[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 43 (Thursday, March 6, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H1029-H1031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INCIVILITY IN CHAMBER
(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Green
of Texas was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise.
And still I rise, a proud, liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed,
and unafraid.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call to the attention of the House,
this place that I revere and, notwithstanding recent events, that I
have great respect for.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to a censure, a censure that
took place as it relates to my behavior. I have been told by some that
they did not have an opportunity to hear the actual resolution as it
was read. I have here H. Res. 189, the censure resolution as it relates
to my behavior.
I believe this resolution should be read. I am not in any way upset
with the Speaker. I want people to know that the Speaker did what he
was supposed to do. He did what he was supposed to do when we had the
joint session of Congress.
When I interrupted, the Speaker called it to my attention. He did it
on multiple occasions. I have no reason in my heart to be upset with
the Speaker.
Later, persons came over and escorted me out. I appreciate them. They
were very kind to me, the officers, very kind. They said kind words to
me.
As a result of my behavior, I have been censured.
I am going to read the resolution and give some commentary. It reads,
``H. Res. 189. In the House of Representatives, Mr. Newhouse submitted
the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on''--and
the copy that I have does not have a committee. I am not sure it was
referred to a committee. It may have come straight to the floor.
Regardless as to how it arrived, it did, and I am not contesting the
procedure.
The resolution reads: ``Censuring Representative Al Green of Texas.
``Whereas, on March 4, 2025, during the joint session of Congress
convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 11, the President of
the United States, speaking at the invitation of the House and Senate,
had his remarks interrupted by the Representative from Texas, Mr.
Green;
``Whereas, the conduct of the Representative from Texas disrupted the
proceedings of the joint address and was a breach of proper conduct;
and
``Whereas, after numerous disruptions, the Representative from Texas
had to be removed from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms:
``Now, therefore, be it resolved, that--
``One, Representative Al Green be censured;
``Two, Representative Al Green forthwith present himself in the well
of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure; and
``Three, Representative Al Green be censured with the public reading
of this resolution by the Speaker.''
That concludes the resolution.
Some things bear repeating: I respect the Speaker. I have no ill
feelings toward the Speaker, none toward the persons who escorted me
away from the floor because I did disrupt. I did so because the
President indicated that he had a mandate--and I wanted him to know
that he didn't have a mandate--to cut Medicaid.
I did this because Medicaid is the only insurance many people have in
this country. I am blessed. As I stand here now, there is a physician
waiting. If something should happen, I will be taken to that physician.
I have the best healthcare in the world.
There are other people who have less than I. I would have them have
what I have, but I surely would not stand by and see them lose what
little they do have.
Medicaid is for people who don't have the kind of healthcare that 435
Members of Congress and 100 Members of the Senate have, but they do
have some healthcare.
It has been approved by legislation that the Energy and Commerce
Committee would cut $880 billion from their budget. The overwhelming
majority of that budget has to do with healthcare. I see no way for
this cut to take place without cutting into Medicaid.
I am going to fight the cutting of Medicaid. I hope that this
comment, this message that I am giving today, will deter them and cause
them to go a different way. Then, they can say: ``We were never going
to do it. Al Green just had this false notion.'' Well, let me have it.
Don't cut Medicaid. It is all they have.
This is the richest country in the world. Mr. Musk has doctors. He
will get the best healthcare. Let him understand that he should be on
my side. He should be on the side of the people who need this
healthcare. He has the ear of the President.
Mr. Musk, speak to him. He listens to you. But for the grace of God,
dear brother, you could be on Medicaid. You just have been blessed.
Don't assume that it was your intellect that has caused you all of
these great blessings that you have received. You have just been
blessed beyond measure. Speak to the President and tell him that
Medicaid ought not be cut.
But I continue. I interrupted.
I was set to be in need of sanctions. I came to the floor today, and
while the Speaker was reading, I recalled what happened in the sixties.
I recalled that when we were faced with adverse circumstances, we would
sing a song that would inspire and encourage us to move forward with
alacrity.
{time} 1230
The words were:
We shall overcome,
We shall overcome,
We shall overcome some day.
[[Page H1030]]
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe we shall overcome some
day.
That was an act of incivility.
Why, Al Green, would you come to the well before your colleagues and
the world and commit an act of incivility?
Here is why: It is because when the President of the United States
right there at that podium addressed the Members of Congress, Democrats
seated on this side, seated, many of them saying nothing, the President
of the United States looked upon them, pointed toward them and said:
Lunatics. The President of the United States at a joint session of
Congress called Members of Congress lunatics.
That was an act of incivility.
There comes a time, Mr. Speaker, when you cannot allow the
President's incivility to take advantage of our civility, and that is
what is happening in this country. His incivility is overwhelming our
civility. We cannot allow this. That act of incivility was in direct
response to the President's incivility.
Mr. President, you, sir, were wrong when you pointed to the Members
of Congress and called them lunatics, Democrats, I might add, you
called them lunatics.
The President hasn't been sanctioned. The President hasn't been
reprimanded. There has been no censure of the President. The President
is above the law. The Supreme Court has said as much. He can do things
that no other can do. He is above the law as it relates to certain
things, but not as it relates to all things, not all. He is still
subject to the norms of society, the decorum that you expect from me,
you have to respect and expect from the President.
Why would we allow him to use his incivility and expect me to
continue to engage in civility as it relates to his incivility?
Mr. President, there are some of us who are going to stand against
your incivility. We have reached a point in our history where we have
to hearken back to that which got us to this point in our history.
I remember the sixties. I remember Dr. King. I remember the movement.
I remember what it took to get me in this House. I am not here because
I am so smart. I am not here because of brilliancy or good looks. I am
here because people made great sacrifices. It was incivility, and it
was disruption, but they were prepared to suffer the consequences.
We are going to have to resort to the same tactics that we used in
the sixties, but we did it for a worthy and noble cause. Calling the
people of Congress lunatics was not noble, Mr. President. It was an
ignoble act of incivility.
I remember how we marched and how we protested, and I am prepared to
do it again. If you treat me like you treated me in the sixties, I am
going to respond the way I responded in the sixties.
It is time for us to use the same level of incivility that was used
in the sixties for a noble cause: to save Medicaid, to protect
Medicare, and to prevent the demise of Social Security. It is time for
us to take that stand. Incivility emanating from the highest office in
the land cannot be tolerated and has to be negated.
I did it, and I have said to people that while I respect others and
while I absolutely was cooperative when they led me away from the
floor, but if circumstances permitted, given what I know, and I have to
be candid, I would do it again. I would do it because I care about
these people on Medicaid.
For edification purposes, the State of Texas was accorded $100
billion--100 billion Medicaid dollars--100 billion Medicaid dollars
were sent to the State of Texas to help poor people.
What did the State of Texas do?
The State of Texas rejected $100 billion for poor people on Medicaid,
100 billion, not million, 100 billion. The State of Texas does not have
the goodwill necessary to manage Medicaid dollars. If we block grant
this money and send it to Texas, then those who are in need of it will
get less of it. We have to stand up for them. They are among the least
in our society. Unfortunately, we have to stand up for them.
I am standing up for those people. I will continue to stand, and I
will continue to tell the world that this incivility has to be dealt
with. We have to deal with the President's incivility.
The name-calling never ceases. Maxine Waters he has assaulted
verbally and Ms. Wilson of Florida. The list goes on and on and on. As
Congresswoman Waters is known to say: on and on and on.
We sit and we watch with civility as he employs incivility. Yes, I
have said earlier, and I am retreating to the point, that he has been
given a certain amount of immunity. He has not been given absolute
immunity, but he seems to have an inordinate amount of influence with
his party. It is inordinate. I see people doing things that I never
thought I would see them do. I have seen people who are conservative
and that I have great respect for doing things that I never thought I
would see them do.
I am not calling names. I am just saying to my friends that the
President has an inordinate amount of influence. He has an inordinate,
unusual, and incomprehensible amount of influence.
The courts have given him a certain amount of immunity. His party has
given him carte blanche to say anything and to come before the joint
session of Congress and use the word ``lunatics'' as he refers to
Democrats. The only thing left in ordinary times would be the courts.
The court orders ought to be obeyed. I don't always like them, but I
remember what John Lewis explained to me about peaceful protests:
Protest, the court orders you to do certain things, you don't have to
agree with it, but you do it. You be willing to suffer
the consequences.
The courts are right now in the midst of, as best as they can, trying
to give us the laws necessary to prevent certain things from happening.
Mass layoffs have to be taken to court. There have been mass layoffs
with no due process and no thought of what is happening in the lives of
these people. You just take a pen and with the stroke of a pen they are
off. There is no concern about children in school, there is no concern
about loved ones who may be ill, whom they are taking care of, being
the chief breadwinner for the family. There is no concern.
You have got billions, Mr. Musk.
Why should you care about the concerns of people who have much less
and who are working every day to eke out a living?
You have billions. You shouldn't worry about them. Worry about making
more money. Go to the Moon.
They don't have that luxury. I am going to stand for them and mass
layoffs without any consideration.
I just believe that this level of behavior if it were conducted,
committed, and engaged in by one Barack Hussein Obama when he was
President, if he behaved in this fashion, then he would have been
impeached. He would have been impeached. I will go to my grave with
this belief. We wouldn't allow these mass layoffs. We wouldn't allow
these cuts to veterans, and we wouldn't allow Medicaid, Medicare, and
Social Security to be on the chopping block.
He would have been impeached.
To be very honest, I would have voted for the impeachment because I
don't think that we should allow a President to circumvent what we know
to be the requirements associated with the legislative process and with
due process which should be accorded people who are being fired as it
were.
When you do these things, the courts are acting, and the courts
should act. However, there is a point, Mr. President, if your
incivility allows you to disobey court orders given that your party has
given you carte blanche and given that you believe you have absolute
immunity by virtue of what the Supreme Court has accorded you--and you
don't have absolute but I think you believe it--when you cross that
line, when you cross that line and you, Mr. President, decide you will
no longer honor orders from the judiciary, when you decide that Marbury
v. Madison means nothing, when you decide that you are the supreme law
of the land, then on that day we will have a dictatorship.
We are close because you are continually inching right up to the
line, you are looking over to the other side, and at some point,
regrettably, you may cross over.
Mr. President, I beg that you not do so. I beg that you would not do
so and that you would honor the third branch of government designed to
settle disputes among us, not always in a favorable way to some,
obviously, but that is what it is there for.
[[Page H1031]]
I beg you, Mr. President, that you would not dishonor the judiciary
in this country.
Here is what I know: I know that you have the ability to say to a
judge: You have issued your court order, now let me see you enforce it.
That is my Justice Department--not Al Green's, the President's--that is
my Justice Department. The head of my Justice Department has pledged
fealty to me--not Al Green, the President--that is my Justice
Department. Let me see you get my Justice Department to enforce your
order, Mr. Judge.
More specifically, Mr. John Roberts, get my Justice Department to
enforce your order. Let me see you get my marshals to enforce your
order.
This President, whether wittingly or unwittingly, has put himself in
a position such that the Justice Department has pledged fealty to him.
Generals in the military: You don't get these positions now unless
you have pledged fealty to him.
We ought to be ashamed of ourselves to allow such a thing to have
happened. Yes, generals in the military, the Justice Department, the
courts, many of them are bending knees and genuflecting.
{time} 1245
Somehow, you believe that you are showing respect, I suppose, or
maybe you are just currying favor.
Be that as it may, the Justice Department, generals in the military,
and many of the courts are giving a genuflect. Wittingly or
unwittingly, he is setting himself up such that he is in a position and
such that, at the end of his fourth year, he might attempt to do what
he tried to do and failed to do at the end of his last term.
He tried his best to prevent the transition of power. He did all that
he could. He encouraged persons to come over to the Capitol. People
came, and they literally broke into the Capitol. I was here. They came,
and they marched through the Capitol.
Mr. Speaker, for doing it, the President has been given them the
ultimate reward. You, you, and you--yes, you, too--all of you, you are
pardoned. You are given some sort of amnesty. You are okay.
This is what the President has done. Wittingly or unwittingly, he is
now in a position to make that same effort. Only this time, the Justice
Department is with him, not with the Constitution. Generals in the
military are with him, not with their oath that they have taken.
The President, wittingly or unwittingly, has put himself in a
position such that if he chooses to stay on beyond his term of office
and if he chooses to do what a Member of Congress has suggested that
might be done by law, which is to give him a third term--I hold no
animus toward the Member of Congress who has filed the legislation; I
have no animus to you, dear brother--but what we have done is witnessed
a President who, wittingly or unwittingly, has put himself in a
position such that he will have the power to enforce the inanity of not
allowing a peaceful transfer of power.
He literally is putting himself in that position. Wittingly or
unwittingly, he is.
As a result of his doing this, we have to not allow his incivility
and his requirement of fealty to prevent us from taking the necessary
actions to protect liberty and justice for all and to protect
government of the people, by the people, and for the people. To protect
what this country has in its great and noble ideals, we have to do what
is necessary.
I believe that we have to engage in a level of positive, righteous
incivility--positive, righteous incivility, the same kind of incivility
that Dr. King engaged in and that John Lewis engaged in. This
incivility would only be a counterbalance to the President's
incivility.
I am not saying that we get into the name-calling and stoop to the
level that he does. I am saying that, when there are moments for us to
have righteous incivility, we should.
Now, I am back to where I started. I stood there in the well of the
House, other Members with me. I never suggested to anybody that you do
a certain thing. We did sing ``We Shall Overcome.''
It was an act of incivility, but I want people to know that it was in
direct response to the President's incivility at the joint session of
Congress. He has not been reprimanded. He has not been censured. He
won't be reprimanded. He won't be censured.
However, there is one, as the President uses it, in his parlance, one
card. There is one card that we have. You told the President of
Ukraine: ``You don't have the cards.'' Well, Mr. President, we have the
cards.
There are 435 of us with the cards. The card, Mr. President, you know
well because, on two occasions, these cards have been utilized to check
you. You don't always get convicted when you are indicted, but you do
get indicted.
If you continue with this line of behavior, you may not just simply
be indicted. That means impeached. You may be more than impeached.
There may be a Senate that has the will to live up to the ideals in the
Constitution. When that Senate does so, you will no longer be
President.
There are 435 cards. Mr. President, I have one of those cards. I have
one of them. You are a Goliath. You are Goliath. You now have control
of the Justice Department. You have the generals pledging fealty. You
are a Goliath, Mr. President, but there are 435 Davids--435 Davids--435
with the power accorded to us by way of the rules of this House to
bring Articles of Impeachment.
You may not be impeached the first time, but there is always a
second, and there is always a third.
In the end, if you, Mr. President, continue with this behavior, you
will be impeached, and I believe there will be the will in the Senate
to convict.
I am not threatening anyone. I am talking about the rules that have
been accorded to this House, which I happen to be a Member of and proud
to be a Member of, and accorded to the Senate.
You are a Goliath, but, Mr. President, there are Davids among us.
Your incivility can no longer be tolerated. It has to be met with
righteous indignation and righteous incivility.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McDowell). Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President and to
direct their remarks to the Chair.
____________________