[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4373-H4380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE CIVILITY PLEDGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             general leave

  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the subject of my special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, we tonight gather for a special order of a 
different kind, not like many of the ones that deal with substantive 
issues that we hear every day here in this Chamber of the people's 
House of Representatives. Tonight we are going to deal with an issue 
that I think is very important with how we conduct our business here in 
the House of Representatives, and that is on the civility of the House 
debate as it has evolved over the course of our history, but also as it 
has evolved within recent years, which has caused many of us to be very 
troubled with the nature of the discourse here in the House of 
Representatives.
  We are being joined with Members from both parties, in both the 
Democratic Party, the Coalition, and also with the Mainstream Alliance 
of which we are Members on the Republican side, Members who are 
commonly referred to as Blue Dogs, Blue Dog Democrats and Blue Dog 
Republicans, joining here together to talk about an issue that we think 
is very important, that we think the American people should understand 
why it is so important that we conduct our business here, conduct our 
debates, in a way that brings credit upon us and upon this institution.
  Thomas Jefferson once remarked that it was very material that 
ordered, decency and regularity be preserved in a dignified public 
body. Frankly, there have been too many incidents here in our body over 
the last few years that have brought, I think, discredit on the 
membership of this body and further eroded the public's confidence in 
the way we conduct our business.
  After all, we pass the laws that the people have to live up to. If 
they do not respect the institution, then it becomes more difficult for 
them to respect the laws that we ultimately pass, which they think is 
very important.
  Certainly some of the incivility we have seen in the House of 
Representatives and in our political cultures relates and emanates from 
the general society's growing trend toward incivility, toward lack of 
respect for one another. U.S. News & World Report had a cover story 
called ``In Your Face, Whatever Happened to Good Manners?''
  So we are a reflection of the larger society. We think it is 
important that we be responsible and address our own problem in this 
area. We think that by doing this, we can improve this institution's 
reputation with the American people.
  We have authored, the Blue Dogs jointly, Democrats and Republicans, a 
civility pledge that some of the Members will talk about later, but 
basically it commits Members of the House of Representatives to 
treating each other in a respectful manner during our differences of 
opinion. We believe that one can have tremendous disagreements, that 
one can have a vigorous debate on the issues that our great country 
faces, the divisive issues we face, without the type of acrimony and 
the type of personal invective that we see all too often in this House.
  We are making the effort tonight, we have been doing it for a couple 
of months, we have over 70 cosponsors, but we wanted to have this 
special order to bring focus to this issue, to try to get more support 
within the House for this effort, and we think ultimately if we are 
successful, we are going to return this body to the place where it 
really should be, the people's House, where we can disagree without 
being disagreeable.
  At this time I would like to yield to someone who is a great leader 
of this House, he is someone who in his day-to-day conduct represents 
the kind of civility we are talking about, and that is the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Commerce, 
Congressman Dan Schaefer from Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for giving 
me this opportunity to speak to this body and to the American people 
very briefly on exactly what it is we are doing.

[[Page H4374]]

  Mr. Speaker, a quick survey of congressional history shows that 
lawmakers often have received low marks for their patience and 
civility. In past decades, physical violence marred the political 
landscape, but more recently, in civil language has increasingly come 
into political debate.

  Serious violent episodes took place in the House during the years 
before the Civil War. In 1832, Representative Sam Houston had to be 
formally reprimanded for attacking Representative William Stanberry, 
who in turned tried to shoot at Houston. Six years later, a duel 
between two freshmen Congressmen ended in the death of one of them.
  Then, in the 1850's, a pistol hidden in a House Member's desk 
accidentally discharged and instantly there were a full thirty or forty 
guns in the air.
  The altercations didn't cease with the end of the Civil War. Resort 
to fists, pistols, knives and fire tongs, in addition to verbal weapons 
was reflective of the time. A contested election in 1890 led to three 
days of tumultuous debate that a reporter said looked more like a riot 
than a parliamentary body.
  I'm glad to say we have moved past using physical violence to settle 
disputes, but we can improve our current inflammatory rhetoric. Last 
spring, in an effort to restore civility and respect back to the House 
of Representatives, I formed the Mainstream Conservation Alliance--
known as the Republican Blue Dogs. This group of Republicans, along 
with the Democrats' Blue Dogs, are working together to reach across the 
aisle to find bipartisan solutions in the best interest of all 
Americans.
  Given the enormity and the importance of the many difficult issues 
facing us, dissension is inevitable--but hostility is not. This 
civility pledge goes a long way in restoring the respect this chamber 
and all Members of Congress deserve. I encourage all of my colleagues 
to sign the civility pledge written by my friend, Peter Blute.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield to the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of 
the Committee on Commerce, who earlier today showed what bipartisanship 
in forging leadership positions together can mean in the passage of the 
Ryan White authorization bill, Chairman Michael Bilirakis from Florida.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, my compliments and commendation to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] for his great work on this 
matter. I thank him, of course, for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve as a United States Representative. I 
consider it an honor and a privilege to represent the residents of the 
Ninth Congressional District of Florida. I have heard from many of my 
constituents who believe, rightly so, that the debate in the house has 
become very partisan and inflammatory.
  While we each hold strong beliefs and values, these can be expressed 
in a constructive manner to facilitate debate, rather than in a manner 
which relegates debate to caustic, partisan attacks.
  As a Member of the mainstream conservative alliance, I gladly signed 
the civility pledge, and intend to continue to debate the issues before 
us honestly, fairly and in a constructive manner. As the pledge states, 
we should ``respect the people who elected us through proper conduct, 
including honoring and showing consideration to one's colleagues 
regardless of ideology or personal feeling.''
  I believe Members of this Congress all want the same thing. We want 
to educate our children, take care of our senior citizens, protect our 
environment and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to succeed in 
our society. We may differ on the means to achieve these goals, but I 
believe we all agree on the goals themselves.
  I have consistently made it a point, when speaking on the floor of 
this House, to debate constructively and without resorting to personal 
attacks. Regardless of ideology or party affiliation, we must all 
respect each other, this institution and our constituent by promoting 
civility, comity and adherence to the House rules above party loyalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I will continue to accept the trust of my constituents 
and respect them by honoring this venerable institution. I would urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in this pledge.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Florida and congratulate him on his great work on the health issue 
and for passing that important bill today with regard to our fellow 
citizens who unfortunately have been afflicted with that terrible 
disease AIDS. The Ryan White Act reauthorization is a very important 
bill.
  At this time I recognize for 5 minutes one of our freshmen leaders 
here in the 104th Congress, someone from the great State of Tennessee, 
Zach Wamp.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Blute. One of the greatest 
honors that has been bestowed on me since I got here was being elected 
as a freshman as the cochairman of this Blue Dogs group over here on 
our side of the aisle, a group that does seek bipartisan solutions, 
willing to work with people on the other side, trying to find the 
principles and values that we might come together on and leave partisan 
politics and shallow rhetoric aside so we can try to get together and 
do the people's business.
  Many of us, as myself, are former Democrats who joined the Republican 
Party. I know for a fact in my life there are many, many good people in 
both parties across the country. And, in fact, neither party has an 
exclusive on integrity or ideas.
  Right down here on the dais, in this great room in the House of 
Representatives, are the words ingrained in the wood, ``Peace, liberty, 
tolerance and justice.'' I think we need to remember peace and 
tolerance more often as we do our business here in the House of 
Representatives.
  Not a day goes by, Mr. Speaker, that I am still not just fascinated 
by this opportunity that I have to serve in this incredible Capitol of 
ours that really has not changed much since Abraham Lincoln was the 
President of our country. And as I show young people through this 
place, I am constantly just enthralled at the magnitude of what this 
opportunity really means.
  I think we owe it to our predecessors, we owe it to the American 
people to put this institution above our own careers, our own 
ambitions, our party's agendas. Anything that may demean or degrade 
this institution needs to be set aside.
  The fabric of the American quilt is woven with diversity, diversity 
of religion, color, culture, and ideas. The thing that is different 
about America is that we in this country can passionately and 
aggressively argue the issues of the day but remain civil and come back 
as a Nation, come back as people at the end of the day, having argued 
passionately, taken sides, we can come back at the end of the day in a 
civil and respectful manner. And I think that is an important lesson 
for our children. It is an important lesson for our colleagues. It is 
an important lesson for the leadership of either party.
  Because, frankly, if the leadership of either party thinks they are 
always right and the other party is always wrong, they are tragically 
mistaken. And the American people know better. The American people 
expect us to find ways to work with each other, and I think we need to 
do this for them.
  The shallow and harsh rhetoric that has pervaded this institution in 
recent months needs to be set aside, from both parties. And now that 
the emotion of the new Congress, after 40 years of one party rule, is 
kind of mellowing out, I think some Members of both parties need to 
cool their jets just a little and get along with each other and 
remember that while we can disagree, we have to put this institution 
above the passion of the moment.
  I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by talking about a word that I think is 
the greatest need in our country and in our world today and that word 
is reconciliation. I think if people, men and women, young and old, all 
across this country and this world would reconcile with each other, we 
would be so much better off. That is the No. 1 problem that separates 
people. It causes anxiety and division.
  We are, in fact, Mr. Speaker, all God's people, and I think it is 
important that we remember as we come together tonight as Democrats and 
Republicans and talk about this issue of civility, that we remember the 
two great commandments; put God first and treat everybody else the way 
we

[[Page H4375]]

want to be treated. And if we treat in this body everybody else the way 
we expect to be treated, the meanness would go away. Kindness would 
permeate because we would expect to be treated with that same respect 
and dignity. And we need to do that.
  I look forward to the days ahead where we can work with our friends 
on the other side of the aisle, do the people's business and disagree. 
By George, I am not going to sacrifice my principles for anything. But 
if we agree on principle, we need to come together here on the floor of 
this House.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his 
leadership on this issue.
  At this time I yield 5 minutes to another leader of the movement for 
more civility here in the House of Representatives. He is someone who 
has already shown how to work on both sides of the aisle to forge 
consensus on issues like telecommunications reform, securities 
litigation reform, private property rights. Those are very difficult 
contentious issues, but he has worked very closely with Members of both 
sides of the aisle in a very constructive way, and that is Billy Tauzin 
from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I 
commend him and all of the Members of the Republican Blue Dog Alliance 
and the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition for initiating this effort of a 
civility pledge in this House.
  As Mr. Blute pointed out, over 70 Members have now signed that 
pledge. It is a simple pledge. It simply pledges that we agree to 
respect the people who elected us, through proper conduct, including 
honoring and showing consideration of one's colleagues, regardless of 
idealogy or personal feeling.
  It says that we pledge to promote civility and comity and adherence 
to House rules over party loyalty, and to follow these guidelines as 
the presiding officer in making rulings, and as Members in adhering to 
those rulings.
  Now, we will be urging others Members of this body to sign up. We 
hope to get the entire membership to sign this pledge and to introduce 
it formally as a resolution of this House. It is so important that we 
begin that process here in this House.
  Now, Mr. Blute referred to the article in U.S. News and World Report 
in which U.S. News and World Report wrote about the American uncivil 
wars, ``How crude, rude and obnoxious behavior has replaced good 
manners and why that hurts our politics and culture.'' In the article, 
U.S. News reports that a poll that they conducted in February by Bozell 
Worldwide reveals a vast majority of Americans feel that the country 
has reached an ill-mannered watershed. Nine out of 10 Americans think 
that incivility is a serious problem. Nearly half think that it is 
extremely serious. Seventy-eight percent say the problem has worsened 
in the past 10 years, and their concern goes beyond annoyance at 
rudeness.
  Respondents see in incivility evidence of a profound social 
breakdown. More than 90 percent of those polled believe it contributes 
to an increase in violence in our country; 85 percent believe it 
divides the national community, and the same number see it eroding 
healthy values like respect for others.
  One of the contributors to the article, a Martin Marty, who is a 
philosopher of religions, wrote that civility should be the glue 
holding dialogue together. The alternative to civility is, first, 
incivility, and we have seen too much of that. And then, he says, the 
next alternative is war. It is the violence that this Chamber saw 
before the Civil War and after that Civil War when Members actually 
assaulted one another. And it is the violence we see on the streets as 
respect for one another has worsened in our country.
  I am ashamed to tell my colleagues that when Americans sized up 
civility of different groups in our country, politicians came out 
almost dead last. We came out behind police officers, who 86 percent 
thought to be civil; athletes, 74 percent thought to be civil; 
government workers scored a 71 percent civility rating; lawyers got 60; 
journalists got 56; and politicians received a 55 percent civility 
rating. Forty percent thought all politicians had reached a low of 
incivility.
  It is time we begin to change that, Mr. Speaker. The civility pledge 
we have introduced is just the beginning. Recently the CRS, the 
Congressional Research Service, issued a report for Congress entitled 
``Decorum in House Debate.'' It tracked the history of incivility in 
our Chamber. It told us about the violence that had preceded this 
Congress and other Congresses. It told us about how speech had worsened 
from time to time, and how disrespect and nonharmonious relations had 
contributed to a worsening and a polarization of attitudes in this 
Chamber and in America.
  And then it issued a series of recommendations on how we could begin 
to change things. It literally listed a series, including the 
recommendation that the Chair should be more responsible in advising 
Members about breaches of decorum. The Chair should be a teacher, 
advising Members in the middle of a debate: You are about to step over 
the line, calm yourself down; you are about to breach the rules of this 
House; you are about to insult this institution that you fought so hard 
to be a Member of; you are about to bring it down in the eyes of the 
American public and destroy its credibility with our Nation; you are 
about to treat this institution as some kind of second class 
organization, when it is bigger than you, more important than you, and 
you should leave it a better place than you took it. The Chair ought to 
be more responsible in doing that.

  The CRS report says that after the Chair, the Members ought to take 
more responsibility for one another. We ought to be more calming of one 
another's tempers and emotions. We should be advising Members when we 
think they have gone beyond the pale, when they have gotten out of 
hand.
  And then our leadership ought to take a role in that regard. The 
leadership, for example, should restructure the 1-minutes in the 
morning, which have become theme-team efforts just to excite and 
aggravate, to get sound bites for television, rather than a healthy 
discourse on the issues.
  The leadership ought to take responsibility by issuing Dear 
Colleagues to Members, advising them on what the rules require of all 
of us to respect this institution and one another.
  The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has established a 
separate Office of Advice and Education. That office ought to hold 
briefings for Members on what our rules require, particularly the new 
Members as they come in and the older Members who constantly violate 
those rules and have to have their words taken down.
  There ought to be joint hearings of the House Committee on Rules and 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in which we can examine 
the lack of decorum in our Chamber. The joint leadership could appoint 
Members from both aisles to informally serve as a task force on decorum 
to assist in maintaining respect in this Chamber.
  The majority leader ought to make sure that he appoints Members to 
the Chair during House proceedings who really know the rules and will 
helpfully advise Members when they are about to violate those rules. 
Perhaps we could have a bipartisan summit, if it gets intolerable 
during this election season, and maybe we could consider stronger 
sanctions.
  A former Member, Representative Larry Wynn of Kentucky, upon his 
retirement, wrote: ``The growing rancor between Republicans and 
Democrats in the House of Representatives is deeply worrisome.'' Many 
House Members, including me, fear that this may be an ongoing trend 
rather than a temporary phenomenon.
  It is important now for both Republicans and Democrats to recognize 
that a continuation of this rancor will undercut the legislative 
process. It is my firm belief that the majority of Members of both 
sides of the aisle would like to reduce the level of tension and the 
partisan clashes and get on with the business of this country. It is up 
to us all to cool off, to sit down, to talk and come up with some 
suggestions for restoring greater civility, tolerance, and pragmatism 
in our procedures. If not, not only Members of this House, but the 
country will suffer.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, our little group, the alliance, the Blue Dog 
Republicans, and the small group on the other side, the Blue Dog 
Coalition, are nowhere near a majority of this Chamber, but we have 
begun what we hope is a groundswell. We hope other Members will sign up 
to our civility pledge. We

[[Page H4376]]

hope tonight is just the beginning of this discussion. We hope to have 
future discussions about civility and incivility in this Chamber.

                              {time}  2045

  We hope as a result of what we begin tonight this House will be a 
place where people come to honor and respect this institution and the 
people who sent us up here by being more respectful of one another, by 
being more tolerant of the different views in this House, and by 
debating the issues instead of insulting and questioning the motives of 
one another as we enter serious debate for the sake of our country.
  Our two little groups are dedicated to that, to put our party hats 
aside and to act like Americans in this Chamber, and to act like 
respectful Americans who came to this Chamber with an incredible amount 
of honor and respect for the folks who sent us here. If we can behave 
in that regard after we get here, we will not only honor this 
institution, we will honor this country and the people who made it so 
great, and who have made this institution the most and I think the 
greatest democratic institution in the world. We owe that to the 
American public and we owe that to this House.
  Tonight we begin that process, but we will not stop here. We will 
rise occasionally when the debate gets too heated and try to calm 
things down. We will try to get some of these recommendations adopted 
into our procedures in the House. We will talk to our leadership and 
see if we cannot get some of these improvements made. Most importantly, 
we will continue to counsel with one another across this aisle about 
the importance of being good Members of this House and good Americans 
when we come here, simply that and nothing more, to honor the folks who 
sent us here as we honor this institution.
  Thank you very much, Mr. Blute.
  Mr. BLUTE. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. Thank you, Mr. Blute. What I would like to do if we can 
is hold you three here. I am kind of tagging along. I was here on 
another matter of businesses, and your discussion is most intriguing 
and I think constructive. I would like to, if we can, just go through a 
couple, a few things and ask you all questions specifically, and then 
you all ask each other questions and let us make some dialog here.
  I am sitting here thinking while you all were talking as to why we do 
what we do, and it appears to me that we somehow may be deceived by 
thinking that the people who are listening to us want us to be this 
way. It may be that we are doing that. If that is the case, I think it 
is misguided because what we are probably trying to do is to show our 
independence.

  Folks think we get up here and deal with each other, and that we say 
we are going to do one favor for you and one favor for you and so 
forth, and we would not date say anything bad about each other or 
disagree because we are up here swapping out and that sort of thing. I 
think maybe some of us got elected by saying we do not want to be a 
part of that up there, so we come here and to prove that. We might have 
in the back of our minds an unconscious goal of trying to offend people 
and say back home, ``Look, for sure I don't get along with Mr. Tauzin. 
I'm not dealing with him because we're arguing, we're fighting.''
  But I think what we have got to learn is that we need to learn how to 
disagree with each other without disliking each other. There are two 
perspectives.
  Then I would like to talk to you all and let you tell me what you all 
think, since you have been on this thing a little bit more.
  There is a little store out from Camden, AR, about 4 miles that is 
called Harvey's Grocery. I have gone there ever since I have run, and I 
am close friends with Bobby Hildebrandt, his two sisters and his mom. 
She just had her 87th birthday. We sat around, and we just sat there 
with Miss Minnie, and she is that old.
  You sit and you say, ``Well, what do you think are we doing up 
there?'' They are saying, ``Why are you all so childish? Why are you so 
partisan?'' Folks are offended and put off by our bickering when we 
might be thinking we are pleasing them. We just may be missing it this 
way. What they are seeing, they are left out of this deal when we are 
bickering.
  Of course it is adverse to what is said in the Bible, too, Zach, if 
we are not able to show love to each other. But we have got to get the 
balance of being independent, having honest discussion and dialog 
without tearing each other up.
  Mr. WAMP. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKEY. I certainly will, Zach.
  Mr. WAMP. To me, the greatest tragedy of all, Congressman Dickey, our 
young people in this country are watching what we are doing. I know, as 
the gentleman from Louisiana said, when the parties come down on the 1 
minutes in the morning, sometimes the 1 minutes from the people on my 
side of the aisle, they are doing it, I am going, ``Oh, why does he 
have to do that? Why does she have to do that?''

  The people back home know better. They have designed these games to 
trash the other party and to play the blame game, and the American 
people are tired of the blame game. They want solutions. They sent us 
all up here to work together on some solutions, and the greatest 
tragedy is our young poeple are looking at it and saying, ``Well, I 
know one thing, I don't want to go into that business. I would rather 
play basketball for a living or go make some money and be a 
professional.''
  All those are good aspirations, but I yearn for the day when there is 
a young man or woman in this country who wants to be Thomas Jefferson, 
who wants to be a leader, who wants to go and help other people and to 
run this country and to say, ``I am so proud to be American, and I am 
so proud of my people in Congress and what they are doing and how well 
they regard each other, and is not it interesting how they disagree on 
the issues but they come back and respect each other. They do not trash 
each other.''
  We owe it to our kids. Our kids do not want to be involved in 
politics. It is a mean, dirty business and it should not be. We are 
disconnecting them from their own future, Jay. That is the greatest 
tragedy of all.
  Mr. BLUTE. If the gentleman would yield on that point, I think he 
says it very well. The issues is that none of us here thinks that we 
should have less debate--this should be made very clear--that we should 
have less debate, that we should examine these very difficult, divisive 
issues that we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis any less.
  I think most of the people supporting this, certainly Mr. Tauzin, are 
some of the finest, toughest debaters. They bring information to the 
table and boy, the clash of ideas is very important, we all believe 
that. But when you move beyond that clash of ideas and I think show a 
lack of respect or mutual admiration really of your colleagues, 
regardless if they are the most liberal or conservative views that are 
totally opposite of yours, if you get down below that level, I think 
that is when what happens, what you are saying. The people watch it, 
they tune out, they turn off.
  But a great high-level debate which has the clash of ideas is 
something that we need. Our system was made to be adversarial, there is 
no doubt about that. In the Federalist Papers Hamilton wrote that 
ambition should be made to counteract ambition. So the ambition of one 
ideology or one idea would be counteracted by another ideology or 
another idea, and that would be the way that we would have checks and 
balances, keep an eye on each other.

  So this is an adversarial system, just as our justice system is 
adversarial. You are a distinguished attorney. When you go into court, 
it is an adversarial system. It is tough. It is information, it is 
defining an issue and then exploiting perhaps weaknesses in the 
argument of the other side. But it is not meant to disparage, bring 
down, ridicule the other person. I think if we get into that, that is 
when the young people say, ``Boy, I don't want to be in a profession 
that engages in that type of activity.''
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

[[Page H4377]]

  Mr. TAUZIN. I think part of the problem, too, is that we fail to 
separate the politics of how we get here.
  Mr. DICKEY. That is right.
  Mr. TAUZIN. And how we return here in reelection campaigns with the 
art of governing. There is a huge difference between those two 
activities, yet we confuse them. Our politics have gotten meaner. 
Negative campaigning is the way in which candidates are now elected. 
Citizens are left with choosing the lesser of two evils, because they 
learn so many horrible things about all the candidates that they cannot 
really believe in any of them anymore.
  Time magazine wrote an article once that said that if Burger King 
and, say, McDonald's----
  Mr. DICKEY. How about Taco Bell?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Or Taco Bell, I should not fail to mention Taco Bell--had 
instead of talking about the good quality of their products, of their 
tacos and their hamburgers, if they had instead for 10 years got on 
television and talked about how rotten and awful and cancer-causing 
these products were, people would not be choosing between Taco Bell and 
Burger King and McDonald's. They would turn off on the whole mess. They 
would not go to fast-food restaurants anymore.
  The point is, our politics has led us to that. Our negative 
campaigning and our politics has led us to the point where the American 
public has kind of turned off on so much of the process by which we get 
elected.
  Then we come to this Chamber and we confuse our role again. We think 
we are all campaigning still, and we get into these heated fights, 
these partisan debates, these acrimonious accusations. There is 
questioning of motives, this attribution of ill intent, all these 
things we do as though we are still campaigning and running negative 
ads against one another.
  The art of governing is something else. The art of governing is 
putting the election behind you and debating ideas, and seeing which 
ideas have force and which have power and which can compel a majority 
to support them, and which make better common sense for the good of all 
the people of our country.
  In that clash and debate of ideas, we ought not have this, the 
politics of negative campaigning, but somehow it has infiltrated into 
this room, and our negative campaigns go on for 2 years. We ought to 
somehow call that to Members' attentions, and as Americans ask one 
another to separate the campaigns and the negative, ugly politics from 
the art of governing.
  Mr. BLUTE. If the gentleman would yield on that point. I think does 
it not begin by ceding to your opponent here in this well or on the 
clash of ideas over these very divisive issues, it begins by ceding one 
thing to your opponent up front, that their motivation is, in their 
view, in the best interest of their constituents.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Yes.
  Mr. BLUTE. And the American people.
  Mr. DICKEY. Yes.
  Mr. BLUTE. They are patriotic. They believe their philosophy is 
something that will help people. I think to some extent we have gotten 
away from that, and we think of our opposition in a debate format as 
someone who actually is out to hurt the people. That is just not the 
case.
  Mr. DICKEY. There is a biblical principle, and that is, find first 
what you have in common with somebody.
  Mr. BLUTE. Right.
  Mr. DICKEY. Both of you talked about something that is excellent. 
Billy is talking about the fact that we are bringing the politics on 
this floor. How can we be statesmen if we continue to try to play to 
the polls and to the negative things? We have some duty, as he was 
talking, we have some duty to educate and try to lead our constituents 
away from the negative that they see is sometime enjoyable. Sometimes 
they see that.
  Let me mention two other things. One is, generalizations are so 
harmful. Just to say all people from Arkansas are like that in a 
debate, and particularly when it gets heated, all you Republicans are 
that way, all Democrats are that way, and someone will say, ``Wait a 
minute, I'm an exception.'' That is not finding something in common 
with somebody, that is finding something negative, and I think we all 
do it.
  The other perspective I want to bring to you all, before you 
interrupted me and just carried this debate too far, is the people who 
sit up here, that have sat up here for years, ask them the next time 
you have a chance, just go and say, how is it different? They will, the 
ones I have talked to and the ones that answered me, their countenance 
kind of falls and they say, ``It's not near like it used to be. There's 
too much bickering.'' There is even one person who said, ``We have 
never heard the profanity like we have here.''
  You see? That is dragging us all down, and what Billy is saying is so 
true. If we are constantly complaining about each other, you see, not 
talking about issues but each other, it is going to be destructive and 
we are not going to be doing what we need to do for the people of 
America.

  Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield, let me draw a distinction. I 
think the American public expects us to vigorously debate ideas.
  Mr. DICKEY. That is right.
  Mr. TAUZIN. And I do not think there is anything wrong with your 
characterizing my idea. You can characterize my idea as you see it. 
When you go from characterizing my idea to attacking me personally----
  Mr. DICKEY. And questioning your motives.
  Mr. TAUZIN. And questioning my motives or my intent, it has gone 
beyond the pale. It has gotten out of the debate and gotten into the 
negative politics, is my point. If we could all, I hope every day, 
listen to the speeches on the floor of the House and all of us start 
thinking, is that really a debate over the idea? Or is that a debate 
challenging the motives or the intentions of the individual?
  And every time you find that difference, kind of go up to that 
individual and say as a friend, as a colleague, ``Maybe you stepped 
over the line. You went too far. Go back to debate the idea, please. 
That person over there got elected just like you, by people just like 
your people back home, who love this country and sent you over here to 
do a good, honest day's work in debating ideas, not challenging 
people's intentions and motives.''
  Mr. BLUTE. If I could just interrupt for a second, Jefferson had a 
great line. I do not have the exact line, but he said that we should 
always believe that our opposition is at least, there is a 10-percent 
chance that they may be right, that we may be wrong. We should always 
leave that opening for us all as we debate. If we do that, it is a wise 
statement, then we kind of keep a broader mind.
  Mr. WAMP. Another interesting dynamic, if my colleague would yield, 
please, is that many of the new Members feel that the seniority system 
in this institution that had grown out of touch over a period of time 
needed some reform, that the seniority system did not serve us too 
well, because whoever was around the longest got to be in charge, and 
some things just inherently were not fair. They did not reward hard 
work and effectiveness, they really rewarded the seniority of Members.
  I think in the passion of the day, even some of my freshmen 
colleagues failed to recognize that while the seniority system is 
moving aside, I think after the last election, half this body about had 
been here less than 3 years, and after the next election, based on the 
turnover we anticipate, it may be two-thirds of this body will be here 
less than 5 years. So the seniority system is being moved out.
  As the seniority system moves out, we have to recognize that the 
respect has got to stay. We cannot move it all out and replace it with 
some kind of bomb-throwing mentality, that we are going to storm this 
place and rock this place. This place is unreal. It is magnificent. It 
sends chills up and down your spine when you walk the hallowed Halls of 
the U.S. Congress.

                              {time}  2100

  We got to leave it that big. It is that big, and it deserves that.
  Mr. BLUTE. The gentleman would yield, and I think he is right on 
target here. It is not just the history. It is the actual individuals 
who serve here. I have been shocked in my 4 years to see the quality of 
the individual, but also some of the histories are fascinating. For 
example, the guy in the office next to me is Sam Johnson from Dallas, 
TX,

[[Page H4378]]

who is an American hero. And then to think that he spent 7 years of his 
life for his fellow citizens in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war 
camp, the Hanoi Hilton, facing torture and abuse and solitary 
confinement for 2 years. Now that is incredible.
  Mr. Speaker, but then we look over on the Democratic side and see 
someone like Sam Gibbons, who landed at D-day, and that was a long time 
ago. I have read about it in the history books, but to be able to sit 
next to someone and perhaps engage in a conversation about, boy, what 
was that like?
  I mean, this is an incredible place. John Lewis marched with Martin 
Luther King.
  Mr. DICKEY. And got beaten up.
  Mr. BLUTE. Stood up for his people, for their civil rights. That is a 
tremendous history. And I think from my own area, the Kennedy family 
and their great history and contributions to America. You have got 
Patrick Kennedy and Joe Kennedy. I mean, this is an incredible place. 
We should have on both sides of the aisle high quality individuals, men 
and women from all kinds of different backgrounds.
  I just think that we should reflect that high quality in our debates.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, let me introduce one other thought to this 
discussion, and that is good humor. I know you all have it, and we kid 
each other a lot. But you know, if we could get our personalities in 
this thing and do jokes some, you knows, there are some good things 
that can be said in the heat of a debate. We can laugh, and there is 
nothing wrong with it.
  Now some people, if you bring good humor to debate here, they say 
that is not congressional, you see. But if we use it as part of a dose 
of medicine, it is awfully good.
  Now, I want to suggest something here that might seem a little 
trivial, it is, that we have V chips. You understand that we all have V 
chips. When we get over the line and we bring the politics in, somehow 
we cut off like we do on television.
  We can do it. One of you all mentioned that we can go up to our 
colleagues, particularly those on the same side of the aisle, and say 
you have gone over the line a little bit, the V chip went off, you see.
  But what do you all think of good humor and how have you seen it work 
to help and, Billy, you probably have story after story.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Of course, I can tell you countless stories, particularly 
from my Louisiana experience in the Louisiana legislature, about how 
Members who have spent time with another and have come to know and 
love, and respect one another in the same way that Peter has talked so 
admirably about some of my Democratic colleagues who have such a 
history of contribution to our country, who in the heat of debate 
gently, with humor, brought each other back to a point of civility when 
things were getting out of hand.
  Mr. Speaker, I recall once we were debating the institution of a 
board of contractors so that the Government would not appoint all the 
contractors. The board will end up doing it. One of the 
oldest gentlemen in the House stood up and said, ``Now, Billy, you know 
you can't take politics out of politics any more than you can take 
kissing out of loving.''

  And I said, I know you cannot take politics out of politics, and I 
certainly would not want to take kissing out of loving. We just are 
trying to take a little kissing out of politics.
  The humor of that moment of course made a point, but it also kept 
what otherwise was sometimes heated debate in line, and it is a useful 
tool. But I think the most important tool of all the tools that are 
available to us is a recognition that you came here the same way I did. 
I ought to respect you, and I ought to respect your ideas because you 
speak with not your own voice. You speak with the voice of 500,000 or 
600,000 people who sent you up here to be their voice. And if I cannot 
respect you and your voice, I am disrespecting them in their homes. If 
I have that attitude, that is the most important tool in my arsenal to 
make me a little more civil in this body.
  Mr. DICKEY. Is it not true that you respect my voice a little bit 
more because we are closer to Louisiana right on the border? Is that 
not true? Do you not listen to me a little bit more because it is home 
folks talking?
  Mr. TAUZIN. You are bigger than me.
  Mr. BLUTE. I just noticed that we are surrounded by Southerners here. 
But of course we do not have any accents up there in New England, of 
course.
  You know, some of the finest moments that I have experienced here 
were interparty tributes. For example, I recall when our colleague, Ray 
LaHood, I thought did a nice job when he took the floor, Republican, to 
pay tribute to a Democratic colleague, Bill Richardson, upon his 
successful diplomatic effort to liberate American citizens from Saddam 
Hussein's Iraq. That was a great example I think of mutual respect.
  Perhaps the other one that I enjoyed so much was when our 
distinguished colleague from Illinois, Henry Hyde, recognized Jim 
Bunning on the day he was elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame. We 
all know how important that was.
  Mr. DICKEY. And there is nothing wrong with crying, letting a tear 
fall every now and then.
  Mr. BLUTE. But again, you know, we need to have vigorous debate. I 
mean, again the people who were promoting this civility resolution are 
some of the hardest, toughest debaters, and I have heard Zach out 
there. Jay gave a speech earlier on the minimum wage, on his position 
on that minimum wage. It was very focused on the issue. You did not 
characterize the other side as wanting to kill jobs, but that you felt 
the result would be that there would be jobs lost, and I think that is 
what we want.
  We want a vigorous debate, tough, tough minded, tough 
characterizations, but we need to keep it within a limit so that we do 
not turn off the American people because, frankly, they need to hear 
and be educated about some of these very complicated issues.
  Mr. TAUZIN. You know, Peter, if you yield, I think you are right. 
Some of the most stirring moments have been when Members have done 
that, have risen to congratulate Members on the other side of the 
aisle, and not only a good collegial way, but in a way that I think 
Americans said, hey, maybe these people are not just a bunch of kids. 
They are Americans first. Maybe they are not just Republicans and 
Democrats. Maybe they do care about something other than their 
reelection. Maybe they care about this country, and maybe they respect 
one another enough once in a while to say something nice about one 
another.
  And maybe, just maybe, just thinking aloud with you, Peter, maybe 
that is one thing we in our two groups ought to try to encourage more, 
that we do more of those kinds of speeches on the floor when another 
Member, particularly from the other side who has had a success, who has 
had a tragedy, who has had something happen that is to them and to the 
folks that sent him here, that we rise on the floor and show our 
admiration, our feelings of sympathy, whatever it may be, to literally 
demonstrate that we do, to the American public, that we do respect one 
another more than our words sometimes indicate.
  Mr. BLUTE. I think a great example of this was the political 
relationship between somebody who I have a great deal of respect for, 
who brought me into Republican politics. That was our former President, 
Ronald Reagan, and his relationship with Speaker of the House Tip 
O'Neill, who had tremendous differences over policy. I mean, they 
literally hated each other's views and direction they wanted to take 
the country, but, boy, they also communicated a mutual respect, a 
mutual admiration, and even a certain friendship.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mixed with good humor, if you remember.
  Mr. BLUTE. And with some great humor exchanges between them which 
communicated to the American people that the Government at least could 
ultimately decide on things, move forward on that key question that we 
respect each other as Americans first and then we have differences on 
policy.
  Mr. WAMP. If the gentleman would yield, and the theme and the message 
there is what you said earlier. We are reflective of the American 
people. I said as a candidate that I thought that Congress was a mirror 
image of America. Whoever is sent here is in fact a mirror image of 
what is out there.

[[Page H4379]]

  Mr. Speaker, if we are mean and shallow and harsh, the country is 
mean and shallow and harsh. If we are kind and respectful and 
dignified, the country is kind and respectful and dignified. That is 
how important this is. This is a critical issue.
  I think we should take the initiative, Congressman Tauzin, to 
actually discourage the leadership of both parties from engaging in 
these short speeches, just openly critical, playing the blame game. I 
think we ought to as a group, we ought to take the lead on that to say, 
you know, it is time because it does not matter who wins or loses in 
the political blame game here. What matters most is that this 
institution is sinking in esteem and that our young people are seeing 
the wrong thing, and we need to take that off.

  I like your V-chip idea. We ought to V that right out. We ought to 
get that right off the page here. Both parties would not be any better 
or any worse off if we did away with that because each party gets equal 
time, and they are basically just blaming each other. I do not think 
the people out there in the hinterland, whether they agree or disagree 
with people, much care for that kind.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we respect ourselves when we 
do that. I think we walk over here saying, boy, but there is a feeling 
that settles in that I miss the point by doing that.
  Mr. BLUTE. Some of the debates I think we all agree that we walk into 
here coming from our offices, we cringe at the level that it has sunk 
to because we may have been en route here.
  Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield, you know, Americans like a 
good fight. We are not talking about not having some good healthy 
fights over issues. We are not talking about, you know, some little-
pinkie gentility in this Chamber. We are not talking about being less 
than healthy, hearty debaters on the issues that face America.
  There are some enormous divisions in this body and in America on many 
of these issues. There is an extreme need for us to debate those things 
in a healthy fashion so that we either come to closure or realize we 
cannot, one or the other, and then we let the American people settle it 
in the next election.
  That is all healthy. We ought to have those vigorous, hearty, healthy 
debates. Americans ought to see a good battle on this floor of ideas, 
not of personalities. You ought to see a healthy fight when it comes to 
what is right and what is wrong in terms of legislation, but they ought 
to never see, they ought never see us behaving like Boy Scouts without 
a troop leader.
  Mr. DICKEY. I agree with that. Now you know, let us say something 
that is positive here. We are having an enormous change in our Nation. 
You know, Zach was talking about it is a mirror image. But what the 
people of America see when they see us debating here is a change that 
cannot take place in any other government in the world. We are 
changing. I mean, we have cut $40 billion out of the budget this year, 
you see, for this year. We have cut spending like we have, and how have 
we done it? We have done it through debate, and there are some people 
that are still suffering. There are still some people that are still 
bitter, and reconciliation is a real key.

  But let us change topics a second. What can we do, what permission do 
we have from our voters to get to know each other than on this floor, 
and how is the best way to do it? Now, I think we have thrown aside the 
trips that we take for pleasure and all the things, all the excesses 
that way. But what are some of the things, because that is what 
happens, is when you sit there and you know that you have been at a 
prayer breakfast with so and so, or you have been on a committee with 
so and so. But what can we do to promote our getting to know each other 
better away from the floor?
  Mr. WAMP. Amazingly, as a freshman, it shocked me when I got here how 
from the day you are here as a new Member they separate you, 
Republicans over here, Democrats over here. Republicans get this 
training, Democrats get this training. The freshman class did not even 
meet as a freshman class. It was the Republicans over here the 
Democrats over here. And so the only way to build bridges is one on 
one, interactively. We even sit over here, they sit over there.
  Mr. Speaker, I mean, that is amazing to me because, as Billy said, we 
all had to fight the same fight to get here, and we all represent the 
same number of people or thereabouts, and so I think you have to.
  I am in a weekly small group, bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans. 
We meet every week to just walk through the problems with our lives 
here and to hold each other accountable while we are separated from our 
families, while we are here. It is a great thing, and it is bipartisan. 
Some of my greatest relationships here: Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania and 
Bart Stupak of Michigan, are Democrats, are in my small group. Some of 
my greatest relationships now have been built with my friends from the 
other side of the aisle.
  I think these small group efforts sometimes, if you exercise, you 
need to physically keep your body alive, you develop relationships 
exercising with friends from the other party. You mentioned the prayer 
breakfast. There are some retreats that are now planned in a bipartisan 
way so that people can build relationships because, once you build a 
relationship with somebody, you are not going to trash that person's 
ideas or ideology.
  Mr. DICKEY. Let me ask you this. Do you not think that getting to 
know somebody away from here helps you with a perspective, too?
  Mr. WAMP. Amen.
  Mr. DICKEY. I mean, these trips are bad as we have seen the excesses, 
but getting away and looking back together about what we are doing here 
helps in the relationships, and I think it will help the dialogs if we 
do more of it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman would yield, I think he has touched on a 
good point. The point is that we have separated one another by party in 
this place. We are led by party leaders who serve a dual function.

                              {time}  2115

  One of their functions is to represent their party on this floor, and 
party positions. The other function is to be the leadership of the 
House. They are two different functions. I think sometimes that gets 
confused. As leaders of different parties, I think they probably would 
like to keep us separate in that role.
  But there is a bigger role they play, the leadership of the House, 
and perhaps we could appeal to them every once in a while to literally 
look for ways that would bring us a little closer; maybe, as this 
report indicates, to hold summit conferences, where we could talk about 
this obligation to this House, to one another, and to the folks who 
elected us; where we could literally get to know one another a little 
better.
  I am always amazed when we do have these kinds of meetings, whether 
it is a prayer breakfast or whether it is a joint meeting, a gathering, 
a coalition of mainstream Republican members, how once we learned a 
little bit more about one another, not only does our respect deepen, 
because everybody comes over here with so much experience and talent, 
and when you learn about it, you say, ``Wow, I did not know that about 
you. I did not realize you had that much to offer.'' We are surprised 
sometimes about what quality people you find here. It does get harder 
then to debate with them and be ugly to them.
  Mr. DICKEY. That is the excess. The excess of congeniality can be 
harmful, too. That is the balance.
  Mr. BLUTE. If the gentleman will yield, many of the senior Members, 
reflecting back on their long careers here, mention that ``In the old 
days we used to get along, we used to do other things, so that our 
wives knew each other, our husbands knew each other, our spouses.'' So 
yes, I think in recent years there has been a separation, as the 
gentleman from Tennessee, Zack Wamp, said.
  I remember when my freshman class in 1992 came, we did not get a 
chance to do anything together, either, between the freshman Democrat 
and Republican class. We called it separated at birth, that we were 
just kind of put in different camps, and it was months, really, before 
we ever got a chance to say, ``Hey, you got elected this year, too. How 
did you get elected? What issues did you talk about?'' Then you find 
out that many of them were the same issues, because we are reflecting, 
I think,

[[Page H4380]]

politically what the American people are thinking they want. They want 
change, they want reform, and they want reasonableness in our public 
policy and in our public debate.

  Mr. DICKEY. Where are you all going with this?
  Mr. TAUZIN. There is another thing we ought to mention before we 
conclude this special order tonight. That is that we all share some 
responsibility for the decline of civility in this place, for the 
decline of civility in politics in general.
  A recent study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a 
nonpartisan foundation group, did a study of the 1996 Presidential race 
coverage. They found that it was so negative. They found that it was 
highly negative coverage, heavy but misleading coverage of the 
horserace, and much less attention on the meat, the debate that was 
going on between the candidates.
  We are in an election year right now. We see too much of that, I 
think, in the coverage of this Chamber. C-SPAN now brings this debate 
to so many people's homes, and I think when we look at television 
coverage of our campaigns and we see that negativism, we think maybe 
they ought to see it on C-SPAN, too, and we emulate it here.
  I think all of that contributes generally to the decline of civility, 
not only in our politics, not only in this Chamber, but in the society 
at large. I think Zach probably said it best: We should be a better 
example for America. If we expect our children and our citizens to lead 
a more civil life, to not run each other on the road, and to insult one 
another and eventually drive-by shoot one another, we ought to start by 
being a little more civil in this Chamber, where they watch us every 
day on C-SPAN.
  Mr. DICKEY. Where are you going with this now?
  Mr. BLUTE. We are closing out our special order now.
  Mr. DICKEY. After this, what is the next thing?
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue this. We are going 
to continue to pursue signatories. We have 70 cosponsors. We think, as 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] said, every Member should 
sign it. It is basically fairly basic stuff most people, I think, can 
agree with. It takes, I think, a commitment to try, and all of us have 
to do it.
  Sometimes we get angry, sometimes we get upset at 
mischaracterizations on the debate floor, but it means thinking about, 
you know, let us keep this in check. I think this special order is a 
step forward, but also the pledge. We are also trying to get more 
people, so if you could help us with that, that would be very, very 
helpful.

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, there is 
nothing like peer pressure. If we all work to get each other to sign 
this pledge, and having signed it, to feel embarrassed when we violate 
it, we will have done one major step towards restoring civility in this 
Chamber. That is our first goal.
  Our second goal is to see some of these recommendations of CRS 
enacted: The leadership reforms, the role of the Chair in educating the 
Members, the role of Members to help one another stay within the lines 
of decorum and, eventually, maybe some of the ideas you expressed 
tonight; maybe getting us together in a bipartisan way once in a while, 
just to know one another a little better and to learn to respect each 
other a little more.
  Mr. DICKEY. Thank you for including me.
  Mr. BLUTE. We would like to thank all of the Members who came out 
tonight on both sides of the aisle to participate in this special 
order. We think it is an important issue, and we believe that the 
American people think it is an important issue. We are going to move 
forward on this.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about 
civility and decorum in the House of Representatives tonight because I 
believe it is a very important subject. I want to thank my friends and 
colleagues, Peter Blute and Pete Geren, for organizing this special 
order tonight.
  The Blue Dogs were originally organized to reach across the aisle and 
find bipartisan, commonsense solutions to our problems. As a member of 
the blue dog organization, I am dedicated to seeking new ways of 
cooperation between members of both parties to develop a solution-
oriented approach to Government. A very important part of seeking a new 
level of cooperation is to create a more civil and cooperative 
environment for the exchange of ideas.
  Since the establishment of this great institution, it has been 
recognized that courtesy and decency among Members of Congress was 
necessary in order to enhance the ability of the membership to hear 
opposing views in the process of reaching a consensus. Further, without 
the presence of civility and mutual respect, the process of legislating 
becomes much more difficult. Hostility limits creative thinking and the 
sharing of views so important to good government.
  But all of these logical and worthy reasons for improving decorum 
pale in comparison to the reasons I would like to touch on this 
evening. You see, when people talk about civility and decorum in 
Congress, we commonly hear about past confrontations involving canes, 
guns, and even duels. Fortunately today we don't face quite such 
drastic measures, but I would submit that the general lack of comity 
and decorum on this very floor has a wide reaching impact that I urge 
my colleagues to consider every time they speak on this floor.
  The reason for this is television. Whenever a Member of this body 
stands in this well to speak, he or she is not speaking only to other 
Members of this body, but they are also speaking to thousands of 
Americans throughout our country. All of us were elected to represent 
the American people. We owe it to the people we represent to conduct 
ourselves in a respectful and proper manner. If you think about it, we 
are all ambassadors of our districts.
  As public officials and leaders, I believe we have a responsibility 
to conduct ourselves in a manner that is respectful to the American 
people. Every poll shows that the American people hold Congress in low 
regard. It is no wonder they hold us in such low regard when every time 
they turn on the television, they see an argument taking place.

  Before running for Congress, I was a judge. I had a wonderful career 
in the law, where respect and dignity are highly valued. When I 
announced to my family that I was going to run for Congress, my mother 
was really shocked, and maybe a little disappointed. ``Why do you want 
to go down there and join that sleazy institution?'' she asked me. 
Well, I will tell you the same thing I told my mother. I came here to 
try and do everything I could to make Congress a place the American 
people can once again be proud of.
  We teach our children to resolve their differences peacefully and 
civilly. We teach them to listen to others and to air their grievances 
in a positive, respectful manner. Many schools in our Nation today have 
conflict resolution programs that are aimed at teaching our children to 
resolve their differences through civil negotiation and compromise. It 
is time we start to practice what we preach. I passionately believe 
that one of the most important responsibilities bestowed upon every 
Member of Congress as a leader, is to set an example. We have set the 
wrong example for our children and for the American people. How can we 
expect our children to heed our appeals for respectful and 
compassionate conduct if we do not conduct ourselves in the same 
manner?
  Many of the issues that we debate here on this floor have great 
national import. Members hold firm and passionate views about these 
issues. And they should. There is plenty of room for vigorous and 
energetic debate. And we should have that. But no matter how 
passionately one feels about a particular issue, it is no excuse for 
name calling or other uncivil conduct. I cannot emphasize enough my 
belief that we must--must set an example for the American people, 
especially for our children.
  In closing, let me say that the issue of conduct on this floor goes 
beyond any single legislative fight. It even goes beyond the issues of 
decorum and comity in debate. This issue is about respect. Respect for 
ourselves and our views as well as respect for the views of those who 
may disagree with us. We owe it to ourselves to conduct business in a 
professional and courteous manner, but most importantly, we owe it to 
the American people.
  So I would urge my colleagues to think, every time they step onto 
this floor to speak, to think about the example they want to set for 
the people of our country, especially the children.

                          ____________________