Censuring Representative Al 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.

The words were:

We shall overcome,

We shall overcome,

We shall overcome some day.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are just 2 months into this Congress, yet we have already seen one favor after another to Big Oil from our friends across the aisle.

Republicans just can't get enough, and so we are back here once again giving another favor to Big Oil. One gets the feeling that the majority is just warming up and that this is going to be a recurring theme in this Congress.

Meanwhile, we are 1 week away from a government shutdown. We are on the heels of what we know is a Republican plan to gut Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. Today, are my colleagues across the aisle talking about any of those things? No.

Republican Members have brought us here to talk about repealing a minor rule that simply protects marine archeological resources. If that sounds ridiculous to my colleagues, that is because it is.

This bill targets a rule from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which is the agency that regulates offshore energy development in Federal waters. The rule says that underwater surveys, which these companies already conduct before they drill, simply have to meet some basic, consistent standards. Wow, the heavy hand of government.

Republicans have argued that this is simply too burdensome for their friends in Big Oil. Yet, the rule doesn't even require companies to conduct any new surveys. Companies already do these surveys.

The rule simply states that future surveys need to adhere to minimum standards to be used for archeological reports. No matter how my colleagues slice it, this rule will not cause a substantial financial burden to operators. It just ensures that the data that companies collect can be used to look for things like shipwrecks and other historically important objects.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman said in his opening remarks that he doesn't like the fact that they need to look for these things in areas where they are not known to exist.

That is kind of the whole point. If you are not going to look for them while already there doing a survey, we may never know that things actually exist in some areas. Without these surveys, operators might not discover these archeological resources until they go to drill.

Here is what happens when they find out at that point: It forces costly delays for their friends in the oil industry because, regardless of whether this survey work is completed beforehand, companies still have to comply with laws that protect shipwrecks and mitigate impacts to sites that were once above water and home to indigenous peoples.

The rule actually promotes efficiency, something Republicans say that the majority cares a lot about. It prevents delays and extra costs for good actors who report unexpected finds, as they are required to do under the law. It keeps bad actors from just quietly working and hoping that no one notices, something that is much easier to get away with if you are not required to do those studies in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, why do Republicans want to roll this rule back? Well, for one, my guess is that Republicans saw that it was a Biden regulation on offshore oil and gas. If Biden did it, it must be bad.

My colleagues want to pick a fight with anything that Republicans perceive to be a threat to Big Oil, even a minor rule that actually helps the industry avoid unexpected costs.

The second very likely reason that we are here is that my Republican colleagues are looking for ways to kill time. The majority needs some pretext to chew up some floor time here in Congress to distract the public.

This resolution does that, and it allows Republicans to keep working behind the scenes on their plan to find tax giveaways for their billionaire friends and working behind the scenes on their plan that we know is coming to cut Medicaid and SNAP deeply, hurting working families all over this country. My Republican colleagues have voted on the framework for that last week and are still squabbling with the Senate over the details and what comes next.

Clearly, we are not doing work this week to fund the government or to stop Trump's new tax on energy, which he calls a tariff, standing up to self-dealing billionaires who are taking a sledgehammer to our Federal Government, or dealing with their illegal firing of workers and constituents of many of us and causing complete chaos across the country.

Instead of holding this administration accountable for all of that, House Republicans are urgently tinkering,

trying to create the appearance that my colleagues across the aisle are busy doing something here in Congress on a minor rule that simply requires scientific standards for underwater surveys.

Republican Members don't want people to remember that the majority voted just last week to set in motion devastating cuts to Medicaid and SNAP or that, a few days ago, Elon Musk said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Yet, the other night, my Republican friends stood and applauded for him like he was Elvis Presley.

The majority also doesn't want people to remember that the Trump administration has announced plans to cut staffing in half at the Social Security Administration, guaranteeing that services for seniors will suffer, or that the Trump Secretary of Agriculture just went on television and told Americans who are struggling with food prices to get a chicken.

That is why House Republicans want to talk about something else. That is why we are here to debate and vote on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this farcical resolution and the theater that it represents, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle are arguing that the rule is duplicative and that the offshore drilling industry is already doing these surveys.

Mr. Speaker, that is kind of the point. The fact that these surveys are already being done is exactly why this rule is so simple and not burdensome. The rule does not require any new or standalone surveys for the vast majority of leases. It simply makes sure that these surveys are done right, these surveys that are already being performed, so that we can protect archeological sites by identifying them before the work starts.

This is common sense. It is a tweak that will provide important protection for offshore archeological resources, bring the agency into compliance with the law, and actually promote efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth).

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about this claim of a double standard and of hypocrisy. Oh, the poor fossil fuel industry is being singled out.

Poor Big Oil with its record profits and its record exports and its executive bonuses and its collusion with OPEC to gouge American consumers, they are just such a victim in the telling of my friends across this aisle.

I hate to intrude on that narrative with a little bit of truth, but the fact is, the offshore wind industry already does this stuff. They have to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act.

The reason that the fossil fuel industry is the subject of this regulation is to bring them into compliance. I guess it reflects the radical proposition that the Big Oil oligarchs, your pals in the industry, should play by the same rules as everyone else. That is not socialism or wokeness or anything else. It should just be common sense and fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about the real human cost of our Republican friends' allergy, opposition, reflexive opposition, to any type of regulation and what this CRA would mean for working men and women on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Marine archaeological surveys are not just a nice idea. They actually are safeguards that protect workers from hidden dangers lurking beneath the waves. These surveys can detect unexploded ordnance, UXOs, which are military ammunition, that has never detonated.

There is actually a lot of that out there. From World War II into the 1970s, the Federal Government dumped massive amounts of UXOs into the ocean, including depth charges, torpedoes, munitions, mustard gas, and even chemical weapons, all in designated explosive dumping areas. If that wasn't bad enough, these same waters were used to dispose of radioactive waste.

The old technology used to map these areas was crude at best, leaving countless unexploded devices scattered beyond known dumping areas, but modern marine archaeological surveys can identify these things and save lives before disaster strikes.

Rather than protect workers from these deadly hazards, Republicans want to repeal this commonsense rule, rolling the dice with human life in the name of corporate profits. They wrap it all up in a phony pitch about prices like they are standing up for the little guy while they look the other way when their oil oligarch pals collude with OPEC to gouge American consumers.

Well, what about the working-class men and women who power our offshore energy industry? What about their safety? Are they just collateral damage for the latest favor to Big Oil? Let's be clear. This resolution isn't about helping the common worker, it is about Republicans making good on their promise to deliver for Big Oil billionaires destroying our planet.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

My Republican colleagues decided that the best use of our time today is to debate whether or not we should keep a commonsense rule that protects Tribal resources, worker safety, and our Nation's history. They claim we must do this because this rule is too burdensome for oil and gas companies and will create higher energy prices for American consumers. All of that is nonsense.

What does this rule actually require of companies like Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, companies that make between $28- and $85 billion a year? It requires them to tweak surveys that oil and gas companies are already doing so that they can proactively look for marine archaeological resources or unexploded ordnance, discoveries that would actually stop oil and gas development if they didn't do this proactively.

Even without this rule, this is a commonsense look-before-you-drill provision that benefits the American people and keeps offshore workers safe.

Republicans aren't delivering for everyday Americans. If they were, they would take a stand on ridiculous tariffs that Trump is imposing on our closest allies or unconstrained exports of liquefied natural gas that are driving up energy prices or repealing energy tax credits in the IRA, all policies on their side that are going to raise energy prices.

If they were delivering for everyday Americans, they wouldn't allow working-class people to go out into the Outer Continental Shelf without the guarantee that they aren't working on top of unexploded military ammunition or radioactive waste. That is what this rule does. It protects workers and the public interest.

If they were delivering for everyday Americans, they would not allow massive firings of essential employees who protect public lands.

If they were delivering for everyday Americans, they would not vote for healthcare to be ripped away, like they just did last week.

The Republican agenda in the House today accomplishes one thing and one thing only--selling out the American people and our planet so they can continue to enrich the oil baron oligarchs and billionaire class. This resolution is just the latest favor to these elites.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of outrage in this Chamber about an interruption last night. Republicans are furious--furious--that someone dared to speak up.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

I agree that there was a violation of the dignity and decorum of this Chamber, and it came from the podium where Donald Trump was standing. He gave one of the most bitter, angry, and divisive speeches ever delivered in this room.

He offered no vision and no solutions, just grievance after grievance after grievance. It was 90 minutes of pure propaganda. It made me sick.

He offered zero ideas to fix the egg shortage, zero solutions for inflation, zero plans to lower rent, zero about prescription drugs, and zero about caring for our veterans--he didn't even mention them--and zero about the wildfires devastating South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what Donald Trump did mention 13 times? Joe Biden. That is because he is obsessed with the past, and he is obsessed with himself.

Republicans jump into action after someone has the guts to stand up and call BS. It has been less than 24 hours, and here they are on the floor with an emergency censure to soothe Donald Trump's fragile ego. I have never seen them leap into action so fast in my life. It was overnight.

Meanwhile, their own voters are getting hurt by this administration, and it is radio silence. They can't even be

bothered to lift a finger or do a townhall.

Mr. Speaker, where is the outrage over Trump wanting to cut 80,000 jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs?

Where is the condemnation for Trump firing 6,000 veterans with no justification?

Where is the anger for Trump firing scientists who are working to fix the egg shortage by fighting the bird flu?

Moreover, where is the immediate action when the people who keep Ebola out of the country are fired or the people who secure our nuclear weapons are fired?

Where is the outrage?

Republicans can't lift a finger about any of those things, but they sprint to the floor to censure Al Green because he hurt Trump's feelings. It is pathetic, Mr. Speaker.

Now, look, we know what this is all about. Republicans don't work for America. They don't work for the people. They don't work for veterans, and they don't work for the teachers or the nurses or the firefighters or factory workers or the waitresses or the farmers.

They work for Trump. They work for Trump, for their billionaire donors, and for the greedy corporations who write their campaign checks. Mr. Speaker, if you ever needed proof, then look no further than what is happening right now.

They are desperate--desperate--to distract from their own failings. They are desperate to distract from their betrayal of the middle class. They are so desperate that they are running from their own voters and censuring people who hurt Trump's feelings.

Give me a break.

Al Green is not the one trying to gut Medicaid; Trump is. Al Green is not the one trying to gut veterans' benefits; Trump is. Al Green is not the one cozying up to dictators and screwing over our allies; Trump is.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman who just spoke, but where was he and where were the Republicans when Joe Biden was President of the United States?

I remember sitting here, and there was an entire heckling section on the Republican side. We didn't call for all of those Members to be removed. We wanted to go on with the people's business, but where was the gentleman? Where were my Republican friends?

Nobody apologized for interrupting Joe Biden time and time again. The majority talks about lack of decorum. Go back and look at the tapes.

There was silence on the Republican side. I appreciate the gentleman's selective outrage, but he would have more credibility had he expressed outrage when his colleagues were heckling Joe Biden.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman who just spoke, if he felt that the most offensive thing last night was Mr. Green coming to this floor, standing up in this Chamber, and pleading with the President not to cut people's healthcare, if he thinks that was the most offensive thing that occurred on the House floor last night, then I don't think he was paying attention to the speech that was being given by the President of the United States. Go back and reread it.

Go back and reread it. It was a totally divisive and partisan speech. The President was calling Senators names, berating Joe Biden. It was a campaign speech.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baumgartner) says that the President is supposed to be the President of the entire United States, not just Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, I wish we had seen that last night, but we didn't. In all of my years, I have never ever witnessed anything as partisan and as divisive as that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States said a lot of things last night. He used a personal insult against a sitting Senator from my home State, and the gentleman who just spoke is upset that someone stood up and asked him not to cut Medicaid?

Really? That is what this is all about?

You heard from Mr. Green. There is not a gentler soul in this Chamber, and he was offended by some of the things the President was saying yesterday. I am all for decorum, but where is the decorum in throwing poor people off of healthcare? Where is the decorum in cutting food benefits and nutrition benefits to people who are in desperate need? Where is the decorum in cutting school meals?

These are unusual times that we are in. They are firing veterans as we are gathered here today, people who serve our country with distinction. Our constituents and your constituents are upset, and here we are upset because somebody got up and pleaded with the President not to cut Medicaid.

Where were all of my Republican friends when we had a heckling session year after year of Republicans berating Barack Obama? There was nothing. There was nothing. I can't believe we are having this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Do you know what has never happened in my career? The President of the United States coming before a joint session of Congress and insulting Members by name individually, shouting slurs at people.

I have never seen that before. Would the gentleman agree with me that Trump deserves a censure for calling my Senator from Massachusetts a slur? Would that be appropriate?

Again, this was not business as usual yesterday. To make believe that somehow it was or that the person who was giving the speech yesterday was acting within the structures of decorum is laughable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, is the gentleman prepared to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, the virtue signaling we are seeing from Republicans right now is insane. I am sorry. Who was it who yelled: ``You lie'' at President Obama during his address? A Republican.

Who was it who heckled President Biden, standing up and ranting like lunatics? It was Republicans.

Go back and look at the videos. It was embarrassing. Nothing was done about that.

I am the ranking member of the damn Rules Committee, and I have a question. Why are the rules only applied to Democratic Members?

Are Republicans ready to censure their own Members for wearing campaign hats in the Chamber last night? That is a violation of the rules.

Are they ready to censure the Republican Member who got caught voting from California last month, which is a violation of the House rules? He wasn't even in the Chamber. Hell, he wasn't even on the East Coast.

Are these people going to be censured? Of course not, because their outrage is all BS.

There was a breach of dignity and decorum in this Chamber last night, but it wasn't Al Green. It was the President of the United States, who stood at that podium and delivered a manifesto of pure fantasy.

He says he wants to make America affordable again. Well, inflation just hit a 7-month high, and his new trade war will cost families $2,000 more a year.

Trump says he wants to balance the budget. His plan would add $3 trillion to the deficit to give billionaires another tax cut--let me repeat that again--to give billionaires a tax cut. All these cutbacks, all these firings are going to fund tax cuts for billionaires.

He says Social Security is paying benefits to millions of people over 100 years old. That is totally wrong, debunked a hundred times.

He says he cares about childhood cancer. He slashed the funding for child cancer research.

He says his tariffs are good for farmers. Last time he did this, farmers lost $27 billion.

He says he supports law enforcement. He pardoned the people who beat police officers on January 6. He pardoned them: people who tried to overturn the election, people who brutally beat the men and women who protect us in this Chamber every single day.

There was just one outrageous statement after another, and not a single peep from my Republican friends. Nothing. Now, Mr. Speaker, Republicans have the nerve to come down here and censure anyone.

Republicans moved heaven and earth to come down here and defend the honor of their boss, Donald Trump, but they won't lift a finger for their own constituents. Look in the mirror and censure yourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for a very serious issue that I think troubles and disturbs every Member of the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, decorum, order, and respect are the foundations for the way that we conduct business in this Chamber, in this institution.

Respect for the institution is paramount. Respect for each other and respect for the responsibility that each one of us has been given and has been tasked with and who has the responsibility to the American people are the building blocks and the most important facets of our system that truly separate us, the United States of America, from the rest of the world.

During the President's address just last night to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Speaker, those principles were violated. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) performed one of most shameful acts that I have ever seen on this floor.

As an advocate for bipartisan problem-solving and for working across the aisle as hard as possible to come up with solutions for the people whom I represent and for the people whom every single one of us represents, I was deeply disappointed to see the behavior that we all saw and that the world saw unfold in this Chamber.

I thank my Republican colleagues and certainly House leadership, particularly Mr. Crane and Mr. Nehls, for helping elevate the Conference's concern on this very, very important matter.

Mr. Speaker, we must maintain a standard in the House of Representatives, and any Member's refusal to adhere to the Speaker's direction to cease such behavior, regardless of their political party and regardless of who is at the lectern giving a speech, has to and must continue to be reprimanded. We cannot afford to let it go by.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. Mr. Speaker, we must do better for ourselves, for the institution, and for the people who sent us here. Checking our emotion, checking our energy, and checking our rhetoric and prioritizing decency between each other sends the message not only to our colleagues but to the rest of the country and the rest of the world that we are working for the people and not against each other.

With those brief comments, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I respect Mr. McGovern's opinion and his viewpoints. They may conflict with mine on many occasions, but he has the absolute right to express them on this floor, and we need to continue that tradition. However, this is not about the President. This is not about President Trump.

This is about how we, as Members of the House of Representatives, conduct ourselves while we are doing business on the House floor. This is about how we treat each other. It is about how we treat each other, whether with respect or not. It is so important, especially when the eyes of the world are focused right here in this very room.

In my short time in Congress, which is just about a decade now, I have never ever seen a Member of the House, by the direction of the Speaker, escorted from the premises by the Sergeant at Arms. That is a first.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, you know of the last time it happened. It has been a long time.

I am very disappointed and ashamed of the fact, and this is not personal to Mr. Green, who is a very amiable fellow, but we must, as Members of this institution, leave our rhetoric, calm our energy, and make sure our emotions do not take over and conduct ourselves in a way that all of us, not just here in this room but across the country, can be proud of because we truly are on display to the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baumgartner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting to listen to the arguments coming from the other side of the aisle about what we are doing here tonight.

In talking about free speech, it seemed to me that the gentleman from Texas was doing all he could to prohibit or get in the way of the President of the United States exercising his free speech and his address to the joint session.

This is not about policy. This is not about whether Republicans are better than Democrats or vice versa. This is about how we conduct ourselves on the House floor. This is about how we treat each other. This is a reflection on every single one of us in this Chamber. As my colleague from the State of Washington said, it is not just us this affects. This affects the kids of our country, as well, who are learning, one way or the other, from our examples.

You can go on and on about how much you disagree and detest some of the policies and positions of the President of the United States. Be my guest, but that is not what is being argued tonight. That is not the issue that we are taking a stand on today. This is how we, as a body, should conduct ourselves in these hallowed Halls, this Chamber, that not very many people ever get to set foot into.

This is something we should hold to a higher standard. We have to or else what are we? Are we just a debate club that yells at each other, or do we stand for something? Do we truly see ourselves as Representatives of the people of the United States?

Something has to change. It truly does. A line has to be drawn. Not all of us on either side of the aisle are perfect examples of what we could or should be, but certainly, as I mentioned before, in my career here, I have never ever seen a Member of Congress escorted from the floor of the House by the Sergeant At Arms. It has never happened in my career, and I don't want to see it happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the comments of Mr. Doggett and do consider him a friend as well, but let me just tell you that we are talking apples to oranges when we are speaking about something that happened under President Obama's speech on the Republican side.

Last night, Mr. Green was reprimanded at least three times by the Speaker to stop and desist what he was doing, shaking his cane at the President at the rostrum in a threatening manner, underscoring--what I saw was emotion, energy and emotion; and intentionality, absolutely, intending to disrupt the speech by the President of the United States.

I think we are talking about two different things here. The incident during the Obama administration was over in just a few seconds. This went on and on and on. Certainly, debating the issue is one thing in different circumstances. This was not an open debate. Mr. Green was trying to make it one.

This was a message from the President, so the actions that we are proposing to take here are absolutely justified. The President was here under invitation by the House of Representatives for a report to Congress. It was not an open debate. It was a message being received by the joint session, and that is the way it should be treated.

Respect should be given to the Presidency whether or not they are your guy or your gal. It is the Office of the President that needs the respect because it reflects on all of us as Members of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

One of the things when I was a freshman in Congress that just shocked me, amazed me, is how easily events on the floor would devolve into what I would describe as something akin to a high school pep rally, and that pains me to say that.

We are all adults here, discussing some of the most important issues facing the American public, I would daresay the entire world, right here in this Chamber. The things that happen in this Chamber that reflect poorly on us reflect poorly on every single one of us.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is truly a wake-up call for this Chamber. The lack of decorum has reached a new high when the President of the United States cannot even come into our Chamber, invited, and complete his speech without the interaction that we saw last night.

We have to take this action of censure. Let me tell you, there are many people on my side of the aisle that would like to take this even further. The notion of intentionality versus emotion does not justify the actions that we witnessed last night, the disrespect of the institution.

Using the argument that, well, our side did it so we can do it, too, well, that doesn't work. That does not hold water.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. Mr. Speaker, we must do better. We cannot ignore the willful disruption intended to stop a proceeding.

Let me use another word that is also difficult to say. It was shameful.

Without decorum, without respect, what have we got? What do we have? Truly.

You have all seen the newsreels of other countries that chambers similar to ours evolve into fistfights on the floor.

Is that where we are headed next? Is that what we want to have happen so that these fine people that work their tails off every day can be part of that and be the referees in a situation that is out of control?

Like I said, this shameful action reflects on every single one of us. You are right. I will concede that all of us need a reminder that we all need to raise our level of accountability due to the actions that we take.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a necessary but difficult step. This resolution is offered in all seriousness. It is something that I believe that we must do in order to get us to the next level of conduct in this hallowed Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to join with me to attain that better level of conduct. We owe it to our constituents for sure. We owe it to our future constituents in this country. We owe it to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 177, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management relating to ``Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 11.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 11, a resolution to express disapproval of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's misguided protection of the ``Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources'' rule.

First, I thank my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Representative Ezell, for championing this effort and collaborating with my team to bring this resolution to the floor today. Additionally, I acknowledge Democratic Senators Hickenlooper, Cortez Masto, and Rosen for supporting this resolution in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 11 is a commonsense measure that would repeal a burdensome and unnecessary Biden administration rule that forces offshore energy operators to conduct costly archeological surveys and submit reports for every exploration and development plan on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Under the rule in question, operators must comply with this blanket mandate, even in areas with no known archeological risks, adding millions in unnecessary costs and delays despite existing State and Federal protections under the National Historic Preservation Act.

Eliminating this one-size-fits-all rulemaking will ensure that energy production isn't bogged down by duplicative red tape. S.J. Res. 11 uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify a rule which BOEM acknowledges places ``100 percent of the increased Gulf of Mexico compliance cost for survey[s]'' on operators that are small entities.

This resolution would end the Biden administration's needless overreach and return the regulatory regime to a targeted, evidence- based approach.

Notably, this repeal preserves America's ability to tap its offshore resources efficiently. It will not weaken genuine historic preservation but will stop a pointless cash grab that inflates administrative burdens. In fact, this resolution could boost Federal revenues by speeding up leasing and production timelines that are critical to U.S. energy security.

Offshore oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf accounts for 15 percent of U.S. production, supporting jobs, powering homes, fueling transportation, paying for conservation, and lowering costs for goods we all need. Yet, this rule, part of a broader pattern of Biden-era restrictions, threatens that stability with added costs of more than 500 additional labor hours per year across operators.

Federal regulators shouldn't stifle energy development. This resolution offers a rational fix by eliminating a rule which was intended to add burdens to a vital industry. S.J. Res. 11 will protect American energy security and keep energy costs down for families as part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about repealing anything that is going to add any protections or viability to anything that is happening on offshore exploration. The rule was not even about wearing a suspender with a belt.

This rule was put in place to hamper offshore energy production. Under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, protections already exist for offshore operators, and it requires them to identify and avoid marine archeological sites, making this rule totally redundant.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Biden-era rule wasn't just for redundancy. It was to put shackles on offshore energy production and to put higher costs on American consumers, who are already struggling with inflation that has resulted from the policies of the previous administration.

Good governance doesn't have redundancy and duplicative rules in place that hamper Americans from building and producing.

What we are doing is releasing the shackles off of energy production so that we can provide the things that our country and our economy need.

That is why I really appreciate the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell) for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, our country is at a point where we need more energy and every form of energy when we look at the demands for data processing, when we look at transportation demands, when we look at demands for energy to grow our economy and to produce more things here. I don't think anybody on either side of the aisle would question the fact that we need more energy and our energy consumption is on an exponential increase.

This rule that the Biden administration made is not about an all-of- the-above energy approach. It is not about producing more energy, more clean reliable energy that comes from America. It is about attacking an industry.

If you don't believe that, just look at the rule itself. We produce more than one kind of energy offshore. We produce oil and gas. We also produce wind, but magically wind farms don't trigger an archeological review, I guess, because they are not included in this analysis, this redundant process that the Biden administration put in place.

The reason they are not is the same reason that oil and gas should not be included; because there is already a process to do the National Historical Preservation Act section 106 requirements when you are getting a permit.

This rule was added by the Biden administration just to create another level of bureaucracy, another level of regulatory hurdles to stop offshore oil and gas exploration and production. That is the only purpose they could have put this rule in place for. Otherwise, they would have said, if they really cared about archeological features and artifacts in the Gulf and offshore, they would have included the wind farms in this, but it is only targeted at oil and gas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S.J. Res. 11. I thank my colleagues across the aisle for actually making our point on why this regulation that was put in place by the Biden administration is totally unnecessary.

We made the point that it is targeted specifically for oil and gas and that wind is exempted. They tried to say that wind is exempted because they are already doing the analysis under the National Historic Preservation Act, section 106.

Guess what? Oil and gas is doing the same thing. They are already making these archaeological assessments under existing rules.

This is redundant, but it is not just redundant. It is punitive. It was a rule put in place to attack what our colleagues like to refer to as the Big Oil bogeyman. Apparently, because they have been successful and they can actually turn a profit because there is a demand for their product, they should be attacked by the Federal Government; they should have more regulations put on them. We should do anything we can to stop producing more energy offshore if you are in the mindset of the previous administration.

That is not helping America. That is not helping the American consumers. That is not helping the American economy, and it is certainly not helping America on the world stage. It is ridiculous that we are having to come here and do Congressional Review Acts on horrible policies that were put in place by the previous administration, but thank goodness we have the tool to do that. Thank goodness the Senate has already done it, and we have bipartisan support in the Senate to do the CRA on this rule.

State and Federal laws, as has already been mentioned, provide robust oversight for marine historic resources, again making this added layer of Federal bureaucracy pointless and wasteful. The repeal will lower energy costs for American families, strengthen U.S. energy independence, and support an industry critical to our economy and our security, all while maintaining responsible stewardship of historic resources.

One thing that BOEM failed to analyze that often gets overlooked, it is not just Big Oil in the Outer Continental Shelf, it is also small producers, family-owned businesses, and thousands and thousands of people who make a living working in the Outer Continental Shelf.

This burdensome regulation will be detrimental to those small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.