NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
“Words taken down.”
That term of art may not mean much off Capitol Hill. But it’s a phrase which usually signals there’s a ruckus in the House of Representatives.
The House witnessed one such melee recently. Lawmakers debated a war powers resolution for Lebanon. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., pushed the measure, hoping to restrict President Donald Trump’s conflict in Iran. Especially as other places in the region emerge as flashpoints.
Tlaib, a Palestinian-America, is one of only two Muslim women in Congress. She is one of the most controversial members of Congress. And she often speaks out against Israel.
“We must end U.S. participation in the Israeli apartheid regime’s invasion of Lebanon. The Israeli military continues to target journalists like Amal Khalil and use our tax dollars to commit war crimes,” said Tlaib.
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
But the House floor devolved into a verbal fracas when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, tore into Tlaib, attacking her personally and mentioning Hezbollah during the floor debate.
“Its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” charged Miller, who is Jewish. “Yes, you advocate for terrorists on a daily basis. You advocate for a terrorist regime every single day.”
Tlaib hollered at Miller from across the chamber, but it wasn’t clear what she said since the Michigan Democrat wasn’t on mic.
“Oh, I’m sorry. Are we getting a little emotional?” chided Miller.
Tlaib erupted, at that, shouting even more loudly at Miller.
Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., presided over the debate from the dais. Obernolte had enough of the verbal judo and slammed down the gavel.
“Colleagues, this is a serious topic. We will debate it respectfully and deliberately,” admonished Obernolte. “Is the gentlewoman from Michigan making a motion?”
NANCY MACE CHALLENGES DEM REP TO ‘TAKE IT OUTSIDE’ AFTER ‘CHILD, LISTEN’ COMMENT SPARKS CHAOS
Tlaib had made it to one of the mics in the chamber by this point.
“Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. That is a direct attack on my character. I please request to strike the words down,” said Tlaib.
And there it was. “Words taken down.”
Tlaib may have garbled the precise verbiage of the parliamentary request. But her motion brought debate on the war powers resolution and all other business before the House to a screeching halt.
“The gentleman from Ohio will be seated,” Obernolte instructed Miller.
In effect, Tlaib’s motion is the parliamentary equivalent of pulling someone over for speeding. You might get a ticket. Maybe not. Especially if you’re cooperative with the officer. But the authorities will first investigate. And that’s what unfolded on the House floor.
During this stasis, the House conducts no business. The House suspends speeches. Amendments. Votes. Nothing happens on the floor until they figure out if someone broke the rules.
The phrase “words taken down” refers to the process of the House’s institutional staff and stenographers to document or “take down” language uttered by a member that may violate House rules. The House prohibits members from personal attacks on fellow lawmakers, impugning the motives of their colleagues or “engaging in personalities.” One member can’t disparage another personally.
Tlaib clearly believed that Miller broke House rules by saying she would “like to hang out” and “advocate for terrorists.” Tlaib also believed the line about her “getting a little emotional” may have crossed the line, too.
‘SQUAD’ MEMBER DELIVERS REAL-TIME WHITEBOARD RESPONSES TO TRUMP: ‘NO KING!’
If it’s pretty clear that a member broke the rules of decorum, someone from leadership or key staff may ask offending lawmaker to withdraw the language in question and apologize. But if the member resists, the House has no alternative but to rule that member out of order. The House then expunges the speech and he or she is suspended from speaking on the House floor the rest of the day.
If the chair rules that member violated the rules, it’s possible that someone could appeal the ruling of the chair. That would entail a roll call vote, where the entire House votes yes or no on whether they believe their colleague broke the rules. Or, another member might move to “table the appeal of the ruling of the chair.” In that scenario, the House votes on whether to kill or set aside the appeal. Thus, the vote is a step removed from actually voting on appealing the chair’s ruling.
After an hour of delay, it was clear that Miller wouldn’t apologize or withdraw his statement.
“The words of the gentleman from Ohio contain an allegation that the gentlewoman from Michigan is a ‘butcher’ and affiliated with a terrorist organization,” said Obernolte. “Such remarks impugn the patriotism and loyalty of the member of the House.”
Obernolte added that “the remarks contain personalities and are not in order. Without objection, the offending words are stricken from the record.”
So the House sanctioned Miller for breaking the rules and benched him for the remainder of the day.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., managed the Lebanon war powers debate on the floor for the GOP. Since the House muted Miller, Mast spoke on his behalf.
“I’m going to deliver a message from Rep. Miller of Ohio,” said Mast, who quoted this Republican colleague. “‘Yes, I said it. I own it. And I stand by it.’”
CHAOS ERUPTS DURING IMMIGRATION HEARING AS DEMOCRAT LUNGES AT CHAIRMAN’S GAVEL: ‘I’M TIRED OF YOU’ ‘
The Florida Republican then asked the House if he could submit for the record an article entitled ‘Rashida Talib, member of secret Facebook Group where Hamas Terrorists glorified.’”
Tlaib objected.
Mast then tried to submit into the record a transcript about Tlaib allegedly speaking about genocide.
Tlaib objected to that as well.
Yours truly first encountered a parliamentary donnybrook like this in 1994 while working at C-SPAN. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., tangled with then-Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y. The House ruled Waters out of order. Then-House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash., came to the floor to mete out the punishment, not leaving the umpiring to a more junior lawmaker.
The day after the Tlaib/Miller brouhaha, Obernolte released a bipartisan framework to help establish guardrails for AI.
I pressed Obernolte on how an AI chatbot might handle the dust-up if it were presiding over the House.
“AI is actually very good at this. You give it a rules manual and then you give it a specific instance and say ‘Is this in compliance with rules or is this a violation of the rules?’” said Obernolte. “I think last night was obviously someone engaging in personalities. And, I think I made the correct ruling. I think AI would have also made the correct ruling.”
It wasn’t that long ago that the actual Speaker of the House came to the floor to sort out a kerfuffle between two members. Could the House ever delegate such refereeing to AI?
Taking down words? Ruling members out of order? Suspending members for additional speeches that day if they get out of line?
One can imagine that members will say a lot of words worthy of being taken down if AI ever becomes the parliamentary umpire in the House of Representatives.
Read the full article here
