This simple resolution names Representative LaMonica McIver and removes her from two standing House committees: Homeland Security and Small Business. It bases the action on a three‑count federal indictment alleging forcible interference with federal officers, and it accomplishes the removal by direct instruction to the House: "be, and is hereby, removed."
The measure matters because it shows how the House can use a targeted resolution to reconfigure committee memberships quickly, without expulsion or criminal adjudication. That power affects committee workloads, partisan ratios, and how representatives — and their constituents — are represented in committee proceedings.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution directs the House to remove a named Member from two specified standing committees by name, using a single-line resolve clause that adopts immediate removal language.
Who It Affects
The named Representative loses committee assignments and the duties, staff access, and influence that come with them; the two committees will have vacancies to fill; House leadership must rebalance committee rosters as needed.
Why It Matters
It establishes a narrow, intra‑chamber mechanism for addressing alleged misconduct that stops short of expulsion or other penalties, creating a template for disciplinary action based on criminal charges rather than conviction.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution is concise: a preamble recites that Representative LaMonica McIver is charged in a three‑count federal indictment for forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers, and a single resolve clause removes her from two standing committees by name. The phrasing "be, and is hereby, removed" indicates the House would effectuate the change directly through passage of the resolution; the text does not condition removal on any later finding or court outcome.
Because it is a House resolution addressing internal committee assignments, the document does not expel the Member from the House, alter compensation, or create criminal consequences — it only changes committee memberships. The resolution also does not prescribe how or when the resulting vacancies are to be filled; under existing House practice, party leaders and steering committees select replacements and adjust ratios to preserve majority/minority representation.The resolution ties a personnel action to the existence of criminal charges rather than to an Ethics Committee adjudication or a judicial conviction.
That design permits the chamber to act quickly but raises questions about the relationship between congressional discipline, the criminal process, and the Member’s representational duties. Practically, committees named in the text face immediate shortfalls of membership and potential disruption to ongoing work in subject areas where the removed Member had assignments or institutional knowledge.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The text explicitly cites a "three‑count Federal indictment for forcibly impeding and interfering with Federal officers" as the factual basis in its preamble.
The operative language—"be, and is hereby, removed"—makes the removal effective upon House adoption of the resolution; the bill contains no separate effective‑date provision.
The resolution names two standing committees by title: the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Small Business; it does not remove the Member from the House itself or from any other committees.
The measure contains no procedure for filling the resulting vacancies; under House practice, party leadership and steering committees handle replacements, so the resolution shifts the timing and burden of reassignment to House leaders.
This is a House resolution addressing internal committee assignments, not a statute; it operates solely within the chamber’s authority to govern its membership and does not change federal criminal or civil law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statement of alleged facts that trigger the measure
The preamble performs two functions: it identifies the Member by name and records the predicate fact for action — a three‑count federal indictment alleging forcible interference with federal officers. Practically, the preamble is the political and rhetorical foundation for the resolution; it does not carry independent legal consequences but signals the rationale the House would accept for removing committee assignments.
Immediate removal from specified standing committees
A single resolve paragraph removes the Member from two named standing committees. The language chosen is mandatory and unconditional, so the House would effect the removals directly if it votes for the resolution. Because the clause lists committees by name, it limits the action’s scope to those bodies rather than producing a broader disciplinary order (for example, it does not expel the Member from the House or cut office allowances).
What the resolution leaves to House practice
The text is silent on replacement mechanics, timing, or whether the removed Member may be reinstated later. Those operational questions default to existing House practice: party leadership and steering committees reassign seats to preserve majority/minority ratios and committee sizes. The absence of a restoration mechanism means reinstatement would require a separate House action, leaving control over the Member’s committee status in the hands of House leaders and caucus processes.
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 and party steering committees — they gain a clear, fast mechanism to reallocate seats and adjust committee rosters to address perceived reputational or operational risks without pursuing expulsion.
- Committees named in the resolution (colleagues) — removing a member perceived as a liability can reduce internal disruption and protect ongoing investigations or sensitive work from distraction.
- Constituents concerned about ethics or public trust — the measure offers a visible institutional response to criminal allegations, which some voters and local officials may view as protective of institutional integrity.
Who Bears the Cost
- Representative LaMonica McIver — loss of committee influence, staff access tied to those assignments, and the policy platform that committee work provides for constituent service and re‑election messaging.
- The two affected committees — they temporarily lose a member’s voting contribution and subject‑matter capacity and may need to redistribute workloads or delay business until leadership names replacements.
- Party leadership — responsibility for filling vacancies, preserving partisan ratios, and managing intra‑caucus fallout; quick reassignments can create tensions and tradeoffs among Members seeking committee spots.
- Constituents of the removed Member — they lose the Member’s direct voice on committee proceedings and may face reduced influence on subject matters handled by those panels.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the House’s interest in protecting committee function and institutional reputation by removing a member quickly against the Member’s right to be presumed innocent and to retain full representational duties until proven guilty or disciplined through a formal, transparent congressional process.
The central implementation questions are procedural rather than legal: the resolution mandates removal but says nothing about how and when seats will be refilled, whether removal is reversible, or what standards the House will apply in future cases. That silence hands significant discretion to party leaders and steering committees, which can preserve stability but also convert ad hoc disciplinary choices into party management decisions rather than transparent, rule‑based outcomes.
There is also a substantive tension between institutional integrity and procedural fairness. Acting on an indictment allows the House to respond quickly to allegations that might impair committee work, but it means the chamber can change a Member’s duties before any judicial determination of guilt.
While the House has broad plenary authority over its rules and memberships, relying on criminal charging decisions as the trigger for internal discipline risks politicizing committee composition and may invite inconsistent standards across cases.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.