[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 18. Discharging Matters From Committees]
[Â§ 5. Discharge of Vetoed Bills, Other Questions Privileged Under the Constitution, Resolutions of Inquiry, and Reorganization Plans]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3232-3240]
 
                               CHAPTER 18
 
                  Discharging Matters From Committees
 
Sec. 5. Discharge of Vetoed Bills, Other Questions Privileged Under the 
    Constitution, Resolutions of Inquiry, and Reorganization Plans

    The Constitution (2) provides that when the President 
returns a bill to the House in which it originated, with his 
objections, that House shall proceed to reconsider it and determine 
whether the bill shall be again passed, the objections of the President 
to the contrary notwithstanding. Under this provision, it has been held 
that a motion to discharge a committee from the further consideration 
of a vetoed bill so returned to the House presents a question of 
constitutional privilege and is, therefore, in order at any 
time.(3) While the ordinary motion to discharge a committee 
from consideration of an unprivileged legislative proposition is not 
privileged,(4) it is in order to move to discharge a 
committee from consideration of a proposition referred through the 
hopper, involving a question of constitutional privilege such as the 
right of a Member to his seat,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 7, clause 2.
 3. See Sec. 5.1, infra. See also Ch. 13, supra.
 4. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2316.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3233]]

the punishment of a Member, or an impeachment resolution,(5) 
notwithstanding the availability of the discharge petition under Rule 
XXVII clause 4; (6) the rationale being that matters 
properly involving questions of the privileges of the House retain 
their privilege and may be reached by use of a motion to discharge even 
though referred through the hopper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2709; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2316.
 6. See Ch. 14, Sec. 8.3, supra, where a discharge petition was 
        utilized unsuccessfully against an impeachment resolution 
        referred through the hopper to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXII clause 5 (7) provides that all resolutions of 
inquiry shall be reported to the House within one week after 
presentation. Pursuant to the rule, committees are required to report 
resolutions of inquiry back to the House within one week of the 
reference, and this weeks time has been construed to be seven 
legislative days. If a committee refuses or neglects to report the 
resolution back, the House may reach the resolution only by a motion to 
discharge the committee from the resolutions further consideration. A 
privileged status is accorded the motion to discharge in cases of 
resolutions of inquiry.(8) The privileged status of the 
motion does not obtain, however, where the resolution of inquiry has 
sought opinions, not facts, as required under the rule.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 855 (1979).
 8. See Sec. 5.2, infra.
 9. See Sec. 5.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the amendments adopted in 1977 to the Reorganization Act, 
reorganization plans submitted by the President were subject to 
discharge from committee pursuant to the statute in existence at that 
time.(10) A resolution with respect to a reorganization plan 
could be discharged from the committee to which it had been referred 
under the provisions of 5 USC Sec. 911(a) if the committee had not 
reported it at the end of 20 calendar days after its introduction. 
However, a motion to discharge could be made only by an individual 
favoring the resolution.(11) Debate on the motion was 
limited to not more than one hour, to be divided equally between those 
favoring and those opposing the resolution.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 5 USC Sec. 911 (1970 ed.), revised by Pub. L. No. 95-17, Apr. 6, 
        1977. Current procedure (1981) provides an automatic discharge 
        of a disapproval resolution after 45 days.
11. See Sec. 5.5, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 5.6, 5.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarin's Note: See also House Rules and Manual, 96th

[[Page 3234]]

Congress, Sec. 1013, chapter on ``Congressional Disapproval'' 
Provisions Contained in Public Laws, Part A, for other statutory 
provisions containing discharge procedures.

Discharging Vetoed Bills

Sec. 5.1 A motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of a 
    vetoed bill, while presenting a question of constitutional 
    privilege, is subject to the motion to lay on the table.

    On Sept. 7, 1965,(13) during proceedings incident to the 
consideration of a motion raised as a question of constitutional 
privilege by Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, which sought to 
discharge the Committee on Armed Services from further consideration of 
a vetoed bill,(14) the following parliamentary inquiry was 
raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 22958, 22959, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. For a further 
        illustration see 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3532.
14. H.R. 8439, relating to military construction had been vetoed on 
        Aug. 21, 1965 and referred back to the Committee on Armed 
        Services on Aug. 23, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the highest 
    privilege of the House, based directly on the Constitution and 
    precedents, and offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore (15) The Clerk will report 
    the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion by Mr. Hall:
            Resolved, That the Committee on Armed Services be 
        discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 8439, 
        for military construction, with the President's veto thereon, 
        and that the same be now considered.

        Mr. L. Mendel Rivers of South Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    lay that motion on the table. . . .
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
    South Carolina [Mr. Rivers] to table my motion, which is highly 
    privileged?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Is a highly privileged motion according to the 
    Constitution subject to a motion to table?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is.

    Subsequently, the motion to table was agreed to.

Discharging Resolutions of Inquiry

Sec. 5.2 A motion to discharge a committee from consideration of a 
    resolution of inquiry is privileged (under

[[Page 3235]]

    Rule XXII clause 5) after the resolution has been pending before 
    the committee for seven legislative days.

    On Aug. 2, 1971,(16) Mr. James M. Collins, of Texas, 
moved to discharge the Committee on Education and Labor from the 
further consideration of a resolution of inquiry (17) 
directing the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to furnish 
the House with certain documents. The resolution of inquiry had been 
pending before that committee at least seven legislative days without 
action thereon. The resolution was read to the House; whereupon, 
without debate, the question on the motion to discharge was taken; the 
motion was agreed to--yeas 252, nays 129, not voting 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 28863, 22869, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 96 Cong. 
        Rec. 1755, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 9, 1950, where Speaker Sam 
        Rayburn (Tex.), informed the House that if a committee to which 
        a resolution of inquiry had been referred did not report the 
        resolution within seven legislative days, the Member who had 
        introduced the resolution could call it up for consideration as 
        a matter of privilege.
17. H. Res. 539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.3 A motion to discharge a committee from consideration of a 
    resolution of inquiry is not in order where the resolution is not 
    privileged because it calls upon the head of an executive 
    department to furnish the House with a statement of opinion and not 
    merely factual information.

    On July 7, 1971,(18) Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New York, 
moved to discharge the Committee on Armed Services from further 
consideration of a resolution of inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 117 Cong. Rec. 23810, 23811, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 491

        Resolved, That the President, the Secretary of State, Secretary 
    of Defense, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency be, 
    and they are hereby, directed to furnish the House of 
    Representatives within fifteen days after the adoption of this 
    resolution with full and complete information on the following--

        the history and rationale for United States involvement in 
    South Vietnam since the completion of the study entitled ``United 
    States--Vietnam Relationships, 1945-1967'', prepared by the Vietnam 
    Task Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense;

        the known existing plans for residual force of the United 
    States Armed Forces in South Vietnam;

        the nature and capacity of the government of the Republic of 
    Vietnam, including but not limited to analyses of their past and 
    present military capabilities, their capacity for military and 
    economic self-sufficiency including but

[[Page 3236]]

    not limited to analyses of the political base of the Republic, the 
    scope, if any, of governmental malfunction and corruption, the 
    depth of popular support and procedures for dealing with non-
    support; including but not limited to known existing studies of the 
    economy of the Republic of South Vietnam and the internal workings 
    of the government of the Republic of South Vietnam;

        the plans and procedures, both on the part of the Republic of 
    South Vietnam and the United States Government for the November 
    1971 elections in the Republic of South Vietnam, including but not 
    limited to analyses of the United States involvement, covert or 
    not, in said elections.

    A point of order was made by Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, 
asserting that the resolution was not privileged because it sought 
opinions, not facts as required under the rule.(19) In his 
ruling sustaining the point of order, the Speaker (20) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Rule XXII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 855, 857 
        (1979).
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . The gentlewoman from New York has moved to 
    discharge the Committee on Armed Services from further 
    consideration of the resolution, House Resolution 491. The 
    gentlewoman has furnished the Chair a copy of the resolution, and 
    the Chair appreciates that fact, since it gives an opportunity to 
    the Chair to examine the resolution prior to ruling on the point of 
    order.
        The resolution under consideration has not been reported by the 
    committee to which it has been referred.
        Clause 5 of rule XXII provides that:

            All resolutions of inquiry addressed to the heads of 
        executive departments shall be reported to the House within one 
        week after presentation.

        The gentleman from Louisiana makes a point of order against the 
    motion to discharge on the ground that the resolution is not 
    privileged under the rule because it calls for opinions in addition 
    to factual information.

        It has been consistently held that to retain the privilege 
    under the rule, resolutions of inquiry must call for facts rather 
    than opinions--Cannon's precedents, volume VI page 413 and pages 
    418 to 432. Speaker Longworth, on February 11, 1926, held that a 
    resolution inquiring for such facts as would inevitably require the 
    statement of an opinion to answer such inquiry was not privileged--
    Record, page 3800.
        Among other requests, House Resolution 491 calls for the 
    furnishing of one, the ``rationale'' for U.S. involvement in South 
    Vietnam since the completion of the study; two, the nature and 
    ``capacity'' of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam, 
    including ``analyses'' of their military ``capabilities''; their 
    capacity for self-sufficiency which would include analyses of the 
    Government's political base, the scope of malfunction and 
    corruption, the depth of popular support; and three, analyses of 
    U.S. involvement in 1971 elections in South Vietnam.
        In at least these particulars, executive officials are called 
    upon--not for facts--but to furnish conclusions,

[[Page 3237]]

    which must be, essentially, statements of opinion.
        The Chair therefore holds that House Resolution 491 is not a 
    privileged resolution within the meaning of clause 5, rule XXII, 
    and that the motion to discharge the Committee on Armed Services 
    from its further consideration is not in order.

    An appeal from the ruling of the Chair made by Ms. Abzug was laid 
on the table.

Debate on Resolutions of Inquiry

Sec. 5.4 A resolution of inquiry is normally debatable in the House 
    under the hour rule; but when a motion to discharge a committee 
    from further consideration of a resolution of inquiry has been 
    agreed to and the previous question has been ordered on the 
    resolution without intervening debate, the Speaker may invoke the 
    40-minute rule (Rule XXVII clause 3) allotting 20 minutes each to 
    those supporting and opposing the resolution.

    On Aug. 2, 1971,(1) the previous question was ordered 
without debate on a resolution of inquiry (2) which was 
before the House pursuant to a motion to discharge. Mr. Thomas P. 
O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, then raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 28863, 28869, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H. Res. 539, directing the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
        Welfare to furnish the House with certain documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry: In view of 
    the fact that there was no debate on this, is a Member entitled to 
    20 minutes if he asks for time?
        The Speaker: (3) He is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for the 20 minutes. I 
    have some questions I would like to ask on this and have the 
    chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor explain it.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, has not the 
    previous question been moved and accepted?
        The Speaker: Yes, it has.
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet seeking recognition.
        Mr. Hall: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Inasmuch as there has been no debate on the 
    resolution, the 40-minute rule applies, 20 minutes to each side. 
    The gentleman from Texas is entitled to 20 minutes and the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts is entitled to 20 minutes.

    Debate incident to the consideration of the resolution ensued, at 
the conclusion of which the resolution was agreed to. A motion to 
reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 3238]]

Discharging Resolutions Relating to Reorganization Plans (Prior to 95th 
    Congress)

Sec. 5.5 Pursuant to the provisions of 5 USC Sec. 911 (1970 ed.), a 
    motion to discharge a committee from further consideration of a 
    resolution with respect to a reorganization plan could be made only 
    by a Member favoring the resolution.

    On Aug. 3, 1961,(4) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 14548-54, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. For a further example 
        see 107 Cong. Rec. 13084, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 1961. 
        The amendments to the Reorganization Act in the 95th Congress 
        (Pub. L. No. 95-17) removed the concept of the motion to 
        discharge from the act. Under the current procedure, a 
        resolution is deemed to be discharged 45 days after 
        introduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged 
    motion dealing with Reorganization Plan No. 6.
        The Speaker: (5) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gross moves to discharge the Committee on Government 
        Operations from further consideration of House Resolution 335, 
        introduced by Mr. John S. Monagan, of Connecticut, disapproving 
        Reorganization Plan No. 6, transmitted to Congress by the 
        President on June 12, 1961.

        The Speaker: Is the gentleman in favor of the resolution?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the disapproving 
    resolution, yes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is entitled to 30 minutes.

Debate on Discharging Reorganization Plans

Sec. 5.6 Debate on a motion to discharge a committee from further 
    consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan 
    was limited to one hour (5 USC Sec. 911) and was equally divided 
    between the Member making the motion and a Member opposed thereto.

    On Aug. 3, 1961,(6) during proceedings incident to a 
motion offered by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, to discharge the Committee 
on Government Operations from further consideration of a resolution 
(7) disapproving a reorganization plan, the Speaker 
(8) divided the one hour permitted by statute (9) 
for debate on such motions equally between Mr. Gross, the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 14548-54, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H. Res. 335.
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9. 5 USC Sec. 911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3239]]

maker of the motion, and Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, a Member 
opposed thereto. Following the announcement of the Chair relative to 
the allocation of available time, Mr. Gross was recognized to open 
debate.

Sec. 5.7 Debate on a motion to discharge a committee from further 
    consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan 
    was, by unanimous consent, extended from one to two hours, to be 
    controlled and divided by the proponent of the motion and a Member 
    designated by the Speaker.

    On July 18, 1961,(10) a unanimous-consent request was 
made to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 12774, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that in the event a motion is made to discharge 
    the Committee on Government Operations on the resolution 
    disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 7, that the time for debate be 
    extended from 1 hour to 2 hours, one-half to be controlled by the 
    proponent of the motion and one-half by a Member designated by the 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    On July 20, 1961,(12) the proponent and opponent of a 
resolution disapproving of a reorganization plan were, pursuant to this 
unanimous-consent agreement, each recognized for one hour on the motion 
to discharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 107 Cong. Rec. 13084, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discharging Reorganization Plans by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 5.8 By unanimous consent, the House agreed to a motion that a 
    select committee be discharged from further consideration of a 
    concurrent resolution disapproving a reorganization plan.

    On May 7, 1940,(13) the following proceedings 
transpired:

13. 86 Cong. Rec. 5676, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence F.] Lea [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    discharge the Select Committee on Government Organization from 
    further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 60.
        The Speaker: (14) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Clerk read as follows:

        House Concurrent Resolution 60

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress does not favor the

[[Page 3240]]

        Reorganization Plan No. IV transmitted to Congress by the 
        President on April 11, 1940.

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, the majority 
    members of the Select Committee on Organization are in accord with 
    the gentleman from California, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
    motion of the gentleman from California to discharge the select 
    committee be considered as having been agreed to.
        The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        There was no objection.



                         DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS

[[Page 3241]]