[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

        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 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.

_________________________
