House Removes Gag on Senate Talk

By Richard Simon

Jan. 5, 2005 12 AM PT

Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON —

It has been one of the mainstays of congressional decorum since the early days of the republic: House members could not criticize the Senate or its members, by name, during floor debate.

But Tuesday, the muzzle came off.

On the first day of the 109th Congress, the Republican-led House revised its rules to allow lawmakers to finally say their piece about senators -- a change seen by some as further eroding comity on Capitol Hill.

“The distance between ‘Crossfire’ and the House floor is shrinking all the time,” said University of Pennsylvania political scientist Don Kettl, referring to the contentious CNN talk show.

The prohibition on criticizing the Senate dates to the Jeffersonian era, and was designed to promote good relations between the two chambers.

But in recent years, GOP House members have become especially frustrated that bills they have passed on several major issues have died in the Senate. Now, they hope to use the well of the House to put pressure on the Senate to act.

The change was supported by a group of conservative Republicans who wrote in a memo that although the old rule stemmed from the “commendable goal of establishing courtesy and respect between the two chambers ... the current gag rule silences and chills much needed and relevant debate regarding the Senate’s role in accomplishing congressional business. Debate can be firm and enlightening while remaining civil.”

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who proposed the change, said it was only fair since there was no comparable gag rule for senators.

He also said it made no sense to him that he could criticize a senator on television talk shows but not on the House floor. And he noted that the rule prohibited him and his colleagues from saying nice things about senators, such as offering a “Happy Birthday” resolution.

The change was part of a package of rules drafted by the House’s GOP majority and approved by the chamber Tuesday on a party-line vote of 220 to 195.

Though the overall package generated controversy because of a provision that critics said would weaken ethics rules, the change to allow criticism of the Senate was “guaranteed to draw applause from my colleagues,” said Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), chairman of the House Rules Committee.

Over the years, House members occasionally sought to get around the rule, which prohibited “characterizations of Senate action or inaction, references to individual members of the Senate or quotations from Senate proceedings.”

In a typical example, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), upset about a minority of Senate Democrats blocking confirmation votes on some of President Bush’s judicial nominations, last year assailed members of the “other body.”

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) during a floor debate referred to “a senator from West Virginia, one with a very common name” in criticizing the lawmaker’s comments about the war in Iraq.

Kingston apparently was referring to Robert C. Byrd, a Democrat; West Virginia’s other senator is John D. Rockefeller IV, also a Democrat.

The rule change won’t allow House members to say anything they want about senators.

The new edict, Dreier said, will allow House members to refer to the Senate and its members “so long as those references are confined to the question under debate and avoid personality.”

“My colleagues and I share the desire to maintain our traditions of dignity and decorum in proceedings,” Dreier said in presenting the rule change Tuesday.

A House Republican aide said the House members probably would be able to characterize a senator’s actions or record, but not impugn a senator’s motives. For example, the staffer said, a House member could say a senator voted against tort reform and that that was bad for America’s economy, but could not charge that the senator was under the sway of trial lawyers.

Ultimately, the extent to which a House member is allowed to criticize a senator likely will be determined at the moment by the chamber’s presiding officer.

Much of the irritation among GOP House members toward the Senate stems from differences in the two chambers’ procedures and political dynamics.

Even when the Senate is under Republican control, the chamber’s rules give Democrats more power to block legislation than in the House. Also, the House’s GOP leaders are generally more conservative and disciplined than their Senate counterparts.

The result has been that many bills that have cleared the House -- including such priorities for Bush as a new energy policy and medical malpractice reform -- have stalled in the Senate.

Some congressional observers questioned whether the rule change was a good idea.

Charles Cook, an independent political analyst, said, “As ugly as that place as gotten, attacking senators by name takes it to a whole new level.”

But Feeney said he doubted that the rule change would heighten tensions between the chambers: “My experience with senators is that no matter what we did, they would barely acknowledge the existence of the House.”

Senators didn’t have much to say about the new House rule.

The reaction from at least one senator gave credence to Feeney’s comment.

“Sen. Byrd does not comment on actions that the House takes with regard to its operations,” said a spokesman for Byrd, a master of Senate rules.

Several incidents in recent years have illustrated a lessening of the unspoken rules of decorum that once were practiced on Capitol Hill.

Last year, for example, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) broke from tradition and actively campaigned for the defeat of his Democratic counterpart, then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.). Daschle lost his reelection bid in November.

Also last year, Vice President Dick Cheney directed an obscenity at a senator on the Senate floor.

Two years ago, a meeting of the House Ways and Means Committee exploded into a near brawl as lawmakers exchanged insults, such as “wimp” and “fruitcake.” And relations have been so strained in the narrowly divided House that a bipartisan “civility” retreat held every two years drew only about a fourth of the chamber’s members in 2003 and has been canceled for this year.

No one, however, expects things to get as bad as they were in 1856, when the nation was increasingly riven over slavery. A South Carolina House member, Preston Brooks, entered the Senate chamber and severely beat abolitionist Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts over the head with a cane.

Times staff writer Maura Reynolds contributed to this report.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

109th Congress

Forty new House members, plus a nonvoting delegate from Puerto Rico, and nine new senators were sworn in Tuesday. Here’s a look at the new body:

*--* Party House Senate

Democrat 201 44 Republican 232 55 Independent 1 1

*--*

Note: One vacancy in the House

*--* Race/Ethnicity House Senate Black 42 1 Latino/Hispanic 24 2 Asian 3 2 American Indian 1 0

*--*

*--* Sex House Senate Women 68 14

*--*