator Norris referred 
extensively to House proceedings and described the action taken on the 
resolution as ``arbitrary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For Senator Norris' remarks, see 72 Cong. Rec. 7311-13, 71st Cong. 
        2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senator Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, then arose to make the point of 
order that ``the rule of the Senate does not permit a Senator on the 
floor of the Senate to criticize what is said by a Congressman on the 
floor of the House nor the action of the House.''
    Senator Norris challenged Senator Fess to point out any such 
standing rule, and after intervening debate, Senator Fess cited page 
248 of Jefferson's Manual, prohibiting Members of one House from 
referring to the proceedings of the other House. Senator Norris 
responded that the provisions of Jefferson's Manual stated general 
parliamentary law but were not binding or adopted by the Senate as part 
of the rules.
    Vice President Charles Curtis, of Kansas, ruled on the question:

        The Senate has not adopted Jefferson's Manual as a part of the 
    rules of the Senate. It is left to the discretion of Senators as to 
    what they may or may not say about the proceedings of the House in 
    connection with the resolution under consideration.
        Mr. Fess: This is not a rule.
        The Vice President: The Chair makes that ruling now.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In so ruling, the Vice President overruled 
decisions to the contrary by President Pro Tempore Jacob H.

[[Page 10635]]

Gallinger, of New Hampshire, on Aug. 26, 1912,(15) and by 
Presiding Officer William H. King, of Utah, on July 31, 
1917.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2501.
16. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2513. Senate practice prior to the 
        20th century was not uniform and in some cases not ruled upon; 
        see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5096, 5098, 5100, 5110, 5122, 
        5126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discretion of Presiding Officer

Sec. 46.3 The Presiding Officer of the Senate stated in response to a 
    parliamentary inquiry that the propriety of references to 
    Representatives is a matter of discretion with the Presiding 
    Officer.

    On Feb. 20, 1963,(17) Senator Michael J. Mansfield, of 
Montana, inquired of Presiding Officer Birch E. Bayh, of Indiana, 
whether reference by name to a Member of the House was proper in Senate 
debate. The Presiding Officer responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 109 Cong. Rec. 2648, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair respectfully submits that, according to rule XIX of 
    the Senate, the point which the majority leader raises is not 
    mentioned; that the subject covered in his question to the Chair 
    has been a matter of discretion with the Presiding Officer at the 
    specific time in question. Unless a point of order is made by the 
    majority leader or any other Member of the Senate, the Chair will 
    not call to order the Senator who is speaking in the Senate.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Senator John J. Williams, of Delaware, who 
had the floor and was referring critically to a Member of the House, 
was permitted to proceed without objection to his remarks.

Announcements

Sec. 46.4 The Senate Majority Leader announced his intention in the 
    84th Congress to seek enforcement of the rule of comity as to 
    disparaging remarks between the two Houses.

    On Jan. 18, 1955,(18) Lyndon B. Johnson, of Texas, the 
Majority Leader of the Senate, made the following announcement on the 
floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 441, 442, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. President, I have a brief announcement I should like to 
    make. Yesterday in the House of Representatives the beloved and 
    respected Speaker, Mr. Rayburn, made an announcement of interest, 
    and I think of tremendous importance, to this body. The Speaker 
    advised that it would be his practice during this Congress to 
    enforce strictly the rule of comity between the Houses when Members 
    of that body arose to make derogatory remarks about either the 
    Senate or any Member of the Senate.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The announcement of Jan. 17, 1955, by Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) 
        stating his intention to enforce the rule of comity, appears 
        id. at p. 386.

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

[[Page 10636]]

        Mr. President, I should like at this time to announce that, as 
    majority leader, I, too, will follow the longstanding precedents of 
    this body during the coming Congress in the enforcement of this 
    rule of comity. Good relations between the House and the Senate and 
    its Members are of the utmost importance in these critical times. I 
    think it is equally important that the standards of Senate rule XIX 
    which apply in the Senate should, under the precedents of comity 
    between the Houses, be vigorously applied if the occasion arises.
        It will be my intention to see that that rule is followed in 
    the Senate while I am sitting in this chair as majority leader.
        Mr. [William F.] Knowland [of California]: Mr. President, will 
    the Senator yield?
        Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to the distinguished minority 
    leader.
        Mr. Knowland: I should like to associate myself with the 
    distinguished majority leader in his remarks. I think the orderly 
    processes of the two Houses will be better served if the precedents 
    of comity as between the two Houses are followed, and I am sure the 
    public business will be expedited if the Senate observes those 
    precedents and adheres to the rule.
        Mr. Johnson of Texas: I am delighted to have the minority 
    leader associate himself with the statement I have made. It is 
    quite in keeping with the course of conduct he has always followed.

References to House Legislative Proceedings

Sec. 46.5 A Senator was permitted to refer in debate to proceedings in 
    the House, but not to its character or integrity.

    On July 24, 1954,(20) Senator Paul H. Douglas, of 
Illinois, asked the Presiding Officer in the Senate a parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 100 Cong. Rec. 11893, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Senator from Illinois inquires whether the rules of the 
    Senate permit reference to the proceedings of the House of 
    Representatives. I am aware that the rules of the House of 
    Representatives prohibit such references, and I rise to inquire 
    whether the rules of the Senate prohibit such references, or 
    whether they are permitted under our rules.
        The Presiding Officer: The Chair will state there is no rule to 
    prevent a Senator from referring to the proceedings of the House of 
    Representatives, but a Senator is not permitted to refer to its 
    character, integrity, and so forth.

    Senator Douglas then referred to legislative action of the House on 
the preceding evening.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 72 Cong. Rec. 11677, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., June 25, 1930.
            By contrast, Members of the House may not in debate mention 
        the Senate even through complimentary remarks (see Sec. 44.1, 
        supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Unanimous Consent

Sec. 46.6 By unanimous consent, a member of the Senate may allude to or 
    quote from the proceedings of the House.

[[Page 10637]]

    On Feb. 28, 1966,(2) during consideration of S. 2791, 
supplemental military and procurement authorization for fiscal 1966, a 
Senator raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 4300, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. William] Fulbright [of Arkansas]: Mr. President, is it 
    in order to read from a report of a committee of the House of 
    Representatives?
        The Presiding Officer: (3) The Chair reads from page 
    314 of ``Senate Procedure'': (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Ernest Gruening (Alaska).
 4. Watkins and Riddick, Senate Procedure, S. Doc. No. 44, 88th Cong. 
        (1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Under the precedents it has been held not in order in 
        debate for a Senator to make reference to action by the House 
        of Representatives, to read an extract from the proceedings of 
        the House relating to a matter under discussion, to read from a 
        speech made by a Member of the House during that particular 
        Congress on the pending subject, to refer to or make any 
        illusion to or comment upon the proceedings of the House of 
        Representatives, or to make reference to the proceedings in the 
        House on the matter under consideration for the purpose of 
        influencing the action of the Senate.
            It is out of order, as interfering with the independence of 
        the two Houses, to allude to what has been done in the other 
        House as a means of influencing the judgment of the one in 
        which a question is pending.

        However, if no objection is interposed, the Senator may 
    proceed.
        Mr. [Richard B.] Russell of Georgia: Mr. President, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Senator from Arkansas be permitted to 
    read the report of any House committees.
        The Presiding Officer: Is there objection? The Chair hears 
    none, and it is so ordered.

    Portions of House Report No. 1293 on the pending bill were then 
read in debate and inserted in the Record.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See also Sec. 46.9, infra (permission granted to Senator by 
        Presiding Officer to read from House proceedings on certain 
        bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference to Speaker of the House

Sec. 46.7 It has been held out of order in Senate debate to refer to 
    the actions of the Speaker of the House.

    On Aug. 12, 1935,(6) Senator Huey P. Long, of Louisiana, 
stated in Senate debate ``The Speaker of the House went to the White 
House, and he gave out a statement on the steps of the White House.'' 
Senator Joseph T. Robinson, of Arkansas, rose to the point of order 
that a Senator had no right to refer to the action of the Speaker of 
the House in debate. Vice President John N. Garner, of Texas, sustained 
the point of order. Senator Long then continued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 79 Cong. Rec. 12892, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I may not mention that he is a Representative? Very well; then 
    I will for

[[Page 10638]]

    get that; but once upon a time there was a man of influence in the 
    United States who announced on the White House steps that there 
    would not be anything done about the Black bill, and there was not 
    anything done about it.

Sec. 46.8 The President of the Senate ruled that a Senator could refer 
    critically to the Speaker of the House when the Senate was 
    considering a resolution to inquire into House inaction on a Senate 
    joint resolution.

    On Apr. 21, 1930,(7) the Senate was considering a 
resolution to inquire into the failure of the Speaker of the House to 
take prompt action on Senate Joint Resolution 3, a constitutional 
amendment passed by the Senate. Senator George W. Norris, of Nebraska, 
referred extensively in debate to the action of Speaker Nicholas 
Longworth, of Ohio, which he described as ``arbitrary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 72 Cong. Rec. 7313, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a point of order, Vice President Charles Curtis, of 
Kansas, ruled that ``it is left to the discretion of the Senators as to 
what they may or may not say about the proceedings of the House in 
connection with the resolution under consideration.''

Naming House Member

Sec. 46.9 The Senate rules do not specifically prohibit a Senator's 
    reference to a Member of the House by name, but such a reference, 
    if objected to, has been held out of order.

    On Feb. 20, 1963,(8) Senator John J. Williams, of 
Delaware, had the floor in the Senate and was referring critically and 
by name to a Member of the House, Adam C. Powell, of New York. Senator 
Michael J. Mansfield, of Montana, asked Senator Williams to yield for 
the propounding of a parliamentary inquiry and stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 2648, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. President, at page 265 of the manual entitled ``Senate 
    Procedure,'' the following statement appears in the fifth full 
    paragraph:

            It has been held out of order for a Senator to make 
        references to Members of the House----

        Mr. Williams of Delaware: Mr. President----
        Mr. Mansfield: The next phrase reads--I am sure the Senator 
    would wish me to keep the continuity--``to refer to a Member of the 
    House by name.''
        My question is--and I ask this question in my present capacity 
    for clarification: Is the reference to ``to refer to

[[Page 10639]]

    a Member of the House by name'' out of order?

    Presiding Officer Birch E. Bayh, of Indiana, responded as follows:

        The Chair respectfully submits that, according to rule XIX of 
    the Senate, the point which the majority leader raises is not 
    mentioned; that the subject covered in his question to the Chair 
    has been a matter of discretion with the Presiding Officer at the 
    specific time in question. Unless a point of order is made by the 
    majority leader or any other Member of the Senate, the Chair will 
    not call to order the Senator who is speaking in the Senate.

    No point of order was made against Senator Williams' remarks.
    On Aug. 26, 1935, the Senate was considering H.R. 9215, a 
supplemental deficiency appropriation bill. Senator Huey P. Long, of 
Louisiana, asked whether he would be permitted to read from the 
Congressional Record portions of House proceedings on the bill, and 
Vice President John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled that he did have a right 
to so read from the Record. Senator Long read a lengthy excerpt and 
then, in commenting upon it, mentioned the name of a Member of the 
House. The Vice President ruled:

        The Chair calls the Senator from Louisiana to order. . . . The 
    Senator has no right to refer to the House of Representatives. The 
    Chair has called his attention to that rule before, and does so now 
    for the second time. The next time the Chair calls the Senator's 
    attention to it the Senator will have to take his seat.

    Senator Long protested that he had been granted permission to read 
from the Record and the Vice President responded:

        The Senator is familiar with the rule of the Senate--it has 
    been called to his attention a number of times--with reference to 
    referring to an individual Member of the House of Representatives, 
    or to the House of Representatives itself in its procedure. The 
    Senator did ask the Chair if he could read the Record of the House 
    of Representatives. The Chair thinks he could; but the Chair does 
    not think the Senator ought to speak with reference to the 
    Membership of the House, or of the House itself, in a derogatory 
    manner. That is in violation of the rule of the 
    Senate.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 79 Cong. Rec. 14735, 14736, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference to Member's Integrity or Motives

Sec. 46.10 A Senator introduced a resolution to expunge from the Record 
    certain remarks made in the Senate impugning the integrity of a 
    Member of the House.

    On Feb. 6, 1963,(10) Senator Wayne L. Morse, of Oregon, 
addressed the Senate on the subject

[[Page 10640]]

of comity between the two Houses. He took exception to a speech made on 
the Senate floor the previous day by Senator John J. Williams, of 
Delaware, entitled ``The Administration Has Been Shoveling Out the 
Taxpayers' Money to Congressman Adam Powell.'' (11) Senator 
Morse discussed the precedents of the Senate on the subject:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 1927-29, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Senator Williams' speech, which claimed misuse of government funds 
        for the benefit of Mr. Powell, appears at 109 Cong. Rec. 1769-
        71, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 5, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I rise to take exception to a speech made on the floor of 
    the Senate yesterday by the Senator from Delaware. It contained, in 
    my opinion, such a serious imputation against the character and 
    reputation of a colleague on the House side that in my judgment the 
    speech should not stand, at least without a protest. It should not, 
    in my judgment, stand as a precedent.
        Therefore, before finishing my remarks, I shall offer . . . a 
    resolution to expunge the speech of the Senator from Delaware on 
    yesterday from the permanent record of the Congressional Record. . 
    . .
        The Senator from Delaware has made clear to me that he does not 
    intend to expunge his speech from the Record, and I respect his 
    attitude. . . .

        I am not going to speak at any great length, but I am going to 
    start my discussion by calling attention to rule XIX of the Senate, 
    to be found on page 20 of the Senate Manual. I will read section 2 
    of it, which is relevant and pertinent to my remarks:

            No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any 
        form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators 
        any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.

        Section 3 reads:

            No Senator in debate shall refer offensively to any State 
        of the Union.

    Senator Morse then introduced the following resolution (S. Res. 
85):

        Resolved, That the matter appearing in the daily issue of the 
    Congressional Record of February 5 (legislative day, January 15), 
    1963, beginning on page 1673, at the top of the second column, 
    under the caption ``The Administration Has Been Shoveling Out the 
    Taxpayers' Money to Congressman Adam Powell,'' and extending down 
    to and including so much of the second column on page 1675 as 
    precedes the matter entitled ``The New York City Newspaper 
    Strike,'' be, and it is hereby, ordered to be expunged from the 
    Record.

    No action was taken on the resolution during the 88th Congress.

Sec. 46.11 It is not in order in Senate debate to impute unworthy 
    motives to Members of the House.

    On Feb. 28, 1966,(12) Senator Stephen M. Young, of Ohio, 
arose in the Senate to state a question

[[Page 10641]]

of personal privilege, and concluded by stating a parliamentary inquiry 
to the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 4245, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. President, I rise to a question of personal privilege. A 
    short time ago my attention was called to some remarks made in the 
    other body on Thursday by Representative Wayne Hays, of the 18th 
    Ohio District, and Robert Sweeney, Ohio Representative at large, as 
    reported on page 4019 of the Congressional Record adverting to the 
    Vietnam conflict.
        According to the Congressional Record, the Representative from 
    the 18th Ohio District stated:

            Mr. Chairman, there is one matter that I would like to 
        mention. I would like to sort of apologize to the House of 
        Representatives. There have been a lot of remarks made on the 
        other side of this building which I believe have aided our 
        enemies out there, because I believe they are hoping for us to 
        get tired of this war and quit. I further believe that is the 
        reason they think they are winning.
            Yesterday the junior Senator from my State made a personal 
        attack upon the Secretary of State and said that he ought to 
        resign. On behalf of the people of my district, I want to 
        apologize because I supported the junior Senator a year ago 
        last fall. . . .

        Mr. President, I propound a parliamentary inquiry: Would it be 
    a violation of the rules of the Senate were I to assert in this 
    Chamber at this time that Representative Hays, of Ohio, and one-
    term Representative Sweeney, of Ohio, are guilty of falsely, 
    viciously, and maliciously making stupid, lying statements 
    assailing the loyalty and patriotism of Senators, including the 
    junior Senator from Ohio, and that they are liars in alleging that 
    we ``have aided our enemies''?

    Presiding Officer Ernest Gruening, of Alaska, ruled as follows:

        In response to the inquiry of the Senator from Ohio, the Chair 
    states that under the precedents it has been held not in order in 
    debate for a Senator to make reference to action by the House of 
    Representatives. Also, it has been held out of order for Senators 
    to make reference to Members of the House or to refer to a Member 
    of the House by name, to criticize the action of the Speaker, to 
    refer in debate to a Member of the House in opprobrious terms, or 
    to impute to him unworthy motives.
        Mr. Young of Ohio: I, of course, abide by the ruling of the 
    Chair, and I respect it. If, however, on some future occasion a 
    similar contemptible attack is made on me with the insect-like 
    buzzing of lying allegations by either or both of these publicity 
    seekers, I shall surely embalm and embed them in the liquid amber 
    of my remarks.

Sec. 46.12 It is a breach of order in debate in the Senate to refer to 
    a Representative as a ``liar.''

    On Feb. 28, 1966,(13) after a Senator had raised a 
parliamentary inquiry on the subject of references in debate to 
Representatives and had received a ruling from Presiding Officer Ernest

[[Page 10642]]

Gruening, of Alaska, Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, of Illinois, 
raised another parliamentary inquiry on the subject:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 4246, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. President, for the sake of clarification and a meticulous 
    interpretation of the rules, I should like to inquire whether 
    calling a Member of another body a liar is an imputation of 
    improper motive.
        The Presiding Officer: Under the precedents, that would not be 
    in order.

House Action on Senate References

Sec. 46.13 A Senator having assailed a House Member in debate, the 
    House messaged to the Senate a resolution declaring the language a 
    breach of privilege and requesting the Senate to take appropriate 
    action concerning the subject.

    On Sept. 27, 1951,(14) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, arose in the House to state a question of privilege based on 
critical references in the Senate to a Member of the House and to 
introduce a resolution to be agreed to and then messaged to the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 12269, 12270, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It appears from page 12098 of the Congressional Record of 
    yesterday, September 26, 1951, that in the other body, a Member of 
    that body from Michigan, among other things, from the floor of that 
    body made the following statement:

            Now, Mr. President, I should like to address myself briefly 
        to the allegations and insinuations of the Representative from 
        the Second District of Michigan, Mr. Meader.
            According to the newspaper clippings reaching me from the 
        Republican National Committee, Mr. Meader and others have 
        charged that the Democratic Party in Michigan is selling jobs 
        in the Post Office Department. That, Mr. President, is what I 
        meant by a political smear. Mr. Meader is a lawyer. I am 
        surprised that he is reaching conclusions before the evidence 
        is in. He has reached his conclusion on the basis of the fund-
        solicitation letter plus one letter from a constituent who 
        complains that, as a veteran, he was passed over unlawfully for 
        a postmaster's appointment. I immediately asked Mr. Meader for 
        the identity of this man.
            Mr. Meader refused to let me know the identity of the man.
            Mr. Meader must be acquainted with the civil-service and 
        post-office laws and regulations governing these matters. He 
        must know that without cause a veteran cannot possibly be 
        passed over by a nonveteran. The rest of his anonymous 
        correspondent's complaint deals with hearsay.

        The foregoing language which assails a Member of the House 
    constitutes a breach of privilege. Inasmuch as the House is without 
    authority to itself act to correct the foregoing, I send to the 
    Clerk's desk the following resolution:

                              House Resolution 441

            Resolved, That the language published in the daily 
        Congressional Record on Wednesday, September 26, 1951, on page 
        12377, in the report of an address to the Senate by

[[Page 10643]]

        the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Moody, is improper, 
        unparliamentary, and a reflection on the character of a Member 
        of the House, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Meader, and 
        constitutes a breach of privilege and is calculated to create 
        unfriendly relations and conditions between the House of 
        Representatives and the Senate: Therefore be it
            Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to 
        the Senate and that the Senate be requested to take appropriate 
        action concerning the subject.

        Mr. Speaker, the precedent for this action is found in Eighth 
    Cannon's Precedents, page 231, section 2516. From that precedent it 
    appears that on August 18, 1921, a Member of the other body made 
    certain remarks referring, though not by name, to a Member of the 
    House, which reflected upon the House Member's integrity in his 
    representative capacity.
        On August 22, following, a question of privilege was raised and 
    a resolution, similar to the one which has been sent to the Clerk's 
    desk, was adopted by the House and a copy was sent to the other 
    body. Subsequently, on a unanimous-consent request in the other 
    body, the matter referred to in the resolution was expunged from 
    the Record. The purpose of this resolution, if that be the sense of 
    the Senate, is to call for similar action with reference to the 
    language used yesterday and which, by name, challenged the 
    integrity of the Member of the House from Michigan, Mr. Meader, in 
    his representative capacity.
        Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that I have referred to a Member 
    of the other body by name, but I followed word for word, except as 
    to identity, a previous resolution and ruling by a former Speaker 
    of the House to which reference has been made. I send a resolution 
    to the Clerk's desk.

    The House adopted the resolution without further debate, but no 
action was taken by the Senate in the 82d Congress.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For a similar occurrence, where a Member of the House rose to a 
        question of privilege based on a Senator's having assailed the 
        House in debate, see 102 Cong. Rec. 12522, 12523, 84th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., July 12, 1956. The Senator in question, Hubert H. 
        Humphrey (Minn.) withdrew the objectionable remarks from the 
        permanent Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference to Presence of Member of House on Senate Floor

Sec. 46.14 During debate in the Senate, a member of the Senate 
    introduced and acknowledged the presence on the floor of a Member 
    of the House, discussed actions of and communications between 
    Members of the House, and caused to be inserted in the Record 
    letters from the said Member of the House to the Speaker and to the 
    Majority Leader of the Senate.

    On Feb. 10, 1978,(16) during debate in the Senate on the 
ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty,

[[Page 10644]]

Mr. Orrin G. Hatch, of Utah, made the following statements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 3204, 3205, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hatch: Mr. President . . . I would . . . like to call the 
    attention of the Senate to the fact that one of our distinguished 
    colleagues from the House has just brought some, I think, important 
    papers to me.
        I would like to just say that this colleague's name is 
    Congressman George Hansen from the Second District of Idaho. 
    Congressman Hansen has been very active of late doing everything he 
    possibly can to justify and to bring about a means whereby the 
    House of Representatives will not be ignored with regard to the 
    Panama Canal treaties, and that the article IV, section 3, clause 2 
    sections of the Constitution likewise will not be ignored.
        Congressman Hansen has put a great deal of time and effort into 
    talking with his colleagues in the House, and he has brought over a 
    list of 219 Members of the House who are basically subscribers or 
    cosponsors of his resolution which states:

            That it is the sense of the Congress of the United States 
        that any right to, title to, or interest in the property of the 
        United States Government agencies in the Panama Canal Zone or 
        any real property and improvements thereon located in the Zone 
        should not be . . . disposed of to any foreign government 
        without specific authorization . . . by an Act of Congress.

        Two hundred and nineteen of his House Members have cosponsored 
    this resolution . . . .
        [Congressman Hansen] has also brought to me two letters, one 
    written to our own distinguished colleague and friend Senator 
    Robert C. Byrd, the majority leader, and a letter to the Honorable 
    Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker of the House of Representatives.
        I would just quote from one aspect of the letter to Speaker 
    O'Neill.
        Congressman Hansen states in his letter to Speaker O'Neill.

            You will note that the concept of the Resolution is to 
        protect the integrity of the legislative process against 
        default or Executive usurpa-
        tion. . . .

        Mr. Robert C. Byrd [of West Virginia]: For the Record, my 
    answer was that under the Constitution the Senate has the sole 
    prerogative and responsibility to give its approval to the 
    ratification of a treaty No. 1; and, No. 2, property transfers can 
    be self-executing by treaties that are approved by the Senate. . . 
    .
        The Presiding Officer: (17) There is a request 
    before this body for a unanimous consent to have printed in the 
    Record certain documents [together with the remarks pertinent 
    thereto]. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Robert Morgan (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection?
        There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
    printed in the Record. . . .