This measure targets Representative Al Green for disrupting the joint session convened on March 4, 2025. It censures him and directs his appearance in the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure.
The resolution also requires the Speaker to publicly read the censure, creating an official, public reprimand recorded in the House proceedings. Introduced by Representative Dan Newhouse (R-WA) in the 119th Congress, the measure frames the action as a formal rebuke rather than a bill imposing penalties.
The bill is a symbolic disciplinary action within the House rather than a change in substantive law. If enacted, it would establish a procedural sequence: a formal censure, a mandated appearance in the well for pronouncement, and a public reading of the resolution.
The Clerk’s attestation completes the official record. The formality reinforces decorum standards for floor proceedings but does not alter statutory rights or create new criminal or civil exposure for the member.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a formal censure of Rep. Al Green for disruptions during the joint address and sets procedural steps for the pronouncement.
Who It Affects
Directly affects Rep. Al Green, the Speaker, the Clerk, and Sergeant at Arms; also impacts House floor operations and decorum enforcement.
Why It Matters
Signals the House’s expectations for orderly proceedings and creates a formal, publicly visible record of discipline that can influence future floor behavior.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.Res. 189 is a House resolution that formally rebukes Representative Al Green for disrupting a joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025. The measure describes Green’s actions as a breach of proper conduct and notes that he was removed from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms, a consequence that underscores the seriousness of the disruption.
The resolution proceeds to outline three concrete steps: first, a formal censure of Green; second, Green’s obligation to present himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement; and third, a public reading of the resolution by the Speaker in the House chamber. The Clerk is authorized to attest the proceedings, ensuring an official record.
As a mechanism, the resolution functions purely as a symbolic reprimand within the House’s decorum framework. It does not modify statutory rights or impose penalties outside the chamber’s procedural universe.
The action is intended to communicate the House’s stance on acceptable floor behavior and to codify a procedural response to disruptions, ensuring that future incidents have a clear, repeatable sequence for response and record-keeping.In practical terms, if adopted, the measure would produce a publicly witnessed censure and an archival entry that documents the House’s response to a disruption. It emphasizes procedural transparency and sets a precedent for how similar events are handled going forward, without altering substantive law or creating new enforcement mechanisms beyond those already embedded in House rules and practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires a formal censure of Rep. Al Green.
It directs Green to appear in the well for the pronouncement of censure.
It requires the Speaker to read the resolution aloud in the chamber.
It is a House resolution, not substantive legislation, with no criminal penalties.
Introduced by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) in the 119th Congress.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Censure of Rep. Al Green
The resolution designates a formal censure of Rep. Al Green for disrupting the joint session. It establishes that such conduct constitutes a breach of proper conduct and explains that the censure is to be publicly recorded as the House’s disciplinary response. The effect is a formal, non-legislative rebuke that appears in the official record.
Pronouncement in the Well
Section 2 requires Rep. Green to present himself in the well of the House so that the pronouncement of censure can be delivered. The provision specifies that the pronouncement is a contingent step in the sequence of enforcing decorum and ensuring the public process follows established protocol.
Public Reading of the Resolution
Section 3 mandates a public reading of the resolution by the Speaker in the chamber. This secures transparency and allows the remark to be subject to the public and official record, with the Clerk attesting the proceedings to formalize the act.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Speaker of the House — gains a clear, publicly executed decorum mechanism to address disruptions.
- Clerk of the House — gains an official role in attesting and recording the proceedings.
- Sergeant at Arms and floor staff — gain a defined process for handling disruptions and enforcing order.
- House leadership (both parties) — benefits from predictable norms and a formal response pathway.
- Rank-and-file members who value orderly debates — benefit from a clear precedent that disruptions have a standardized consequence.
Who Bears the Cost
- Rep. Al Green — bears the symbolic cost of a formal rebuke and reputational impact.
- Clerk of the House and floor staff — incur administrative work to document and attest proceedings.
- House as an institution — incurs time and resource costs associated with implementing and recording ceremonial disciplinary actions.
- Public perception considerations — potential reputational costs to the House if the action is seen as politicized or excessively punitive.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a formal censure for a disruption—intended as a clear signal of decorum—unnecessarily constrains legitimate debate or, conversely, whether it is essential to uphold orderly proceedings and the integrity of the legislative process.
The measure is primarily symbolic, relying on decorum norms rather than substantive policy changes. It depends on a narrow, incident-specific justification tied to a single joint-session disruption, which raises questions about consistency and future applicability.
The mechanism relies on standard floor procedures (pronouncement in the well and public reading) and the Clerk’s attestation, but it does not address broader questions of free speech or minority expression beyond the targeted act. The decision to pursue a formal censure could invite counter-arguments about both the scope of decorum rules and the potential chilling effect on vigorous, legitimate debate.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.