Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20 - Chapter 18. Discharging Matters From Committees

[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 18. Discharging Matters From Committees]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[Page 3205-3206]

CHAPTER 18

Discharging Matters From Committees

[[Page 3205]]

Sec. 1. In General; Motion to Discharge
Sec. 2. Discharging Particular Committees
Sec. 3. Calling Up Motion; Debate
Sec. 4. Consideration of Discharged Measures
Sec. 5. Discharge of Vetoed Bills, Other Questions Privileged Under
the Constitution, Resolutions of Inquiry, and
Reorganization Plans
Appendix-Recent History of Discharge Motions

INDEX TO PRECEDENTS

Business preceding introduction of discharge motions Sec. 3.8
Calling up motion to discharge
after seven legislative days, Sec. 3.1
by signatory, Sec. 3.6
during the last six days of a session, Sec. 3.3
on second and fourth Mondays, Sec. 3.2
Committee of the Whole, consideration of discharged measure in,
Sec. Sec. 4.4, 4.5
Committee on Rules, consideration of resolutions discharged from,
Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
Committees, consideration of bills and resolutions discharged from,
Sec. 4.3
Committees, discharge of
Committee on Agriculture, Sec. 2.1
Committee on Banking and Currency, Sec. 2.2
Committee on the Judiciary, Sec. 2.3
Committee on Rules, Sec. Sec. 2.4-2.6
Committee on Ways and Means, Sec. 2.7
Debate on discharged bills, Sec. 4.5
Discharge rule, 21-day rule distinguished from, Sec. 1.12
Discharged bills
motion to consider, Sec. 4.3
referral of, Sec. 4.7
Discharged resolutions
consideration of, Sec. 4.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary and editing by John Graham, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3206]]

motions to table, Sec. 4.2
Extensions of remarks
during consideration of discharge motions, Sec. 3.16
Motion to consider discharged bills, Sec. 4.3
Motion to discharge committee
adoption of, Sec. Sec. 2.1-2.4, 2.7
announcing filing of, Sec. 1.1
application of, to reported bills, Sec. 1.11
effect of inter-session adjournment on, Sec. 1.10
intervening motions during debate on, Sec. Sec. 3.14, 3.15
names on petition, revealing, Sec. 1.7
placement of, on calendar, Sec. 1.9
precedence of, over unfinished business, Sec. 3.4
quorum call preceding call of, Sec. 3.7
rejection of, Sec. 2.5
report, committee, as affecting disposition of motion, Sec. 1.13
report, committee, question as to validity of Sec. 1.13
signatures on, Sec. Sec. 1.2-1.6
withdrawal of, after filing, Sec. 1.8
Motion to discharge resolutions disapproving reorganization plans
debate on, Sec. Sec. 5.6, 5.7
offering of, Sec. 5.5
unanimous-consent agreement to. Sec. 5.8
Motion to discharge resolutions of inquiry, privilege of,
Sec. Sec. 5.2, 5.3
Motion to discharge vetoed bills, privilege of, Sec. 5.1
Motion to postpone consideration of discharge motions, Sec. 3.14
Motion to table discharge motions, Sec. 3.15
Motion to table discharged resolutions, Sec. 4.2
Reorganization plans
debate incident to discharge of, Sec. Sec. 5.6, 5.7
discharge of, by unanimous consent, Sec. 5.8
moving the discharge of, Sec. 5.5
Resolutions of inquiry
debate on, following discharge, Sec. 5.4
discharge of, Sec. Sec. 5.2, 5.3
Vetoed bills, discharge of, Sec. 5.1

[[Page 3207]]

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]]

CHAPTER 18

Discharging Matters From Committees

Sec. 2. Discharging Particular Committees

Committee on Agriculture

Sec. 2.1 The House has agreed to a motion to discharge the Committee on
Agriculture from further consideration of a bill.

On Apr. 26, 1948,⁽²⁰⁾ Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South
Carolina, called up, pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4, the motion to
discharge the Committee on Agriculture from further consideration of a
bill ⁽²¹⁾ repealing the tax on oleomargarine. Debate on the
motion ensued, at the conclusion of which, the motion was agreed to--
yeas 235, nays 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 4835-41, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. See 94 Cong. Rec. 4078,
80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 2, 1948, where the motion to
discharge the Committee on Agriculture received the requisite
number of signatures.
21. H.R. 2245.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee on Banking and Currency

Sec. 2.2 The House has agreed to a motion to discharge the Committee on
Banking and Currency from further consideration of a bill.

On Dec. 13, 1943,⁽²²⁾ Mr. Wesley E. Disney, of Oklahoma,
called up, pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4, a motion to discharge the
Committee on Banking and Currency from further consideration of a bill
⁽²³⁾ transferring certain price administration functions
with respect to petroleum and petroleum products to the Petroleum
Administrator for War. Following debate, the motion was agreed to--yeas
247, nays 71, not voting 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 89 Cong. Rec. 10605, 10607, 10608, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
23. H.R. 2887.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee on the Judiciary

Sec. 2.3 The House has agreed to a motion to discharge the Committee on
the Judiciary from further consideration of a joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution.

On Nov. 8, 1971,⁽²⁴⁾ Mr. Chalmers P. Wylie, of Ohio,
called up, pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4, a motion to discharge the
Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of a House joint
resolution ⁽²⁵⁾ proposing an amend
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 117 Cong. Rec. 39885-89, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. For a further example,
see 116 Cong. Rec. 27999, 28004, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10,
1970, where the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from
further consideration of H.J. Res. 264, proposing an amendment
to the Constitution relative to equal rights for men and women.
25. H.J. Res. 191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3217]]

ment to the U.S. Constitution relative to the offering of prayer in
public buildings. Following some debate, the motion was agreed to-yeas
242, nays 156, not voting 33.

Committee on Rules

Sec. 2.4 On several occasions, the House has agreed to a motion to
discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of a
resolution making in order consideration of a bill.

On Sept. 27, 1965,⁽²⁶⁾ Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New
York, called up, pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4, a motion to discharge
the Committee on Rules from further consideration of a resolution
⁽²⁷⁾ making in order a ``home rule'' bill ⁽²⁸⁾
pending before the Committee on the District of Columbia. Following
debate, the motion was agreed to--yeas 213, nays 183, not voting 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. 111 Cong. Rec. 25180-85, 89th Cong. 1st. Sess. See also 111 Cong.
Rec. 22900, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 3, 1965, where the
motion to discharge the Committee on Rules received the
requisite number of signatures. For additional examples see 106
Cong. Rec. 12691, 12720, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 1960,
where the Committee on Rules was discharged from further
consideration of a resolution, H. Res. 537, providing for the
consideration of the bill H.R. 9883, adjusting rates of
compensation for officers and employees of the federal
government, and 103 Cong. Rec. 12332, 12334, 12335, 85th Cong.
1st Sess., July 22, 1957, where the Committee on Rules was
discharged from further consideration of a resolution, H. Res.
249, providing for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2474,
increasing rates of basic compensation of officers and
employees in the field service of the Post Office Department.
27. H. Res. 515.
28. H.R. 4644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.5 The House refused to discharge the Committee on Rules from
further consideration of a resolution making in order consideration
of a House joint resolution.

On Jan. 10, 1938,⁽²⁹⁾ Mr. Louis Ludlow, of Indiana,
called up, pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4, a motion to discharge the
Committee on Rules from further consideration of a resolution
⁽¹⁾ making in order consideration of a House joint
resolution ⁽²⁾ proposing an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution requiring a referendum on war. After debate on the motion
to discharge, the motion was rejected--yeas 188, nays 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. 83 Cong. Rec. 276-282, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
1. H. Res. 165.
2. 2. H.J. Res. 199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.6 The Committee on Rules, under Rule XXVII clause 4,

[[Page 3218]]

may not be discharged from the further consideration of a
resolution providing for the appointment of a committee to
investigate.

On Apr. 23, 1934,⁽³⁾ Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of
Illinois, responded to a parliamentary inquiry relating to the
applicability of the discharge rule to certain types of resolutions,
described below, under consideration in the Committee on Rules. Finding
that the language of the discharge rule,⁽⁴⁾ which was
specific in nature, did not expressly permit motions to discharge the
Committee on Rules from consideration of the kind of resolution in
question, the Speaker indicated such a motion would not be in order.
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 78 Cong. Rec. 7161-63, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
4. See Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Oscar] De Priest [of Illinois]: . . . On the 24th day of
January I filed a resolution in the House. At the expiration of 30
legislative days I prepared a petition to discharge the committee,
and laid it on the desk. I subsequently received the necessary 145
signatures on the 23d day of March. After that the Committee on
Rules reported the bill out favorably, and I am glad they did.
Under the ruling of the Chair today, if my interpretation is
correct, it is impossible to call up this resolution on the
Discharge Calendar? . . .
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: . . . The gentlemen from
Illinois [Mr. De Priest] introduced a resolution which was referred
to the Rules Committee. It could not have been first referred to
any other committee, because that resolution provided for the
setting up of a special committee to investigate a certain alleged
situation in connection with the conduct of the House restaurant.
While his resolution was pending in the Rules Committee, the
gentleman filed a petition to discharge that committee, and
obtained the necessary 145 signatures. Thereafter the Rules
Committee favorably reported the resolution to the House. . . .
Under the rules the Rules Committee can only be discharged from
consideration of either a ``special order of business or a special
rule for the consideration of any public bill or resolution
reported by a committee.'' The gentleman's resolution was a mere
``House resolution'', which he could not have brought up on a
``discharge day''. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to answer the parliamentary
inquiry submitted by the gentleman from Illinois.
The resolution introduced by the gentleman from Illinois reads:

That a committee of five Members of the House be appointed
by the Speaker to investigate by what authority the Committee
on Accounts controls and manages the conduct of the House
restaurant and by what authority said committee or any members
thereof issued and enforced rules or instructions whereby any
citizen of the United States is discriminated against on
account of race, color, or creed in said House restaurant--

[[Page 3219]]

And so forth. The discharge rule we are considering this
morning provides very specifically, as follows:

Under this rule it shall also be in order for a Member to
file a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further
consideration of any resolution providing either a special
order of business, or a special rule for the consideration of
any public bill or resolution favorably reported by a standing
committee, or a special rule for the consideration of a public
bill or resolution which has remained in a standing committee
30 or more days without action.

The gentleman's resolution which the Chair has just read does
not provide for a special order of business or a special rule for
the consideration of any public bill or resolution favorably
reported by a standing committee or a special rule for the
consideration of a public bill or resolution, which has remained in
a standing committee 30 or more days without action, and,
therefore, a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules will not
lie, in the judgment of the Chair, under the discharge rule.

Committee on Ways and Means

Sec. 2.7 The House has agreed to a motion to discharge the Committee on
Ways and Means from further consideration of a bill.

On Jan. 13, 1936,⁽⁵⁾ Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, moved,
pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4, to discharge the Committee on Ways and
Means from the further consideration of a bill ⁽⁶⁾ providing
for the immediate payment to veterans of the face value of their
adjusted service certificates and for controlled expansions of the
currency. Following some debate, the motion was agreed to--yeas 228,
nays 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 80 Cong. Rec. 336, 337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. H.R. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 18

Discharging Matters From Committees

Sec. 3. Calling Up Motion; Debate

Pursuant to the provisions of the rule,⁽⁷⁾ a motion to
discharge which has been on the calendar at least seven days
⁽⁸⁾ may be called up by a signatory thereof ⁽⁹⁾
for consideration on the second and fourth Mondays of each month
⁽¹⁰⁾ except during the last six days of any session of
Congress.⁽¹¹⁾ Of course, the House may by unanimous consent
make the consideration of such motions in order on another
day.⁽¹²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
8. See Sec. 3.1, infra.
9. See Sec. 3.6, infra.
10. See Sec. 3.2, infra.
11. See Sec. 3.3, infra.
12. See Sec. 3.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A motion not called up on the first eligible Monday is in order

[[Page 3220]]

for consideration on any subsequent eligible Monday.⁽¹³⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 3.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on the motion is limited to 20 minutes--10 minutes under the
control of the Member recognized to call up the motion and 10 minutes
under the control of a Member recognized in opposition.⁽¹⁴⁾
The proponents of a motion to discharge a committee have the right to
close debate thereon.⁽¹⁵⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 3.9, 3.10, infra.
15. See Sec. 3.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expiration of Seven Legislative Days

Sec. 3.1 Motions to discharge committees may be called up only after
seven legislative days have expired since the time the motion was
placed on the calendar.

On Friday, Dec. 10, 1937,⁽¹⁶⁾ Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
propounded the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 82 Cong. Rec. 1300, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁷⁾ The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Rayburn: Several Members during the last day or two have
been asking me with reference to the discharge petition which was
signed up last week whether if we adjourn over tomorrow a
sufficient number of legislative days will have intervened to make
the wage-hour bill in order on Monday. I ask the Speaker if that is
the fact?
The Speaker: In reply to the inquiry of the gentleman from
Texas, and in order to avoid confusion about a proper decision of
this question if it should arise, the Chair quotes the following
excerpt from the discharge rule:

When a majority of the total membership of the House shall
have signed the motion it shall be entered on the Journal,
printed with the signatures thereto in the Congressional
Record, and referred to the Calendar of Motions to Discharge
Committees.
On the second and fourth Mondays of each month, except
during the last 6 days of any session of Congress, immediately
after the approval of the Journal, any Member who has signed a
motion to discharge which has been on the calendar at least 7
days prior thereto, and seeks recognition, shall be recognized
for the purpose of calling up the motion; and the House shall
proceed to its consideration in the manner herein provided
without intervening motion except one motion to adjourn.

The petition to discharge the Committee on Rules from
consideration of the rule involving the wage and hour bill was
signed on December 2 [the preceding Thursday] by 218 Members of the
House and immediately was referred to the Calendar of Motions to
Discharge Committees under the rule the Chair has just read.
In answer to the inquiry of the gentleman from Texas the Chair
holds that without any session of the House of Representatives
tomorrow the 7 legislative days necessary in order to

[[Page 3221]]

make this matter in order on Monday next will have expired, and
there is no question in the mind of the Chair that the rule will
have been complied with if we do not meet tomorrow. If that
question should be raised on Monday next, the Chair would so hold.

Second and Fourth Mondays

Sec. 3.2 Motions to discharge committees may be called up on the second
or fourth Monday of any month after they have been on the calendar
for seven legislative days, and if they are not called up on the
first eligible Monday they may be called up on any subsequent
second or fourth Monday of a month.

On Dec. 18, 1937,⁽¹⁸⁾ the following parliamentary
inquiry was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 82 Cong. Rec. 1847, 75th Cong. 2d Sess. For an additional example
see 90 Cong. Rec. 9, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 10, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Samuel B.] Pettengill [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁹⁾ The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Pettengill: Directing the Chair's attention to the Ludlow
petition which now may be called up on the second Monday of next
month, if it fails to be called up on that day, would it retain its
privileged status on a subsequent second or fourth Monday?
The Speaker: The status of the matter is that it is on the
calendar of motions to discharge committees. If not called up on
the first date on which it would be entitled to be called up, it
remains on the calendar subject to further call on the second or
fourth Mondays of a month.

Call of Motion on Last Six Days of Session

Sec. 3.3 A motion to discharge a committee cannot be called up during
the last six days of a session.

On July 29, 1954,⁽²⁰⁾ the following parliamentary
inquiry was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 100 Cong. Rec. 12562, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Harold C.] Hagen of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁾ The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Hagen of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry is with
reference to paragraph 908 of the rules of the House relative to a
motion to discharge a committee. My question is, Is it possible
during the last 6 days of the session after a motion to recess or
adjourn sine die has been adopted by both Houses, to call up the
bill H.R. 9245, the postal-pay bill, under the rules of the House?
The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry of the
gentleman, the Chair invites attention to

[[Page 3222]]

the second paragraph of clause 4 of rule XXVII, which contains the
following statement:

On the second and fourth Mondays of each month, except
during the last 6 days of any session of Congress, immediately
after the approval of the Journal, any Member who has signed a
motion to discharge which has been on the calendar at least 7
days prior thereto, and seeks recognition, shall be recognized
for the purpose of calling it up.

It seems perfectly clear to the Chair that the meaning of the
rule is that when a motion has been on the calendar 7 legislative
days a Member who signed the motion can call it up on the second or
the fourth Monday, except when the second or fourth Monday comes
during the last 6 days of a session. The exception then means that
during the last 6 days of a session the motion cannot be called up
at all.

Precedence of Motion Over Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.4 A motion to discharge which has been on the Discharge Calendar
for seven legislative days may be of higher privilege for
consideration on the second and fourth Mondays of the month than
unfinished business from a preceding day.

On May 8, 1936,⁽²⁾ during proceedings incident to the
consideration of the unanimous-consent request of Mr. William B.
Bankhead, of Alabama, that the House adjourn until the following
Monday, Mr. Gerald J. Boileau, of Wisconsin, reserving the right to
object, addressed an inquiry to the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 80 Cong. Rec. 7010, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Boileau: . . . [W]ill the Speaker make the situation clear
with reference to the legislative program for Monday?
As I understand it, it will be in order before we complete this
bill ⁽³⁾ to take up the question of the discharge of the
Rules Committee from further consideration of the Frazier-Lemke
bill. I would like to ask the Speaker if my understanding is
correct, if consideration of the discharge petition would come up
before the vote on this bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. H.R. 12624, deficiency appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: ⁽⁴⁾ The Chair thinks it would unless
there is a previous understanding. The matter of which shall take
precedence can be fixed by consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling Up By Unanimous Consent

Sec. 3.5 By unanimous consent, a motion to discharge, which under Rule
XXVII clause 4 would be eligible to be called up on a Monday, was
made in order on a Wednesday.

On June 8, 1960,⁽⁵⁾ Mr. John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 106 Cong. Rec. 12120, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3223]]

asked unanimous consent that motions in order under the discharge rule
on the following Monday be postponed until the following Wednesday at
which time they would be the first order of business. There was no
objection to the gentleman's request.

Who May Call Up Motion

Sec. 3.6 A Member who calls up a motion to discharge must qualify as
having signed the discharge petition.

On Aug. 10, 1970,⁽⁶⁾ subsequent to the calling up,
pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4, by Mrs. Martha W. Griffiths, of
Michigan, of a motion to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from
the further consideration of a House joint resolution,⁽⁷⁾
the Speaker ⁽⁸⁾ sought to determine whether Mrs. Griffiths
was in fact eligible to call up the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 116 Cong. Rec. 27999, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. For additional examples
see 117 Cong. Rec. 39885, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 8, 1971;
and 111 Cong. Rec. 25180, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27 1965.
7. H.J. Res. 264, proposing an amendment to the Constitution relative
to equal rights for men and women.
8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: Did the gentlewoman sign the motion?
Mrs. Griffiths: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I signed the motion.
The Speaker: The gentlewoman qualifies.

Quorum Call Preceding Recognition to Call Up Motion

Sec. 3.7 On one occasion, a quorum call occurred before the reading of
the Journal, on a day when the calling up of a motion to discharge
a committee was to have been the first order of business after the
reading of the Journal.

On Apr. 26, 1948,⁽⁹⁾ the day on which the calling up of
a motion to discharge the Committee on Agriculture from further
consideration of a bill ⁽¹⁰⁾ was to have been the first
order of business after the reading of the Journal, a quorum call
occurred prior to the reading of the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 94 Cong. Rec. 4834, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. H.R. 2245, repealing the tax on oleomargarine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous-consent Requests Preceding Recognition to Call Up Motion

Sec. 3.8 A motion to discharge a committee under the provisions of Rule
XXVII clause 4 is in order ``immediately after the approval of the
Journal''; but pending rec

[[Page 3224]]

ognition of a Member to make such a motion, the Speaker has
permitted a Member to proceed for one minute on an unrelated
matter.

On Aug. 10, 1970,⁽¹¹⁾ after the approval of the Journal,
the Speaker ⁽¹²⁾ made the following announcement to the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 27994-99, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also 88 Cong. Rec.
8066, 8067, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1942, where the
phrase ``immediately after the approval of the Journal'' was
interpreted by Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) as not precluding the
recognition of Members for unanimous-consent requests
subsequent to the reading of the Journal on a day when the call
up of a motion to discharge a committee was pending.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The Chair would like to announce that the Chair is
not going to recognize Members for the usual 1-minute speeches at
this time, due to the situation with respect to the rules that
exist in relation to the consideration of a constitutional
amendment, with one exception: and that is that the Chair will
recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Corbett) to announce
the death of our late and beloved colleague and friend, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Watkins).

Proceedings incident to the announcement of the death of a Member
from Pennsylvania ensued, at the conclusion of which Mrs. Martha W.
Griffiths, of Michigan, was recognized to call up pursuant to Rule
XXVII a motion to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from further
consideration of a House joint resolution ⁽¹³⁾ proposing an
equal rights amendment to the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.J. Res. 264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Motion

Sec. 3.9 Debate on a motion to discharge a committee is limited to 20
minutes--10 minutes under the control of the Member recognized to
call up the motion and 10 minutes under the control of a Member
recognized in opposition.

On Nov. 8, 1971,⁽¹⁴⁾ during proceedings incident to the
House's consideration under Rule XXVII of a motion called up by Mr.
Chalmers P. Wylie, of Ohio, to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary
from further consideration of a House joint resolution,⁽¹⁵⁾
the Speaker,⁽¹⁶⁾ in his statement rel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 39886, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. For a further example see
111 Cong. Rec. 25181, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1965.
15. H.J. Res. 191, proposing an amendment to the Constitution relative
to nondenominational prayer in public buildings.
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3225]]

ative to the allocation of time for debate on the motion, said:

Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Celler, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary) will be recognized
for 10 minutes.

Sec. 3.10 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker indicated
that: (1) there would be 20 minutes of debate on a motion to
discharge a committee from consideration of a joint resolution; and
(2) the chairman of that committee would be recognized for 10
minutes if opposed to the motion.

On Aug. 10, 1970,⁽¹⁷⁾ during proceedings incident to the
House's consideration of a motion called up, pursuant to Rule XXVII
clause 4, by Mrs. Martha W. Griffiths, of Michigan, to discharge the
Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of a House joint
resolution,⁽¹⁸⁾ Emanuel Celler, of New York (chairman of the
committee) propounded a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 27999, 28004, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
18. H.J. Res. 264, proposing an amendment to the Constitution relative
to equal rights for men and women.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I understand the rule provides for 20
minutes of debate, 10 minutes on either side. Is it correct that
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, being opposed to the
discharge petition, will be allocated 10 minutes?
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁹⁾ The gentleman's statement is
correct that the rule provides for 20 minutes of debate, 10 minutes
on each side. If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler) is
opposed to the motion, the Chair will recognize him for 10 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the gentleman opposed to the motion?
Mr. Celler: I am opposed to the motion, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Griffiths) will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler) will be recognized for 10
minutes.

Sec. 3.11 A Member recognized to control half of the 20 minutes' debate
on a motion to discharge may yield any part of it.

On June 15, 1960,⁽²⁰⁾ the Speaker ⁽¹⁾
announced that, pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4, Mr. T. Ashton
Thompson, of Louisiana, as proponent, and Mr. Edward H. Rees, of
Kansas, as opponent, would each be recognized for 10 minutes of debate
incident to the House's consideration of a pending
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 106 Cong. Rec. 12691, 12693, 12720-25, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3226]]

motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration
of a resolution ⁽²⁾ making in order consideration of a
bill.⁽³⁾ Debate by both Members ensued, during the course of
which Mr. Rees yielded five minutes of his allotted time to Mr. H. R.
Gross, of Iowa. The following exchange then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. H. Res. 537.
3. H.R. 9883, adjusting rates of compensation for officers and
employees of the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: I understood the gentleman from Kansas yielded 5
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa. Would that be within his
rights?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.

Sec. 3.12 The Member recognized in opposition to a motion to discharge
a committee controls the time for debate thereon, and although he
may yield part of his time to another Member, that Member may not
yield part of that time to still another Member.

On June 11, 1945,⁽⁴⁾ the House was debating a motion
called up pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4 to discharge the Committee on
Rules from a resolution making in order the consideration of a
bill.⁽⁵⁾ The Member who had been recognized in opposition to
the motion, Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, yielded a portion of his
allotted time to Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi. Thereupon, Mr.
Rankin inquired of the Chair as to whether he would be permitted to
yield this time as he saw fit. Responding in the negative, the Speaker
⁽⁶⁾ stated, ``The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] controls
the time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892-96. 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
5. H.R. 7, making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll
tax as a prerequisite to voting in a primary or other election
for national officers.
6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.13 The proponents of a motion to discharge a committee have the
right to close debate thereon.

On Apr. 26, 1948,⁽⁷⁾ prior to the commencement of debate
on a motion called up pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4 to discharge the
Committee on Agriculture from further consideration of a
bill,⁽⁸⁾ Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, who had
been recog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 94 Cong. Rec. 4835, 4841, 4842, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
8. H.R. 2245, repealing the tax on oleomargarine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3227]]

nized as the proponent of the motion, propounded a parliamentary
inquiry:

Mr. Rivers: The proponents of the motion have 10 minutes and
the opponents have 10 minutes, and the proponents have the right to
close the debate?

Answering in the affirmative, the Speaker ⁽⁹⁾ said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gentleman has stated the situation accurately. He has the
right to close debate.

Intervening Motions

Sec. 3.14 When a motion to discharge a committee is called up, a motion
to postpone consideration to a day certain is not in order.

On Dec. 18, 1937,⁽¹⁰⁾ Mr. Samuel B. Pettengill, of
Indiana, inquired of the Chair as to whether a motion to postpone
consideration to a day certain would be in order subsequent to the
calling up, pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4, of a motion to discharge a
committee. Responding to the parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker
⁽¹¹⁾ stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 82 Cong. Rec. 1847, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the rules, it would not. The Chair directs the attention
of the gentleman from Indiana to the discharge rule which clearly
sets out that no intervening motion may take place except one
motion to adjourn.

Sec. 3.15 The motion to lay on the table a motion to discharge a
committee is not in order.

On June 11, 1945,⁽¹²⁾ Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York,
moved to discharge the Committee on Rules from a resolution
⁽¹³⁾ making in order consideration of a bill.⁽¹⁴⁾
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved that the motion be laid on
the table. Ruling on the motion to table, the Speaker ⁽¹⁵⁾
stated, ``That motion is not in order under the rules.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H. Res. 139.
14. H.R. 7, making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll
tax as a prerequisite to voting in a primary or other election
for national officers.
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 908 (1981), provides, in part, that:

On the second and fourth Mondays of each month except during
the last six days of any session of Congress, immediately after the
approval of the Journal, any Member who has signed a motion to
discharge which has been on the calendar at least seven days prior
thereto, and seeks recognition, shall be recognized for the purpose
of calling up

[[Page 3228]]

the motion, and the House shall proceed to its consideration in the
manner herein provided without intervening motion except one motion
to adjourn. [Emphasis added.]

Extensions of Remarks

Sec. 3.16 The Speaker may decline to recognize Members to extend their
remarks where a discharge motion has been called up and is pending
before the House.

On June 11, 1945,⁽¹⁶⁾ during the consideration, under
Rule XXVII clause 4, of a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules
from a resolution ⁽¹⁷⁾ making in order consideration of a
bill,⁽¹⁸⁾ Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, asked
unanimous consent to extend his remarks at that point in the Record.
Responding to the gentleman's request, the Speaker ⁽¹⁹⁾
stated, ``The Chair cannot recognize Members to extend their remarks
until this matter has been disposed of.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892-96, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H. Res. 139.
18. H.R. 7, making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll
tax as a prerequisite to voting in a primary or other election
for national officers.
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 18

Discharging Matters From Committees

Sec. 4. Consideration of Discharged Measures

Procedures relative to the consideration of discharged bills and
resolutions are delineated by provisions of the discharge
rule.⁽²⁰⁾ Following agreement to a motion to discharge the
Committee on Rules from further consideration of any resolution pending
before the committee, the House immediately votes on the adoption of
the resolution,⁽¹⁾ the Speaker not entertaining any dilatory
or other intervening motion ⁽²⁾ except one motion to
adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
1. See Sec. 4.1, infra.
2. See Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should a motion prevail to discharge one of the standing committees
of the House from any public bill or resolution pending before the
committee, it is then in order for any Member who signed the motion to
move to proceed to the immediate consideration thereof.⁽³⁾
If the motion for immediate consideration is adopted, the legislation
is taken up under the general rules of the House.⁽⁴⁾ Where
no motion is made providing for the measure's immediate consideration
or should the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 4.3, infra.
4. See Sec. Sec. 4.4 and 4.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3229]]

House by vote decide against its consideration, the discharged measure
is referred to its proper calendar.⁽⁵⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 4.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Discharged Resolutions

Sec. 4.1 Following agreement to a motion to discharge the Committee on
Rules from further consideration of a resolution providing a
special order of business, the question immediately occurs, without
debate or other intervening motion, on agreeing to the resolution.

On Sept. 27, 1965,⁽⁶⁾ the House agreed to a motion
offered by Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, to discharge the
Committee on Rules from a resolution ⁽⁷⁾ making in order the
consideration of a certain bill.⁽⁸⁾ The resolution was then
read to the House, whereupon, the Speaker ⁽⁹⁾ put the
question on agreeing to the resolution. The resolution was agreed to--
yeas 223, nays 179, not voting 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 111 Cong. Rec. 25180-85, 89th Cong 1st Sess. For an additional
example, see 91 Cong. Rec. 5896, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11,
1945.
7. H. Res. 515.
8. H.R. 4644, providing for home rule for the District of Columbia.
9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tabling Discharged Resolutions

Sec. 4.2 It is not in order to move to lay on the table a special-order
resolution which had been taken from the Committee on Rules through
the operation of a motion to discharge.

On June 11, 1945,⁽¹⁰⁾ during proceedings incident to the
consideration by the House of a resolution ⁽¹¹⁾ which had,
pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4, been discharged from the Committee on
Rules, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a motion that the
resolution be laid on the table. Responding to the gentleman's motion
the Speaker ⁽¹²⁾ stated, ``Under the rule, that motion is
not in order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892-96, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H. Res. 139, providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 7,
making unlawful a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in a
primary or other election for national officers.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Privilege of Motion to Consider Discharged Bill

Sec. 4.3 Following adoption of a motion to discharge a stand

[[Page 3230]]

ing committee from consideration of a public bill or resolution,
the motion to proceed to the immediate consideration of the
legislation is privileged, if made by a Member who signed the
discharge petition, and is decided without debate.

On Nov. 8, 1971,⁽¹³⁾ following the adoption by the House
of a motion ⁽¹⁴⁾ offered by Mr. Chalmers P. Wylie, of Ohio,
to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration
of a House joint resolution,⁽¹⁵⁾ Mr. Wylie moved, pursuant
to Rule XXVII clause 4, that the House proceed to the immediate
consideration of the resolution. Thereupon, without debate, the motion
was considered and agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 39885-89, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. For a further example
see 116 Cong. Rec. 27999, 28004, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10,
1970.
14. Identified as motion No. 1.
15. H.J. Res. 191, proposing an amendment to the Constitution relative
to nondenominational prayer in public buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: A joint resolution proposing a
constitutional amendment does not require consideration in Committee of
the Whole, and therefore consideration in the House was proper under
the general rules of the House.

Consideration of Discharged Measure in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 4.4 After the agreement by the House to a motion to discharge a
bill from a committee, the Speaker entertains a motion to go into
the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill if the
bill requires such consideration under the general rules of the
House.

On Apr. 26, 1948,⁽¹⁶⁾ following the agreement by the
House to a motion to discharge the Committee on Agriculture from
further consideration of a bill,⁽¹⁷⁾ the Speaker
⁽¹⁸⁾ made an announcement to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 94 Cong. Rec. 4835, 4841, 4842, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. H.R. 2245, repealing the tax on oleomargarine.
18. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Announcement

The Speaker: Without interfering with the rights of the
gentleman from South Carolina to move to go into the Committee of
the Whole, the Chair will entertain consent requests for extensions
of remarks only.

After the extension of remarks on the part of several Members, Mr.
L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, moved that the House resolve
itself into the Committee

[[Page 3231]]

of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of
the discharged bill. The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 4.5 The Speaker has announced that without interfering with the
rights of a Member to move to go into the Committee of the Whole
for the consideration of a bill before the House as a result of a
motion to discharge, he would entertain consent requests for
extensions of remarks only.

On Apr. 26, 1948,⁽¹⁹⁾ Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South
Carolina, called up a motion to discharge the Committee on Agriculture
from the further consideration of a bill. Following the agreement by
the House to the motion, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, made an announcement to the House: ⁽²⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 4835, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Id. at p. 4841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Announcement

After entertaining several requests for extensions of remarks, the
Speaker recognized Mr. Rivers to move that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the discharged bill. The motion was agreed
to.⁽²¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at p. 4842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hour Rule on Debate

Sec. 4.6 Where a measure not requiring consideration in Committee of
the Whole is before the House pursuant to a motion to discharge,
the Member who made the motion for its immediate consideration is
recognized in the House under the hour rule.

On Aug. 10, 1970,⁽²²⁾ following the agreement by the
House to motions offered by Mrs. Martha W. Griffiths, of Michigan,
discharging the Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration
of a House joint resolution ⁽²³⁾ and providing for the
resolution's immediate consideration by the House, the Speaker
⁽²⁴⁾ recognized Mrs. Griffiths for one hour of debate on the
measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 116 Cong. Rec. 27999, 28004, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
23. H.J. Res. 264, proposing an amendment to the Constitution relative
to equal rights for men and women.
24. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3232]]

Referral of Discharged Bills

Sec. 4.7 Where a committee is discharged from the further consideration
of a bill and no motion is made providing for the immediate
consideration of such bill, the Speaker refers the bill to its
appropriate calendar.

On Jan. 13, 1936,⁽²⁵⁾ following the agreement by the
House to a motion to discharge the Committee on Ways and Means from the
further consideration of a bill,⁽²⁶⁾ Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr.,
of New York, propounded a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 80 Cong. Rec. 336, 337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
26. H.R. 1, providing for the immediate cash payment of certain service
certificates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Fish: Under the rule, when a committee is discharged from
the consideration of a bill, does not the bill automatically come
up for consideration in the House?
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁾ It does not, except on motion of a
Member who signed the discharge petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bill will be referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

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]]

CHAPTER 18

Discharging Matters From Committees

APPENDIX

Recent History of Discharge Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions
Number of signed by
Congress motions requisite
filed number of
Members
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
73d (1933 to 1934).................................................................... 31 6
74th (1935 to 1936)................................................................... 33 3
75th (1937 to 1938)................................................................... 43 4
76th (1939 to 1940)................................................................... 37 2
77th (1941 to 1942)................................................................... 15 1
78th (1943 to 1944)................................................................... 21 3
79th (1945 to 1946)................................................................... 35 3
80th (1947 to 1948)................................................................... 20 1
81st (1949 to 1950)................................................................... 34 3
82d (1951 to 1952).................................................................... 14 0
83d (1953 to 1954).................................................................... 10 1
84th (1955 to 1956)................................................................... 6 1
85th (1957 to 1958)................................................................... 7 1
86th (1959 to 1960)................................................................... 7 1
87th (1961 to 1962) .................................................................. 6 0
88th (1963 to 1964)................................................................... 5 0
89th (1965 to 1966)................................................................... 6 1
90th (1967 to 1968)................................................................... 4 0
91st (1969 to 1970)................................................................... 12 1
92d (1971 to 1972).................................................................... 15 1
93d (1973 to 1974).................................................................... 10 0
94th (1975 to 1976)................................................................... 15 0
95th (1977 to 1978)................................................................... 11 0
96th (1979 to 1980)................................................................... 14 2
-------------------------
Total............................................................................. 411 35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3242]]

From the beginning of the 73d Congress through the end of the 96th (a
period of 47 years), 411 motions to discharge committees have been filed.
In that time, two bills have become law through the use of the complete
discharge process: S. 2475, Public Law No. 75-718 (Labor Standards, Wages
and House); and H.R. 9883, Public Law No. 86-586 (Federal Employees Pay
Bill). The latter bill, which was vetoed, became law when Congress overrode
the veto on July 1, 1960. The following is a further numerical analysis of
the outcome of proceedings related to the 411 motions to discharge
committees referred to above:

35 motions received a sufficient number of signatures for
discharge.⁽¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The number of signatures required has normally been 218, except
that 219 were required in the 86th and 87th Congresses, and 145
were required in the 73d Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 motions that were fully signed were agreed to.

1 motion failed when called up.

2 bills were defeated on passage in the House.

1 bill was recommitted after adoption of the motion to discharge and the
resolution providing for consideration of the bill.

3 bills passed the House but were not reported in the Senate.

8 bills passed to the stage of being reported in the Senate.

1 simple resolution was agreed to after discharge of the committee.

3 bills (all of which became law) and one resolution were reported after
discharge petitions were fully signed, but the motions to discharge in
these instances were not called up.

1 bill was reported after the discharge motion was filed but before the
motion was eligible to be called up; the bill passed the House under
suspension of the rules, but the proceedings were subsequently vacated and
a Senate bill passed in lieu of the House bill.

2 bills, as noted above, became law through use of the complete discharge
procedure.

_________________________