Whenever the topic of civility and our working relationship with our colleagues is raised, I recall the story Bill Hudnut told on being just elected to Congress. The first phone call he received was from a lady complaining about her garbage collection. He said “Ma’am, I’ve just been elected to serve you in the U.S. House of Representatives. Don’t you think you should call the Sanitation Department?” The woman replied, “I really didn’t want to go that high.”

Humility is often in short supply around here. A little humility and decency to others – not because they are Members of Congress, but because they are people – would go a long way.

I think it should be noted – and I believe Dr. Jamieson would concur – that we do generally work well together. In one particular instance, during the consideration of the 1996 Telecommunications bill, many members on our side of the aisle – myself included – worked very closely with the former Chairman of the Commerce Committee and dean of the House, Congressman John Dingell, and other members on the other side of the aisle to craft a consensus bill. This kind of interaction and cooperation on legislation happens frequently in the House, but it goes unnoticed by the public.

However, many times what people believe to be incivility on C-Span is actually the open exchange of honest ideological differences in an honest debate. Democrats honestly believe in certain ideas. Republicans honestly believe in certain ideas. We are sent here by our constituents to hammer out legislation, and our differing beliefs many times simply result in an honest and vigorous debate.

In an institution like the House of Representatives this kind of exchange of views must be expected. Tony and I – for example – honestly differ on many policy issues, and a good partisan debate is a sign that our system of deliberative government is sound. However, most of us would agree that the general working relationship would be enhanced if the focus of debate would remain on the wisdom of the arguments, rather than on casting aspersions or on assigning blame.

Nonetheless, I am pleased to note that Capitol Hill no longer serves as a site for settling a debate with a duel at ten paces or a caning on the Senate floor. As Dr. Jamieson testified last year, incivility in the House is very rare. And while events such as the bipartisan Congressional retreat in Hershey are helpful to the level of discourse, wholesale changes are not necessary.

Regarding some of the proposed changes, it should be noted that the first rules of decorum were laid out during the first Congress only seven days after it first convened in 1789, and many times Members make unknowing violations of these set rules of the House because they have not studied the House rules well.

One parliamentary method in Jefferson’s Manual states that “if a member finds that it is not the inclination of the House to hear him, and that by conversation or any other noise they endeavor to drown his voice, it is his most prudent way to submit to the pleasure of the House, and sit down; for it scarcely ever happens that they are guilty of this piece of ill manners without sufficient reason, or inattention to a member who says anything worth their hearing.”

While this parliamentary method has not been enforced since the early 1800s, the general premise is something that people should be aware of when considering a speech beyond the scope of that being considered on the House floor.

Before introducing the first panel, I wanted to mention that a better awareness of the rules could allow Members and staff to better participate in the proceedings of the House in a civil manner. To further this goal, the Rules Committee has developed a comprehensive parliamentary training program for Members and staff, and an expanded World Wide Web site at www.house.gov/rules to serve as a source of parliamentary and legislative information.