H.Res. 204 is a simple House resolution that removes Representative Al Green (TX) from his assignment on the Committee on Financial Services. The resolution’s operative language names the committee and the Member to be removed; it does not expel the Member from the House or alter any other status.
The resolution frames the removal as a disciplinary response to Representative Green’s interruption of the President’s State of the Union remarks on March 4, 2025, recounts subsequent events including his removal from the joint session and a censure vote on March 6, 2025, and cites House Rule XXIII, clause 1, as the behavioral standard. For practitioners, the measure matters because it uses a committee assignment as the disciplinary tool and therefore changes the composition—and potentially the oversight dynamics—of a standing committee without invoking expulsion or formal adjudication procedures.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution directs that a named Member be removed from a named standing committee (Committee on Financial Services). It implements that change by a single operative clause; the bill contains several ‘‘whereas’’ clauses documenting the underlying events. The text does not provide for replacement, suspension of pay, or expulsion.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are Representative Green, the Committee on Financial Services and its current membership, and House leadership responsible for committee rosters. Indirectly affected are regulated entities and stakeholders who rely on the committee’s oversight, and the House Ethics Committee, which received the resolution referral.
Why It Matters
This is a narrow but consequential use of committee assignment as punishment: it creates a precedent for disciplining members by altering committee composition based on conduct at a ceremonial event. That approach can shift oversight capacity, change partisan margins on a committee, and expand the portfolio of sanctions available to the House majority.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core operative mechanism in H.Res. 204 is short and specific: it removes Representative Al Green of Texas from the Committee on Financial Services. The resolution contains one dispositive sentence naming the committee and the Member; it does not include language about replacing the Member, changing committee ratios, or any additional sanctions.
The bill’s prefatory language traces the facts that the sponsors say justify removal: during the March 4, 2025 State of the Union joint session the Representative interrupted the President’s remarks, was admonished by House staff and the Speaker, and was removed from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms. The resolution also recounts a March 6, 2025 House censure vote and quotes Representative Green’s on-floor statements made before that censure.As a matter of internal House practice, the sponsors anchor the action to Rule XXIII, clause 1, which sets a behavioral standard for Members to “reflect creditably on the House.” The resolution therefore frames committee removal as an appropriate disciplinary response under existing internal norms; it does not invoke judicial or external review mechanisms.Practically, the resolution’s immediate effect—if adopted—will be administrative: the House Clerk and party leadership will update committee rosters and the Member will lose committee votes, influence over markup and oversight, and any informal leverage tied to that assignment.
The text leaves open who fills the vacated slot, whether party ratios will be adjusted, and whether the removal is intended as permanent policy or as a one-off disciplinary act.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution's single operative sentence removes Rep. Al Green (Texas) from the Committee on Financial Services.
The bill’s preamble records the interruption of the State of the Union on March 4, 2025 and notes Representative Green’s removal from the joint session by the Sergeant at Arms.
The resolution cites the March 6, 2025 House censure vote and Representative Green’s on-floor statements made prior to that censure.
The sponsors invoke House Rule XXIII, clause 1, as the behavioral standard underpinning the disciplinary action.
The resolution was introduced with multiple cosponsors and was referred to the House Committee on Ethics for consideration, per the bill header.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings documenting the incident and prior disciplinary action
The preamble collects factual assertions: that Representative Green interrupted the President at the March 4 State of the Union, ignored admonitions from staff and the Speaker, was escorted from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms, and was later censured on March 6. Those ‘‘whereas’’ clauses function as the sponsors’ factual predicate: they do not create legal duties but serve to justify the remedy the resolution proposes.
Direct removal from the Committee on Financial Services
The operative text is a single declarative sentence removing the named Member from the named standing committee. Mechanically, adoption of the resolution changes the committee roster; the text does not include language on replacement, temporary suspension, or further sanctions. That narrow drafting limits the resolution’s effect to committee assignment only.
Invocation of House Rule XXIII, clause 1
The resolution explicitly references Rule XXIII, clause 1, which directs Members to behave in a way that ‘‘reflect[s] creditably on the House.’’ By invoking that clause the sponsors frame committee removal as a permissible disciplinary step under House norms rather than as an ad hoc political act, though the rule itself does not prescribe a specific sanction for violations.
Referral to the Committee on Ethics and administrative follow-through
Although the operative removal is contained in the resolution, the bill routing notes referral to the House Committee on Ethics. That referral signals committee-level consideration of the conduct allegations or the resolution’s propriety; separately, if the resolution passes, implementation—updating rosters and seating—will be handled administratively by House officers and party offices.
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 leadership who seek an enforceable, straightforward tool to respond to high-profile breaches of decorum—removal from a committee implements a visible penalty without expulsion.
- Members of the Committee on Financial Services who argued the interruption degraded chamber proceedings; removing a disruptive member can reduce future procedural disruptions in committee and floor interactions.
- The institution generally (and the Senate for ceremonial events) insofar as the resolution signals enforcement of conduct standards at joint sessions and may deter similar interruptions during high-profile addresses.
- Colleagues who object to precedent that only the most severe punishments (like expulsion) are available; this provides a calibrated sanction short of expulsion that still imposes political cost.
Who Bears the Cost
- Representative Al Green: loss of committee assignment removes his vote, influence in financial oversight, and the specialist platform that committee work provides to constituents.
- Constituents of Rep. Green who may lose direct representation on Financial Services matters and the Member’s ability to carry amendments or casework tied to that committee.
- The Republican conference (or the majority that sponsors the resolution) if removing a member alters committee ratios and produces political blowback or reduces the conference’s internal bench strength on financial policy.
- The Committee on Financial Services, which loses a sitting member and may face short-term gaps in expertise or an altered workload distribution until leadership names a replacement.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between enforcing institutional norms—preserving ceremonial decorum and holding Members accountable—and protecting representative rights and minority safeguards: removing a Member from committee changes who represents constituents and shifts oversight power, and doing so by majority vote without a formal adjudicative process risks converting committee assignments into political currency rather than principled discipline.
Two implementation ambiguities matter. First, the resolution itself is silent on replacement mechanics and duration; it removes a named Member but does not say whether the vacancy is to be filled from the same party, whether ratios are to be recalculated, or whether the action is intended as permanent.
Those administrative choices fall to party leadership and House officers and can themselves become contested political questions.
Second, the resolution raises due-process and precedent concerns. The sponsors rely on a general conduct rule to justify a very specific personnel sanction.
That approach is efficient but thin: the bill does not describe an adjudicative process, hearings, or findings beyond the preamble recitation. Using committee reassignment as a disciplinary instrument for out-of-chamber conduct creates an incentive structure for majorities to wield committee seats as leverage, which may depress minority representation or make committee composition contingent on majoritarian disciplinary politics.
Finally, while the resolution is narrow in effect it enlarges the menu of non-expulsion sanctions for judgeable misconduct. That power can help enforce norms, but it also risks routinizing personnel penalties for partisan disagreements or ceremonial interruptions rather than for misbehavior tied to committee work itself.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.