22
debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the House to conduct its business in an orderly manner and
without unnecessary and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or antagonism from those other branches of the
government with which the House is correlated.”
The rules of the House and the precedents interpreting them are designed to create a climate conducive to deliberation.
Accordingly, they circumscribe what a member may say about those involved in the legislative process: other members
of the House, members of the Senate, the Speaker, the President, and those nominated for President or Vice President.
By dampening tensions, the rules of the House and Senate increase the likelihood that the best ideas of each party will
be heard whether or not they are incorporated into legislation. The rules themselves and the presence of a nonpartisan
parliamentarian decrease the likelihood that the party or ideology of the chair will dictate the chair’s rulings.
While a demand to take down words is pending, for example, “the Speaker has the right to refuse to recognize
parliamentary inquiries” or a “unanimous consent request that a Member be allowed to proceed for one minute.”
17
By
curtailing a member’s right to speak until it is determined whether the offending words will be struck from the record,
the rules also dampen the likelihood that the tensions will escalate. The process of taking down the words focuses the
House’s attention on the nature of inappropriate discourse; striking words from the Congressional Record expresses
collective disapproval; requiring the consent of the body before the offending member is permitted to re-enter the day’s
debate establishes a formal mechanism for reincorporating into the deliberate community those who have breached
decorum.
This process also minimizes the likelihood that a person attacked will respond in kind. By focusing debate on the
topic under consideration rather than on the advocates themselves, the rules depersonalize the discourse of Congress.
So, for example, speakers do not address each other but rather the Chair (“Mr. Speaker”); they speak of each other
as representatives of a state (“the gentlewoman from”) not as spokespersons for a party or a position; the person
recognized by the Chair determines whether, if, and to whom to yield the oor.
The taking down process makes institutional sense only if the Chair is perceived as evenhanded and consistent and the
members of both parties are presumed to share an interest in maintaining comity. By contrast, if the members of each
party treat the taking down process as a partisan act, the process becomes a meaningless exercise that will inevitably
produce a result consistent with the wishes of the majority party. Depending on what suits its interest, the majority party
can successfully appeal any ruling of the Chair or table any motion to appeal a ruling. If a member of the minority
objects to striking the words, the majority has the votes to strike. In this scenario, any ruling by the Chair against the
words of a member of the minority would be upheld and any against a member of the majority voided. The request that
the member be permitted to proceed in order can be politicized as well.
TrackingIncivilityThroughtheTakingDownofWords
Tracking incivility assumes access to an accurate record of what has been said on the oor. For a number of reasons,
that assumption is problematic. Until the 104th Congress, the Congressional Record did not faithfully reect what had
happened on the oor. Members were able to alter the Record “usually,” wrote Roll Call, “to preserve an illusion of
total decorum in Congress.”
18
For example, two members got into a shouting match during the debate over the Family
Planning Amendments Act in April 1993, and one yelled at the other, who was trying to interrupt him, “You had better
not do that, ma’am. You will regret that as long as you live. Who do you think you are?” What appeared in the Record
was, “I will say to the gentlelady, for whom I have the greatest respect, I would hope that she or any other Member not
try to cut off another Member when a serious matter like this is to be resolved here in the proper House.”
19
Because the
taking down process that results in a ruling is recorded, we view it as the most reliable measure of the institution’s own
perception of breaches in decorum on the oor.
17 Michel, Robert H. (1993). Words Taken Down: The History, Evolution and Precedents of an Important House Rule. R.H. Michel Papers - Leadership -
Box 15 - F. Leadership -103rd - “Dear Colleagues” - 10/8/93 at the Dirkson Congressional Center, Pekin IL. P.7.
18 The same is true of the Senate. When a senior senator told another to “shut his own mouth,” he was able to excise the statement from the Record.
19 Stephen Barr, “House Moves Record Closer to the Truth,” The Washington Post, January 9, 1995, A15.