[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 18. Discharging Matters From Committees]
[§ 1. In General; Motion to Discharge]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 3207-3215]
CHAPTER 18
Discharging Matters From Committees
Sec. 1. In General; Motion to Discharge
The House, by rule, has made provisions for discharging matters
from committees. Under Rule XXVII clause 4,(1) a Member may
file with the Clerk a motion to discharge a committee from the
consideration of a public bill or resolution referred to it 30
legislative days prior thereto. The rule may also be invoked to
discharge a resolution pending in the Committee on Rules for more than
seven legislative days providing for consideration of a measure
favorably reported by a standing committee or pending before such
committee for 30 legislative days.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
2. See Sec. Sec. 2.4, 2.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary purpose of the discharge petition is to extract from a
committee, for House action, legislation opposed by a majority of the
committee members or where a committee fails to act.
The motion must be in writing and signed by a majority of the
Members, and this has been interpreted to mean that the motion requires
the signatures of 218 Members of the House.(3) Delegates may
not sign a discharge petition. The signatures on the motion may not be
made public until the requisite number of Members have signed
it.(4) The death or resignation of a signatory of the motion
does not invalidate his signature,(5) but for a Member
elected in a special election to fill a vacancy to sign a petition, the
signature of his predecessor must be removed.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. Sec. 1.2, 1.3, infra. The requirement of ``a majority of
Members'' was placed in the discharge rule in the 69th
Congress. Prior to that time, fewer signatures had been
required on a discharge petition. For the history of the rule,
see 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1007.
4. See Sec. 1.7, infra.
5. See Sec. l.5, infra.
6. See Sec. 1.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the requisite number of signatures are obtained, the motion is
entered on the Journal, printed with the signatures thereto in the
Congressional Record, and referred to the Calendar of Motions to
Discharge Committees.(7) A reported bill is no longer
susceptible to the motion, though reported in the interval between
completed signing of the petition and the calling up of the
motion.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 1.9, infra.
8. See Sec. 1.13, infra.
A motion to discharge a committee from further
consideration of a bill or resolution operates, when agreed to,
upon the bill or resolution as originally referred to the
committee rather than as it may have been amended in the
committee before the committee acted upon it adversely. 75
Cong. Rec. 4705, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 25, 1932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3208]]
See Chapter 21 (Order of Business; Special Orders), Sec. 16, for
discussion on discharge by the Committee on
Rules.
-------------------
Announcement of Filing of Motion
Sec. 1.1 A Member sometimes announces to the House the filing, pursuant
to Rule XXVII clause 4, of a motion to discharge a committee.
On June 17, 1952,(9) Mr. Paul W. Shafer, of Michigan,
announced to the House his filing with the Clerk of a motion to
discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of
a resolution proposing the impeachment of the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 98 Cong. Rec. 7424, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signatures on Motion
Sec. 1.2 A motion to discharge a committee from the further
consideration of a bill was held to require the signatures of 218
Members of the House.
On Apr. 15, 1936,(10) the Speaker (11)
responded to a parliamentary inquiry of Mr. Gerald J. Boileau, of
Wisconsin, relative to the number of signatures necessary to effectuate
a petition under the discharge rule of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 5509, 5510, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . [T]he Chair is constrained to hold that under the
``discharge rule'' of the House, requiring ``a majority of the
total membership of the House'', the exact number of 218 Members
was intended, and is necessary before a discharge petition is
effective, and no less number will suffice, irrespective of
temporary vacancies due to death, resignation, or other causes.
Sec. 1.3 The motion to discharge a pay raise bill was signed by the
required number of Members.
On June 3, 1960,(12) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 106 Cong. Rec. 11837, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCormack: My inquiry is whether or not the discharge
petition
[[Page 3209]]
on the pay raise bill has received the required number of
signatures, to wit, 219.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: According to the Journal clerk the 219
signatures have been obtained.
Parliamentarian's Note: In the 86th Congress, the total membership
of the House was 436 due to the election for the first time of a
Representative from the newly admitted State of Alaska.
Sec. 1.4 The death of a Member who had signed a discharge petition does
not invalidate the signature, and such signature stands as the
legislative act of such deceased Member unless withdrawn by his
successor.
On May 31, 1934,(14) Mr. Donald H. McLean, of New
Jersey, attempted to sign a discharge petition when he was informed
that, since a requisite number of Members (145) had already signed,
additional signatures could not be affixed. Since one of the signatures
on the petition was of a Member recently deceased (Mr. George F. Brumm,
of Pennsylvania), Mr. McLean asked Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of
Illinois, if the signature of the deceased was valid. The following
colloquy then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 78 Cong. Rec. 10159, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. In the 72d and 73d
Congresses, only 145 signatures were required. See 7 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 1007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McLean: I understand that one of the signers was that of
the late Representative Brumm, of Pennsylvania, who died a few days
ago. There is a question as to the effectiveness of his signature,
and the question of the effectiveness of his signature is proper
for consideration at this time.
The Speaker: Under the rule no signature can be withdrawn
except by the Member himself.
Mr. McLean: Does the Chair rule that the signature of Mr. Brumm
must stand?
The Speaker: The signature can only be removed by the Member,
by Mr. Brumm himself, as a Representative of the Thirteenth
District of Pennsylvania. When his successor is elected, in all
probability his successor would have that right.
Mr. McLean: Then, Mr. Speaker, I understand that without my
signature the petition is effective?
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct, 145 names being now
properly on it.
Sec. 1.5 Where a motion to discharge a committee had been signed by a
former Member, his successor, desiring to sign his own name, by
unanimous consent had his predecessor's name removed.
On Jan. 16, 1950,(15) the following colloquy occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 436, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. For further examples, see:
94 Cong. Rec. 1993, 2001, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1948; 92
Cong. Rec. 10464-91, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 30, 1946; and 92
Cong. Rec. 1968, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 5, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3210]]
Mr. [John F.] Shelley [of California]: Mr. Speaker, my
predecessor, the Honorable Richard J. Welch, signed Discharge
Petition No. 15. I desire to have my name entered on this petition.
I ask unanimous consent that his name be taken off the petition so
that I may sign it.
The Speaker: (16) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under the current practice, a Member
elected to fill a vacancy may remove the name of his predecessor in
order to affix his own name.
Sec. 1.6 Where the name of a Member has been inadvertently removed from
a discharge petition as printed in the Record, it may again be
placed thereon by unanimous consent.
On Apr. 18, 1946,(17) Mr. Lyndon B. Johnson, of Texas,
propounded a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, in the Record of yesterday, April 17, the Members
who signed discharge petition No. 20 have their names printed. I
signed the petition, and my name appeared as the one hundred and
ninetieth signature. The Journal clerk has informed me that through
some error at the desk my name was eliminated. I ask unanimous
consent that my name be restored to the petition and be printed in
the permanent Record.
There was no objection to the request.
Examination of Petition
Sec. 1.7 While a Member has the right to examine a discharge petition,
he does not have the right to read to the House the names signed on
such petition.
On Mar. 15, 1946,(18) a point of order was raised
against the request of Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, that the
Clerk provide him with a discharge petition on the Clerk's desk:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 2329, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cochran: As I understand the rules of the House, it is not
permissible to give out anything contained in a petition on the
Clerk's desk until the petition has the required number of signers.
Then it automatically is printed in
[[Page 3211]]
the Record with the signatures thereon.
The Speaker: It is certainly a violation of the rules to do
that.
Mr. Rankin: I have not given out anything. Do not get excited.
I merely asked for the petition. I have a right to look at it, as a
Member of the House.
The Speaker: The gentleman has the right to look at it but he
does not have the right to read any of the names on the petition.
Parliamentarian's Note: Only Members may examine the petition in
the custody of the Journal clerk, while the House is in session, and
they may not reveal the names of Members who have signed or not signed.
Withdrawal of Petition
Sec. 1.8 By unanimous consent, a discharge petition filed with the
Clerk has been withdrawn.
On Mar. 28, 1939,(20) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New
York, asked for unanimous consent to withdraw a motion to discharge the
Committee on Rules filed with the Clerk on a previous day. There was no
objection to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 3461, 76th Cong. 1st. Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Placing Motions on Calendar
Sec. 1.9 Motions to discharge committees are placed on the calendar
when they receive the requisite number of signatures.
On Apr. 30, 1936,(21) Mr. Gerald J. Boileau, of
Wisconsin, propounded a parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 80 Cong. Rec. 6464, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. For a further illustration
see 82 Cong. Rec. 1517, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 14, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boileau: I am advised by the Clerk that 218 Members have
signed the petition to discharge the Rules Committee from further
consideration of the resolution bringing up the Frazier-Lemke bill
for consideration on the floor. May I ask the Speaker whether or
not the petition is now completed and the matter on the calendar?
The Speaker: (22) The motion is now on the calendar
under the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of Inter-session Adjournment
Sec. 1.10 A discharge petition on the Clerk's desk awaiting signatures
carries over from session to session in the same Congress.
On Dec. 19, 1945,(1) during House debate incident to the
consideration of a House joint resolution (2) changing the
date of meet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 91 Cong. Rec. 12346, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
2. H.J. Res. 294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3212]]
ing of the second session of the current Congress, Mr. John H. Folger,
of North Carolina, addressed an inquiry to the Chair as follows:
Mr. Folger: I have a discharge petition on the desk, No. 10, in
which I am very, very much interested. I have no objection to this
adjournment until the 14th [of January, 1946] unless I have to go
back and get that signed anew. Will that carry over?
The Speaker: (3) It will carry over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Folger: If it will I am all right.
The Speaker: Everything remains on the calendar just as it is
now.
Bills Reported After Motion Has Been Placed on Calendar
Sec. 1.11 The motion to discharge a committee from the further
consideration of a bill does not apply to a bill that has been
reported by a committee during the interval between the placing of
the motion to discharge on the calendar and the day when such
motion is called up for action in the House.
On Aug. 5, 1949,(4) the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service reported a bill (5) thus rendering ineffective
a previously calendared motion to discharge the committee from further
consideration of the bill.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 95 Cong. Rec. 10878, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
5. H.R. 4495, providing additional benefits for certain postmasters,
officers, and employees in the postal field service.
6. See 95 Cong. Rec. 9966, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., July 21, 1949, where
the motion to discharge the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service received the requisite number of signatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to discharge the Committee on
Rules from further consideration of a resolution (7) making
this bill a special order of business was subsequently signed by the
requisite number of Members.(8) This resolution was reported
by the Committee on Rules on Sept. 27, 1949,(9) before the
motion could be called up for action in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. H. Res. 319.
8. See 95 Cong. Rec. 12103, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 23, 1949, where
the motion to discharge the Committee on Rules received the
requisite number of signatures.
9. 95 Cong. Rec. 13365, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21-day Rule Distinguished
Sec. 1.12 The discharge rule authorizes the use of the motion against
the Committee on Rules in a proper case. However, the so-called
``21-
[[Page 3213]]
day'' rule, which was in effect in the 89th Congress, whereby
resolutions pending before the Committee on Rules could be called
up for consideration, on discharge calendar days, was held to be
unrelated to the motion to discharge under Rule XXVII.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(10) after a House Resolution
(11) was called up pursuant to Rule XI clause 23 (the 21-day
rule), a point of order was raised by Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 23618, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H. Res. 478, providing for consideration of a bill, H.R. 9460,
establishing a national foundation on the arts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
consideration of this bill by the House based on clause 4 of rule
27, the last line in section 908, the second paragraph, says:
Recognition for the motions shall be in the order in which
they have been entered on the Journal.
Responding to the point of order, the Speaker (12) said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state that the gentleman is talking about an
entirely different rule than is the situation now. . . .
The Chair would advise the gentleman from Missouri that the
House is operating under Rule XI clause 23.
Validity of Committee Report as Affecting Eligibility for Discharge
Sec. 1.13 Where the House had laid on the table a resolution presented
as a question involving the privileges of the House challenging the
validity of a committee's action in reporting a bill, the Chair
overruled a point of order that the bill was not properly before
the House because it had not been read in committee prior to
reporting. The discharge rule does not apply to a bill that has
been reported by a committee during the interval between the
placing of a completed motion to discharge on the calendar and the
day when such motion is called up in the House.
On Apr. 23, 1934,(13) the Committee on Banking and
Currency reported a bill, H.R. 7908,(14) for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 78 Cong. Rec. 7151-61, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. The bill concerned payments of assets in closed banks.
The Committee on Banking and Currency had first reported
this bill on Apr. 12. The motion to discharge the committee
received the requisite number of signatures on Apr. 13. On Apr.
20, by direction of the Speaker, the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union was discharged from further
consideration of the bill; the Speaker held that the purported
report on said bill was invalid in that the Committee on
Banking and Currency had ordered the report made while the
House was in session and that therefore the bill was still with
the committee. The bill was again reported by the Committee on
Banking and Currency on Apr. 23, as indicated above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3214]]
which a motion to discharge was pending on the Calendar of Motions to
Discharge Committees. Despite the reporting of the measure by the
Committee on Banking and Currency, Mr. Clarence J. McLeod, of Michigan,
attempted to call up the motion to discharge the committee on H.R.
7908. It developed in the debate that Mr. McLeod and Mr. Jesse P.
Wolcott, of Michigan, viewed the reporting of the bill by the committee
as void ab initio on the grounds that the committee ordered the
reporting of the measure at a time when it sat during a session of the
House without the permission of the House and also because the measure
reported was not read before the committee. In fact, argued the
proponents of the discharge motion, the bill that was reported by the
committee was a committee substitute, the text of the bill H.R. 9175,
which the committee had inserted after striking all after the enacting
clause of the original bill which had been the subject of the discharge
petition signed by the requisite number of Members.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. At that time, only 145 signatures were required on a discharge
petition. Rule XXVII clause 4, House rules (1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Speaker (16) sustained a point of order
against the calling up of the motion to discharge the committee, on the
basis that ``inasmuch as the Committee on Banking and Currency has
reported the bill, that the effect of that action nullifies the motion
to discharge and makes it inoperative,'' (17) Mr. Carroll L.
Beedy, of Maine, raised a point of order against the bill as reported
by the committee because it had never been read for amendment in the
committee and was, he argued, not regularly before the House. Mr. Beedy
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
17. 78 Cong. Rec. 7161, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 23, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment to
the McLeod bill, so called, was not introduced in the House until
the 17th of April subsequent to the time when any bill of the kind
was ever read for amendment in the committee. This fact is
undenied.
The bill that was reported never was read for amendment in the
committee.
[[Page 3215]]
It is not legally or validly upon the calendar of the House. While
the decision of the Chair well presents the fact, assuming that the
bill were legally before the House, the Chair has not touched upon
the question as to whether it may be in order to call up the
discharge rule if the bill attempted to be reported by the
committee concerned was not regularly before the House, not having
been considered according to the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order, therefore, that the
bill alleged to have been reported is not legally reported, is in
violation of the rules of the House and of the committees of the
House, and has no valid standing in the House.
In overruling the point of order, the Speaker advised that he had
no knowledge as to what had occurred in committee, stating:
The Speaker: The House passed on that question a few moments
ago in a resolution raising the question of the privileges of the
House, and passed upon the question adversely to the position taken
by the gentleman from Maine.
The Chair has no information as to what occurred in the
committee. The only thing the Chair knows is that the McLeod bill,
bearing the number it has always borne and with the same title, and
with some amendments in which the Chair is not interested, has been
reported out, is on the calendar, and can be taken up under the
general rules of the House when an opportunity presents itself.
The Chair overrules the point of order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id.
Immediately prior to the calling up of the motion to
discharge, the validity of the actions taken by the Committee
on Banking and Currency leading up to the reporting of the bill
on Apr. 23 had been called to the attention of the House. Mr.
Beedy had submitted as a question of the privileges of the
House a resolution, H. Res. 349, questioning whether the House
should receive the report. The resolution stated certain events
which occurred in the committee on Apr. 21 which were not in
accordance with the rules of the House. Mr. John E. Rankin
(Miss.) had made a point of order that the resolution did not
present a question of the privileges of the House. Mr. Thomas
L. Blanton (Tex.) made the further point of order that the
resolution was an attempt to impeach the actions of the
committee. The Speaker held that the resolution did present a
question of privilege. The resolution was then laid on the
table without debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the Speaker's ruling was laid on the
table.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See H. Jour. 431, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 23, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The point of order in the preceding
precedent is probably based upon Sec. 412 of Jefferson's Manual, which
had been mentioned earlier in the debate as requiring a reading for
amendment of a bill in committee.
[[Page 3216]]