"Words taken down."
That term of art may not mean much off Capitol Hill . But its a phrase which usually signals theres 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 Trumps 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 regimes invasion of Lebanon. The Israeli military continues to target journalists like Amal Khalil and use our tax dollars to commit war crimes," said Tlaib.
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 wasnt clear what she said since the Michigan Democrat wasnt 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?"
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, Tlaibs motion is the parliamentary equivalent of pulling someone over for speeding. You might get a ticket. Maybe not. Especially if youre cooperative with the officer. But the authorities will first investigate. And thats 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 Houses 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 cant 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.
If its 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, its 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 chairs ruling.
After an hour of delay, it was clear that Miller wouldnt 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.松本山雅预测
"Im 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."
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 wasnt 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.
记录在案。
这个专业术语在国会山之外可能鲜为人知，但它通常预示着众议院内将掀起一场风波。
近日，众议院再次上演类似混战。议员们围绕黎巴嫩战争权力决议展开激烈辩论。密歇根州民主党众议员拉希达·特莱布力推该议案，旨在限制总统唐纳德·特朗普在伊朗的军事行动。当前中东地区多地局势持续升温，更凸显此项决议的紧迫性。
特莱布（Tlaib）是一名巴勒斯坦裔美国人，也是国会中仅有的两位穆斯林女性议员之一。她堪称国会最具争议的成员，并经常公开批评以色列。
我们必须终止美国参与以色列种族隔离政权对黎巴嫩的入侵。以色列军方持续以记者如阿迈勒·哈利勒为目标，并利用我们的税款实施战争罪行，"特莱布说道。
然而当俄亥俄州共和党众议员马克斯·米勒在议会辩论中猛烈抨击特拉布并对她进行人身攻击、提及真主党时，众议院现场演变成了一场言辞激烈的混战。
米勒（犹太裔）指控道："某种程度上，你乐于交往的那些成员都是刽子手。没错，你每天都在为恐怖分子辩护，日复一日地替这个恐怖政权张目。"
特拉布（Tlaib）在议事厅另一端向米勒（Miller）高声喊话，但由于这位密歇根州民主党人未使用麦克风，具体内容无从听清。
"哦，抱歉。我们是不是有点情绪化了？"米勒揶揄道。
特莱布（Tlaib）闻言勃然大怒，对着米勒（Miller）吼得更加声嘶力竭。
加利福尼亚州共和党众议员杰伊·奥伯诺尔特（Jay Obernolte）主持了此次辩论。奥伯诺尔特受够了言语上的纠缠，最终敲下了议事槌。
奥伯诺尔特提醒道："同事们，这是一个严肃的议题。我们将以尊重和审慎的态度进行辩论。请问来自密歇根州的那位女士是否要提出动议？"
此时，特莱布已抵达会议厅内的一个麦克风前。
“是的，议长先生。这是对我人格的直接攻击。我请求删除这些言论。”特拉布（Tlaib）说道。
就在那里。"记录在案的话语。"
特莱布（Tlaib）或许未能准确表述议会请求的措辞，但她的动议使得有关战争权力决议的辩论以及众议院所有其他事务骤然停滞。
俄亥俄州的那位先生请就座，"奥伯诺尔特对米勒说道。
实际上，特莱布的动议在议会程序中的作用，就好比因超速被交警拦停。你可能收到罚单，也可能不会——尤其当你配合执法时。但当局首先会展开调查。这正是众议院议事厅上演的一幕。
在此期间，众议院暂停一切事务。演讲中止，修正案搁置，投票暂停。在查明是否有人违规之前，议院内不会进行任何活动。
“记录在案”这一表述指的是众议院制度工作人员和速记员对议员可能违反议事规则的言论进行记录的程序。众议院禁止议员对同僚进行人身攻击、质疑同事动机或“涉及人格侮辱”。任何议员均不得对他人进行个人贬损。
特拉布明确认为，米勒声称自己"想和恐怖分子一起出去玩"并"为他们辩护"的行为违反了众议院规则。她还认为，关于她"有点情绪化"的言论可能也越界了。
若某位议员明显违反议事规则，领导层或核心工作人员可要求其撤回不当言论并致歉。倘若该议员拒不配合，众议院将别无选择，只能裁定其行为违规。随后，议院会删除相关发言记录，并禁止该议员在当日剩余时间内于议院会场发言。
若主席裁定某位议员违反规则，其他议员可能对主席的裁决提出申诉。这将引发一次唱名表决，全体议员投票决定是否认同涉事同事违规。此外，也可能有议员动议"搁置对主席裁决的申诉"。此种情况下，议院将表决是否终止或暂缓申诉程序。因此，此类表决实际上并未直接针对是否推翻主席裁决进行投票。
经过一小时的拖延后，米勒显然不会道歉或收回他的声明。
奥伯诺尔特表示：“俄亥俄州这位绅士的言论中指控密歇根州的女士是‘屠夫’，并与恐怖组织有关联。此类言论诋毁了众议院议员的爱国精神与忠诚。”
奥伯诺尔特补充道："这些言论涉及人身攻击且不合规矩。若无异议，冒犯性内容将从记录中删除。"
因此，众议院因米勒违反规定而对他进行了制裁，并责令他在当天剩余时间内停职反省。
佛罗里达州共和党众议员、众议院外交事务委员会主席布莱恩·马斯特（Brian Mast）代表共和党主持了关于黎巴嫩战争权力的辩论。由于众议院禁止米勒发言，马斯特代其发表了意见。
马斯特援引其共和党同僚的话说："我将转达俄亥俄州众议员米勒的声明。""是的，我说过这话。我对此负责，并坚持这一立场。"
这位佛罗里达州共和党人随后询问众议院，能否将一篇题为《拉希达·塔利布：秘密脸书群组成员，该群组美化哈马斯恐怖分子》的文章列入会议记录。
特莱布表示反对。
随后，马斯特试图将一份据称涉及特莱布谈论种族灭绝的笔录提交至记录中。
特莱布对此也表示反对。
笔者首次目睹此类国会激烈争执是在1994年供职C-SPAN电视台期间。加州民主党众议员马克辛·沃特斯与当时来自纽约州的共和党众议员皮特·金发生激烈冲突，众议院裁定沃特斯违反议事规则。时任众议院议长、华盛顿州民主党人汤姆·弗利亲自到场执行惩戒，未将仲裁权交由资历较浅的议员。
在特拉布（Tlaib）与米勒（Miller）的争议事件次日，奥伯诺尔特（Obernolte）发布了一项两党合作框架，旨在为人工智能设立监管准则。
我追问奥伯诺尔特，如果由人工智能聊天机器人主持众议院，它将如何处理这场争执。
奥伯诺尔特表示：“人工智能实际上非常擅长处理这类问题。你只需输入规则手册，再提供一个具体案例，然后询问‘这是否符合规则或违反了规则？’。我认为昨晚显然是有人在针对个人进行攻击。不过，我相信自己的裁决是正确的。如果是人工智能，应该也会做出同样的正确裁决。”
就在不久前，众议院议长还亲自到场调解两位议员之间的争执。未来众议院是否可能将这类仲裁工作交由人工智能处理？
记录发言内容？裁定议员违反议事规则？若议员言行失当，则禁止其当日再次发言？
可以想象，如果人工智能有朝一日成为众议院的议会裁判，议员们将会说出许多值得被记录下来的言论。
