House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said at the recent Munich Security Conference that “I’ve heard more about a discharge petition in the last two days from foreign leaders — at the highest levels — than in my prior 11 years in office combined.”
Jeffries is choosing his words wisely as he floats the idea that Democrats use a discharge petition to unlock billions in military assistance for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. As a former chief of staff to House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, I believe that House Democrats should move the discharge petition now. With the recent murder of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny and the fall of the eastern Ukrainian city of Avdiivka to the Russians, the free world cannot wait any longer for American leadership.
Moreover, after watching the first 100 days of Speaker Mike Johnson’s reign, no one can be confident that he will bring the bipartisan Senate national security bill to the floor. Like the Senate’s 70-29 vote, the majority of House members would support this legislation if given the opportunity to vote. As the world waits, it’s past time to let the House work its will.
History can serve as our roadmap. Discharge petitions originate in the House Revolt of 1910, where a coalition of members from both parties created a tool to circumvent the disliked Speaker Joseph Cannon and allow a majority of House members to vote on popular legislation. Today, a handful of Republicans could join with Democrats and use the discharge petition to force a vote on the Senate bill.
Here’s how it works: If a bill has been introduced and referred to committee for at least 30 days, any House member can file a motion with the clerk of the House to discharge the bill from committee. If 218 members sign onto the petition, the bill becomes eligible for discharge with a vote on the House floor after seven days. After 20 minutes of debate, if the vote passes, the House will take up the measure.
Why should today’s House Democrats use the discharge petition? First, if the Republican majority can no longer govern, the discharge petition may be the last resort to allow the U.S. to support Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan in their hour of need. Second, although only three successful discharge petitions have become law, there are a number of cases where the threat of a discharge petition gave a bipartisan majority leverage over the leadership. Rather than suffering an embarrassing defeat, leadership eventually brought those bills to the floor for a vote. Third, recent evidence shows a discharge petition with a broad-based campaign can be successful.
If the discharge petition becomes a reality, House members must understand it will require bipartisanship, planning and strong coordination. Don’t delay and look at other options. The time to move is now.
Democrats have a “shell” discharge petition from last year’s debt limit fight with 213 signatures. They could take the Senate language (not the bill) and put it in the petition. Including the newest House member (New York special election winner Rep. Tom Suozzi, being sworn in today), Democrats will likely have 214 signatures — if they hold them all, just four Republicans would need to sign on.
There is some speculation that left-wing Democrats might remove their names from the petition because they oppose more unconditional aid to Israel. My argument to these members is that you will have your opportunity to vote against the Senate bill — but you must allow the Congress to have a vote on this critical security issue. I would hope the top foreign policy and defense figures in the Biden administration will meet with these progressive members and lay out the importance of this legislation to America’s standing in the free world.
For House Republicans, the act of signing a discharge petition when your party is in the majority can be a heavy burden. Congressional leaders have long memories, and usurping the agenda-setting power of the Speaker can lead to retribution. However, I learned from my experience of successfully using a discharge petition to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank in 2015 that these risks can be mitigated by cultivating majority-party congressional champions, recruiting national and local voices from around the country to support the maneuver, and using grassroots and local media campaigning techniques. The proponents of this security package should be willing to run paid media and op-eds in the districts of members who take the courageous stand of signing the petition.
House Democrats need to start preparing for floor consideration of the discharge petition and identify who will be managers of the bill on the floor. Ideally they would have a bipartisan team and can brief them on parliamentary procedure for floor consideration to anticipate all possible procedural points that could arise during floor consideration. They also need to come to agreement on the floor messages they will articulate during consideration. Last, they need to set up both a Democrat and Republican whip team to count the votes for final passage.
The free world is looking to America to see if we will make good on our promises to provide assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan — or whether we will retreat from our commitments to aid our allies. Let’s stop waiting for the House Republican leadership to change its mind, and instead take active steps now via the discharge procedure to have a House vote on the Senate’s bipartisan national security bill.
Tom O’Donnell is the former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and cofounder and managing partner of Gephardt Government. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
