[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.
____________________