One of the most admirable parts of Charlie Kirk's "Prove Me Wrong" events was how he treated those individuals with whom he disagreed.
Kirk listened, asked questions, and had a conversation with them.
He didn't belittle them or make jokes at their expense.
Kirk even told those in the crowd to be nice to those who came to the microphone.
Kirk did not raise his voice or lose his temper. He displayed incredible patience.
The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate (Congress) should follow Charlie Kirk's example during committee hearings when members of Congress address committee witnesses and each other.
It seems that hearings in both chambers are becoming increasingly volatile.
When witnesses are testifying, Congressmen and Congresswomen often speak over witnesses, do not let them answer questions, repeatedly interrupt and say "reclaiming my time," and make snide comments or jokes at the witness' expense.
The recent hearings with Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and FBI Director Kash Patel are examples of such behavior.
The hearings have also become arenas in which members of Congress yell at each other.
As an example, at the recent U.S. House Oversight Committee, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., screamed at Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla.
These incidents are harmful to the nation.
Witness interruptions hamper the purpose of the hearings, which is to get information from those testifying.
This evidence is important for legislators to use in oversight and law-making functions.
It's also valuable for the public in shaping their votes and learning critical information.
For instance, in Kennedy's hearing, the public wanted to learn about the views of the Department of Health and Human Services on vaccines.
The nearly-constant interruptions to Secretary Kennedy's answers impeded the transfer of information.
Congress needs to create a way for witnesses to give their testimony without interruptions.
Currently, the total time for both questions by a member of Congress and answers by a witness is five minutes (Rule XI(2)(j)(1) in the House of Representatives and by tradition in the U.S. Senate).
This time limit needs to be expanded to more than five minutes.
Additionally, time limits for the questioner and the witness should differ.
The questioner should have a smaller amount of time because questions do not take much time to ask. The witness should have a larger amount of time in order that he or she can fully answer the question and provide details.
For example, if the time limit were 10 minutes (which is double the current amount of time), the questioner could have three minutes total for his questions and the witness could have seven minutes total for his answers.
If the witness runs out of time, more time could be added.
Interruptions and uncivil behavior by U.S. representatives and senators likely contribute to division and strife nationally.
Elected officials are supposed to set examples for the nation.
They should show the country how the different sides can work through their differences and solve problems collaboratively.
When citizens see their federal representatives fighting with one another and treating witnesses poorly, Americans may feel that they should treat others with whom they disagree in the same manner.
Congress needs to create a way to curb the uncivil behavior of their members.
A possible solution would to be to create a system, similar to the one in U.S. courts.
If a lawyer violates decorum, a judge can hold that lawyer in contempt.
A finding of contempt can lead to various sanctions. Congress can create a system in which the chair of the committee or the ranking member (from the minority party) can cite a member with contempt.
This contempt charge would then go to a committee, made up of an equal number of members from both parties, who would decide by majority rule if the contempt charge is justified. If it's justified, the committee would assess a penalty.
The penalty should target an area which matters greatly to congresspersons and senators: campaign funds.
Each approved charge of contempt would require the violator to pay a portion of campaign funds (specified by the committee) into a general fund which would then be dispersed to a charity approved by both the House and Senate at the beginning of the term.
A certain number of contempt violations approved by the committee would result in removal of the Member from Congress.
Charlie Kirk's demeanor in his "Prove Me Wrong" events provide a template for how those in Congress should treat one another. If the House and Senate follow Kirk's example, both legislative bodies would likely be more productive and civil.
America would be a better place.
Michael B. Abramson is a practicing attorney. He is also an adviser with the National Diversity Coalition for Trump. He is the host of the "Advancing the Agenda" podcast and the author of "A Playbook for Taking Back America: Lessons from the 2012 Presidential Election." Follow him on his website and Twitter, @mbabramson. Read Michael B. Abramson's Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.