As we all know, Speaker Johnson is now the one man blockade preventing the Senate’s Ukraine/Israel/Palestinians/Taiwan (U/I/P/T) Aid Bill from getting on the House floor for a vote. A vote that everyone expects will be heavily bipartisan and have way more than the simple majority needed to pass. So will he allow it to be bought up on the floor in the next few or several weeks?
Beats Me!
Anyway, that’s not the subject of this diary. This diary is about the only way to get this Bill around Squeaker Johnsons’ blockade and onto the House floor for a vote. That is:
THE DISCHARGE PETITION
Before I get you all lost in the weeds, in the simplest of terms: A Discharge Petition is a petition signed by at least 218 members of the US House to discharge a Bill from a Committee and bring it to the House floor for a vote, without the Committee’s or the Speaker’s approval.
If it sounds simple, it isn’t. The process for a Discharge Petition as laid out in the current House Rules is both complex and lengthy, and the political pressure on members of the Speaker’s Party to sign or NOT sign such a petition can be immense, as they probably are in this case. But if your interested to learn about the process as laid out by House Rule XV, Clause 2 and the politics involved in this particular case, please feel free to join me below the fold.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Good, so all the interested folks are here (probably only one or two, but who cares).
The Discharge Petition Process:
Let’s start out with this paraphrase from Rule XV, Clause 2. (a)(1):
Discharge may be attempted only on a measure that has been referred to committee for at least 30 legislative days.1 Any Member can initiate a discharge effort by filing with the Clerk of the House a discharge motion (also called a discharge petition) that is maintained by the Clerk’s office
Footnote:
1 A “legislative” day encompasses a period of time that starts when the House convenes following an adjournment and ends when the chamber next adjourns. In most cases, because the House usually adjourns each day it is in session, legislative days correspond with “calendar” days (a standard 24-hour period) on which the House meets. If the House instead recesses or remains in session from one calendar day to the next, the same legislative day would extend into the next calendar day.
So in layman's terms, a Bill must be in Committee for 30 legislative days before a member can initiate a Discharge Petition, and a legislative day occurs only when the House is gaveled in and out of session. Under this rule it could take months to even start a Discharge Petition for the Senate (U/I/P/T) Aid Bill. So we’re screwed right?
Maybe not.
You see the (U/I/P/T) Aid Bill is not an original Senate Bill at all. It is what’s called a substitute amendment, which guts the entire text out of House Bill H.R.815 - National Security Act, and replaces it with text that the Senate created for U/I/P/T Aid. The original Bill, H.R.815 was first referred to the House Committee on Veteran’s Affairs way back on February 2, 2023. So I think that means (I always say I think when I’m not sure) that the base bill has already been in Committee for more that 30 legislative days, allowing any House member to file a Discharge Petition Motion immediately on this Bill, now amended by the Senate. I have heard rumors from the media that this may have already happened, so the petition signing process may already be underway. However, it is not currently listed in the Congressional Record, so maybe not.
This is not all that far fetched since something similar was done during the debt ceiling debacle. Months before the debt ceiling deadline, a relatively unknown House Democrat, under the direction of Minority Leader (future Speaker) Hakeem Jeffries I’m sure, introduced a little noticed bill in Committee to raise the debt limit. So by the time we got near the debt limit, the 30 legislative days in Committee had already passed, the Discharge Petition Motion had been made and every House Democrat had already signed the Petition. In the end, it wasn’t necessary since Speaker McCarthy basically buckled and allowed a similar Debt Ceiling Bill on the House floor which passed averting catastrophe. So it does make sense that with respect to U/I/P/T Aid, Jeffries, who was brought up under the tutelage of the legislative Master, Speaker Pelosi, has already set up a Discharge Petition for signing.
So what’s next.
Once the Petition Signing begins, Paraphrasing Rule XV, Clause 2. (b):
The names of signatories on a discharge petition are updated by the Clerk on a daily basis and are available online for public inspection.3 Additionally, the last edition of the Congressional Record for each week contains a section entitled “Discharge Petitions—Additions and Withdrawals” that identifies Members who have added or subtracted their names from a petition during that particular week.4 Members may add or remove their names until a petition has obtained 218 signatures. If a discharge petition reaches this threshold—a majority of the House’s 435 Members—the list of names is frozen, printed in the Congressional Record, and the discharge motion is entered in the House Journal and in the “Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees” section of the House Calendar.
To be clear, the actual Rule does not say 218 signatures, it says “a majority of the total membership of the House”. Once again, I think the majority referred to in the Rule means 218 members, even though there are currently 3 vacancies.
BTW — I have been paraphrasing the Rule from a reliable source instead of copying it directly because: 1. The PDF of the actual Rule from the House website has a copy and paste block, and 2. the paraphrase is easier to comprehend.
So for the U/I/P/T Aid Bill, we need at least five (5) House Republicans to sign the Petition, if all 213 Democrats (including Tom Souzzi who will soon be sworn in) sign on. We will get to the chances of that in the Politics Section below.
Moving on, once the Petition reaches 218 signatures, Paraphrasing Rule XV, Clause 2. (c):
Once on the Calendar, an additional seven legislative days must elapse before a Member who signed the petition may notify the House in a floor statement of an intention to offer the discharge motion on the floor. The motion may then be called up by that Member “at a time or place, designated by the Speaker, in the legislative schedule within two legislative days after the day on which a Member whose signature appears thereon announces to the House an intention to offer the motion.”5 A discharge motion is not in order, however, during the last six days of a congressional session. When the time designated by the Speaker arrives, the Member who gave notice would be recognized to offer the motion to discharge. Typically, this Member also makes essential motions and controls debate time in favor of the measure, and the chair of the pertinent committee controls time in opposition. The motion to discharge is debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided between proponents and opponents. If the motion is adopted, the committee in possession of the measure is discharged from its consideration, and any Member who signed the petition may immediately move to proceed to consider the measure.
As indicated above, once the 218 threshold is met and on the calendar, the Rule requires 7 legislative days to pass before a member can come to the floor and announce his intention to offer the Discharge Motion, and allows the Speaker an additional maximum of 2 legislative days to schedule such a motion. So for the U/I/P/T Aid Bill, we are talking a maximum total of 9 legislative days to allow a Discharge Motion, a floor debate and a vote on the motion. Depending on how many days the House is actually in session, that could be a few weeks in “real” time.
Lastly, Paraphrasing Rule XV, Clause 2. (d):
Once a committee is discharged, the measure may be considered in Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule, or in the House under the one-hour rule, depending on the nature of the measure itself. If the measure is a “money measure” (including authorization, appropriation, and revenue measures), the next motion in order is that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole to consider it.7 If this motion is adopted, the measure is considered as if under an open rule: when each section is read for amendment, germane amendments to it are in order and are debated under the five-minute rule. Time for general debate on the measure is not expressly provided for at this stage, but by unanimous consent Members may agree to place a limit on the amount of debate time under the control of managers.
First, to explain the Committee of the Whole, without getting into the weeds, it is essentially the transformation of the entire House into a Committee. This is purely a procedural step that the Rule requires for “money measures” such as the U/I/P/T Aid Bill. So effectively, it’s the same as the whole House running the process. Also, although not mentioned in the paraphrase, the Rule allows a Motion to Adjourn, if approved by a majority of the Members’ present, to temporarily halt consideration of the Bill. However, the Rule only allows this to happen once.
Once the actual Bill is on the floor, the Rule gets even more complicated, with road blocks such as consideration of amendments and other things that can further delay a vote on the Bill. But once once the floor, the fate of the Bill is under control of the 218 Members or more that want to see the Bill passed. So in the case of the U/I/P/T Aid Bill, which very likely has far more than a simple majority who want it passed, I see no need to drag you all further into the weeds of the House Rules.
The Discharge Petition Politics:
According to this 6 day old Politico Article, the most immediate obstacle to getting 218 House Members to sign a Discharge Petition for the U/I/P/T Aid Bill, is not Republicans, it’s House Democrats.
House Democratic leadership is checking the pulse of lawmakers to see if they’d still back forcing a vote on the Senate-passed national security bill through a discharge petition amid ongoing gridlock, according to two people familiar with the matter.
But progressive lawmakers in recent days have raised concerns about supporting the legislation if it granted aid to Israel without conditions, meaning more Republican support would be needed to make up for defections among liberal lawmakers.
That’s prompted leading Democrats to now do the rounds to ask where lawmakers stand on the discharge petition, according to the two people familiar, granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal caucus dynamics.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) was blunter: “I'm not voting for it. And I'm not signing onto the discharge petition.”
She estimated enough progressives would abandon the petition so that “it wouldn’t work.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she’d “likely not” support the Senate package but demurred on removing her name from the discharge petition, saying: “I think we're all on the same page here collaborating as a caucus.”
The chair of the Progressive Caucus, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), downplayed the divisions, arguing Dems won’t “move a discharge petition on something that we don't agree on.”
“Everyone signed a discharge petition with a very clear commitment from leadership that it wouldn't be used for things that we wouldn't agree on,” Jayapal said. “That's not an issue. People aren't taking their names off of it or anything.”
However, although the above makes the situation sound hopeless, the article goes on to offer at least a glimmer of hope.
Some progressives may sign onto the discharge petition to get the bill onto the floor, while keeping their options open when it comes time to pass it. That’s what Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said he plans to do.
“I think you’re going to see possible unanimity on our side because [passing the bill is] a separate vote, and people can make that decision later,” Grijalva told POLITICO. “I’m going to bite that bullet when it’s on the floor.”
The House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee’s top Democrat, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), said progressives may put aside their objections to the Israel aid because the bill also contains humanitarian aid to Gaza.
I am sure Jeffries and Speaker Emeritus Pelosi are doing a lot of political arm twisting among Progressives in the Caucus to get them to sign on. Reminding them of the vital importance aid to Ukraine is at this point, how this is probably the only way we get humanitarian aid into Gaza to help Palestinian civilians, and how they will probably be able to vote against the Bill on the floor, since it is expected that there will be more than enough Republican “yes” votes to offset a few Progressive “no” votes. However, my guess is the key to Progressives signing onto the Petition is President Biden. If Biden were to get tough on Netanyahu in actions, not just words, and bring about a ceasefire or at least halting Israel's invasion of Raffa and the subsequent humanitarian catastrophe, Jeffries could get all 213 Democrats to sign the Petition. This has to happen first, because without all 213 Democrats having signed, it will be impossible to get the 5 Republican signatures needed to reach 218.
On the Republican side of the aisle, while there are many who support the Senate U/I/P/T Aid Bill and would vote for it should it get to the House floor, so far none have fully committed to signing a Discharge Petition to get it there. Besides the fact that some may be waiting for the Democrats to get their act together as stated above, another monkey wrench has recently emerged which is further complicating the situation.
From this Roll Call article:
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., told reporters on Wednesday that he’s working on a legislative “framework” that would address Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and the border, providing an alternative to the Senate’s bill. He said he was working with a “handful” of other Republicans and some Democrats on the proposal, which he plans to unveil in the next day or so.
“Personally, I would support it,” Fitzpatrick said of the Senate package, “but I don’t think it has the votes.”
So we have been down this road before (including Border Security and Immigration provisions in the Aid Bill), only to see Republicans in the Senate blow it up. Why would adding it back in not result in the same fate, especially since the Orange Jesus who runs the GOP doesn’t want any Border/Immigration measures passed.
To close out, we are in a very fluid situation. There are reportedly discussions about cutting out Ukraine aid and putting it in a separate bill, as well as other ideas for new legislative combinations. However, starting over likely means going through the Committee process and having to go back to the Senate, a lengthy process and a road full of potential legislative potholes.
So to be clear, anything is possible, including Johnson folding under national and international pressure to put the Senate Bill on the floor. 🤞
