H. Res. 1102 directs that Representative Tony Gonzales of Texas be removed from his assignments on the House Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Homeland Security.
The resolution cites clause 1 of House Rule XXIII — the provision that requires Members to behave in a way that "reflect[s] creditably on the House" — as its basis for removal.
This is an internal House action: the resolution itself carries the operative language to strip committee memberships but does not name a replacement or set a process for filling the resulting vacancies. For practitioners, the measure matters because committee removals change oversight and funding dynamics, alter access to committee-level information, and set a procedural precedent for disciplining Members without a separate, detailed adjudicative record in the text of the resolution itself.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution states, in its operative clause, that Representative Tony Gonzales "is hereby removed" from two standing House committees: Appropriations and Homeland Security. It uses the House's simple-resolution form to change committee rosters.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are Rep. Gonzales, the staffs for the two committees, and the respective party leaderships responsible for maintaining committee ratios and naming replacements. Indirectly affected are agencies and programs overseen by those committees, and constituents who rely on the member's committee access for constituency services.
Why It Matters
Removing a member from Appropriations changes who has a vote on funding allocations; removing a member from Homeland Security affects participation in oversight and classified briefings tied to that committee. The resolution also signals how the House might use simple resolutions to police member conduct under Rule XXIII.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H. Res. 1102 is a narrowly worded, single-subject House resolution that takes one concrete action: it removes Representative Tony Gonzales from two standing committees of the House.
The text begins by invoking clause 1 of House Rule XXIII, which is a broad normative standard that Members should behave in a manner that reflects creditably on the institution; the resolution then converts that general standard into a specific personnel action.
The resolution does not lay out findings of fact, a narrative of alleged misconduct, or a separate investigatory record within its text. Instead, it relies on the authority of a House resolution to alter committee membership immediately upon adoption.
It also does not specify any follow-up steps — it names no replacement members, does not address changes to subcommittee assignments, and does not attach ancillary penalties such as limits on office resources or seniority.Because committee assignments are controlled internally, adoption of this resolution would have immediate operational effects: the two committees would lose a named member, party leaders would need to adjust rosters to preserve negotiated ratios, and committee chairs would reassign workload and subcommittee slots. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Ethics upon introduction, which signals an overlap between the Ethics Committee's role in investigating members' conduct and the House's direct power to resolve committee membership through a simple resolution.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution’s operative sentence removes Representative Tony Gonzales of Texas from the House Committees on Appropriations and on Homeland Security by name.
The preamble cites clause 1 of House Rule XXIII (the duty to "reflect creditably on the House") as the basis for removal but the text includes no factual findings or explanatory record.
H. Res. 1102 is a House simple resolution; it changes internal committee rosters and does not require Senate action or presidential signature.
The resolution was referred to the Committee on Ethics on introduction, creating a procedural overlap between an ethics referral and an immediate roster change.
The text does not appoint replacements, address subcommittee seats, or alter seniority — it simply instructs that the member "is hereby removed," leaving follow-up roster management to party leadership and House procedure.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Invocation of Rule XXIII as legal and normative basis
The resolution opens by citing clause 1 of Rule XXIII, which articulates a general expectation that Members' behavior reflect credit on the House. That invocation functions as the resolution's legal and normative hook: it ties the personnel action to the House’s internal code of conduct rather than to a criminal or civil finding. Practically, this is significant because it frames the removal as an institutional judgment about decorum and fitness for committee service rather than as a statutory or judicial sanction.
Removes Rep. Gonzales from the Committee on Appropriations
One discrete clause strips the member of his seat on the Appropriations Committee. Mechanically, that change reduces the committee’s roster by one unless leadership immediately names a replacement; it also removes his vote on funding bills and any subcommittee roles he held. For the Appropriations Committee, where membership shapes funding priorities and access to appropriations processes, this is a direct loss of influence for the member and a potential shift in internal voting arithmetic.
Removes Rep. Gonzales from the Committee on Homeland Security
A parallel clause removes him from the Homeland Security Committee. Beyond the statutory language, removal from this committee can have practical consequences including loss of participation in oversight of federal homeland-security programs, diminished access to certain briefings, and altered committee expertise. The resolution does not address classified-access procedures or how removal would affect any clearances or briefing privileges tied to Homeland Security work.
Form, referral, and absence of replacement provisions
The resolution is formatted as a House simple resolution and was referred to the Committee on Ethics on introduction. It contains no instructions for filling the vacated seats, no transitional arrangements, and no articulation of ancillary sanctions. That omission places the onus on party leadership to rebalance committee ratios and reassign subcommittee slots; it also leaves unanswered whether any future resolution or internal action will memorialize replacements or alter seniority.
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
- House leaders seeking a swift institutional response: The resolution gives leadership a tool to remove a member from committees quickly without waiting for a separate adjudicative process.
- Colleagues on the two committees who may prefer to distance the panels from the member's alleged conduct: Removing the member can limit reputational spillover and allow chairs to reassign sensitive responsibilities.
- Constituents and advocacy groups pressing for accountability: Those who urged disciplinary action gain the concrete outcome they sought — loss of committee influence — which may be seen as vindication of their complaints.
Who Bears the Cost
- Representative Tony Gonzales: He loses committee votes, influence over appropriations and homeland-security oversight, and likely some staff support tied to committee work.
- Committee operations and minority/majority ratio managers: Chairs and party leadership must realign rosters and subcommittee assignments, which can disrupt legislative scheduling and bargaining.
- Agencies, programs, and stakeholders overseen by the two committees: Short-term continuity risks arise as a member is removed and his portfolio responsibilities are redistributed, potentially delaying constituent inquiries or oversight activity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus process: the House has a prudential interest in protecting its reputation and policing members' conduct, but doing so through a short, consequence-bearing resolution without a built-in factual record or replacement mechanism risks raising questions about fairness, precedent, and the stability of committee operations.
The resolution embodies a choice by the House to convert a general behavioral standard into a specific personnel sanction without embedding findings of fact in the resolution itself. That creates a procedural tension: the House can act decisively to protect institutional reputation, but the text leaves the factual predicate and investigative record largely external.
Implementation details are sparse — the resolution does not name replacements or address subcommittee reassignments, so the immediate operational burden falls to party leaders under existing assignment rules.
A second tension concerns precedent and partisan leverage. Using a simple resolution to remove a Member for conduct risks normalizing a mechanism that future majorities could deploy for partisan ends.
Conversely, refusing to act could undermine the House's ability to police conduct. Practically, this resolution may prompt disputes over timing, whether the Ethics Committee's referral should precede or follow a membership removal, and whether additional procedural safeguards (for example, a detailed Ethics Committee report) should accompany such disciplinary steps.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.