The impeachment debate in the House created the most tense and most partisan moments of the 105th Congress. As we noted earlier, the partisanship of that debate is reflected in a spike in our measure of the language of non-cooperation. An increase in incivility is captured most clearly in our measure of name calling.

At the opening of the debate, the speaker read an announcement that reiterated points made "with the concurrence of the minority leader on September 10, 1998 during the pendency of proceedings in the impeachment…." The announcement cited precedents for the conclusion that "While a wide range of discussion is permitted during debate, Clause 1 of Rule 14 still prohibits the use of language which is personally abusive…" The announcement concluded with the reminder that "While the impeachment matter is pending on the floor, the chair would remind Members that although the personal conduct of the president is at issue, the rules prohibit Members from engaging in generally personal, abusive language toward the President and also from engaging in comparisons to personal conduct of sitting members of either House of Congress." (The comment about "comparisons to personal conduct of sitting members" elicited groans from some in the Chamber.) Throughout the House debate, the Speaker pro tempore maintained a disinterested nonpartisan tone. His handling of the role was widely praised.

Moreover, one of the more volatile moments in the debate, the exchanges on the move by Democrats to secure a vote on censure, was civil. When Democrats attempted to secure the option to censure, the subsequent debate over the point of order on the motion to recommit was carefully reasoned, thoughtfully documented, and free of vitriol. A moment that could have marked the low point of the debate instead became a high point. The ruling of the chair, which had been anticipated by Democrats, was accepted without rhetorical bloodshed.

Instead of initiating requests to take down during rancorous moments, members instead used less confrontational parliamentary alternatives. For example, one member asked, "Mr. Speaker, is the word hypocrisy in order on this floor?" Instead of initiating parliamentary intervention, another noted "I must say I am very saddened to report, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to several speakers, and that I have seen frankly quite caustic and harsh characterizations of the motives of the Members…[W]ould it be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for me to ask on behalf of the dignity of the Chamber to exercise the authority of the Chair to remind Members of these protocols and respects, and perhaps if necessary enforce them so that we on this side may not find ourselves compelled to raise it as a point on the floor during the debate…"

METHODOLOGY

This section explains how we arrived at our conclusions.

Requests and rulings that words be taken down:
For the years 1935 -- 1984 requests that words be taken down were calculated by copying the reports on words taken down from the House Journal appendices and checking them against reports by Ilona Nickels for the Congressional Research Service, and by Republican leader Bob Michel. For the years 1984 -- 1998 requests that words be taken down were calculated by searching an electronic database of the Congressional Record for "take" in the same sentence as "down." A researcher then examined each case to verify its relevance. The counts for the years before 1985 only include requests that resulted in a ruling and not times when the words were withdrawn, the demand was withdrawn, the demand was too late, or a caution was given by the chair.

Word Rates:
Because the length of congressional sessions varies, all word counts are reported in rates (i.e., the number of times the words appear per 1000 pages in the Congressional Record). Our word list was generated by coding words actually used in a session of Congress into two categories: uncivil and other. This process produced a list of over 400 words that might indicate incivility. These words were then sorted into several categories by four different coders. Only those categorized in the same way by at least three coders were used. This resulted in 294 words in seven categories. Six of these categories measure incivility. One (non-cooperation) is a measure of partisanship.

Incivility

Partisanship

Each word was then searched in an electronic database. The totals where summed by index and session of Congress. The index total for each session was then divided by the number of pages in the Congressional Record for that session and multiplied by a factor of 1,000. This resulted in a word rate that measured the number of times the words in the each index were used per 1,000 pages of the Congressional Record.

Note:

Because they are decontextualized, the word counts tend to overestimate actual incidents of incivility. For example, "you are a liar" is counted the same as "you are not a liar."

RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN BACKGROUND REPORT PREPARED FOR THE FIRST HERSHEY RETREAT HELD IN MARCH

Changing the record

1. Adopt the model of the court system, providing descriptions of visual aids in the Record. This would permit the Parliamentarian's Office to develop a list of precedents governing visual materials.

2. Record efforts to gavel down a Member. Often, what appear to be inconsistent exercises of parliamentary authority would appear less so if the Record showed that the inappropriate behavior was being gavelled down. If this change is made, it would be important to note when the Chair is gavelling to quiet the gallery rather than the floor.

Changing the rules

1. Encourage more parliamentary intervention against unparliamentary language during Special Orders. Change the rules to say that appeals of the decision of the Chair made after regular business hours will be taken under consideration to be voted on at a specified time on the next legislative day. In the meantime, the Member whose words have been taken down will retain the right to speak for the rest of the day. After the vote on the appeal from the ruling of the Chair, if the Chair's ruling is sustained, permission would be required for the Member to proceed in order for that day.

2. When a Member uses unparliamentary language, the words are taken down, stricken from the record and the Member requires permission to regain speaking privileges for the day. There should be some comparable form of penalty for a Member who threatens another Member with violence or engages in an act of violence on the floor, in areas adjacent to the floor, or in committee meetings.

Creating a culture conducive to comity

1. When a Member is named, questioned, or referred to by another and requests the opportunity to respond, he or she should be yielded to for response. When a Member plans to criticize another Member on the floor during Special Orders, he or she should as a courtesy notify that Member. In the past, individuals of both parties have assumed that they should be granted these courtesies. For example: "Will the gentleman yield to me since he has mentioned my name?"⁽¹⁾ "Will the gentleman yield now? He has mentioned my name for a third time."⁽²⁾ "Mr. Speaker, I had thought the gentleman had asked me questions and was going to provide 5 seconds for me to respond."⁽³⁾

2. When one side has yielded to the other, it is courteous to reciprocate when one holds floor.⁽⁴⁾

3. When a Member refuses to yield, requests to yield should cease.

4. Words being withdrawn should not be repeated.

5. When a Member indicates a willingness to apologize, the apology should be accepted.

Changing practice

Increase party vigilance

1. Members have functioned as parliamentary watchdogs in the past (e.g., Representatives Walker and Volkmer). They have acted aggressively to protect the rights of their party and of its Members. Indeed, when Representative Walker retired, he was eulogized by one of his colleagues on the grounds that "For years he served his party, this institution and the country by challenging procedure and process to ensure that the minority voice and opinion would be heard."⁽⁵⁾

The parties might assign Members of comparable skill to restrain the inappropriate tendencies of their own party. These individuals would be tasked with calming the Members and their speech before it oversteps the line, securing recognition to urge a change in the tone of debate-and would move to take their own Member's words down if they were unparliamentary. An initiative of this sort is already underway. A group consisting of the Blue Dog Republicans and the Blue Dog Coalition has offered Members a civility pledge and agreed, among other things, that "We will rise occasionally when the debate gets too heated and try to calm things down."⁽⁶⁾

Members have informally performed this role in the past. As a result, a Member who had occasionally overstepped the parliamentary line noted when yielded three minutes during debate over a controversial matter, "Mr. Chairman, I promised our distinguished speaker here who is truly a gentleman and a friend and entitled to all the respect that any colleagues can muster in this House, that we would have a high caliber debate here today."⁽⁷⁾

This is consistent with a recommendation made by Speaker Gingrich in a response to an inquiry about the guidelines for debate: "I have suggested to the Minority leader that each party take a more active role in enforcing proper floor behavior. I fear that if it is left solely to the majority party or the Chair, it will be viewed as a partisan act."⁽⁸⁾

2. As both parties proved in the debate over the Ethics Committee's recommendations on the Speaker in l996, leaders in caucus can successfully instruct their members to behave decorously in tense situations.

Focus the attention of reporters on the apologies issued by Members who have breached decorum to increase likelihood that they will receive attention

Either eliminate or move the time of one minute speeches

Reinstitate the experiment in Oxford debates
Oxford-style debates could become a vehicle for educating the public, venting tension, and modelling appropriate behavior. This is most likely to occur when Members of each party are on both sides as was the case in the last-and most successful- of the three debates of l994.

Increased vigilance of Speaker

2.