Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Mr. Meeks. Petition No: 119-7. (<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/DischargePetition/2025071707">Discharge petition</a> text with signatures.)
This resolution sets the House's procedures for immediately taking up and voting on H.J.Res. 91. It waives points of order against considering the joint resolution and against its provisions, treats the text as read, limits debate to one hour split equally, allows one motion to recommit, and prevents certain House rule provisions from applying. It also directs the Clerk to notify the Senate of House passage within one week. This is an internal House rule and does not create law outside House procedure.
The resolution is a House special-rule (adopted under the Rules Committee process) that waives points of order, orders the previous question, limits debate to one hour equally divided, allows a single motion to recommit, and suspends specific House rule clauses for this consideration. It applies only to House floor procedure and is not presented to the President or binding outside the chamber.
This House resolution sets the terms for floor consideration of H.J. Res. 91, a joint resolution 'relating to a national emergency by the President on April 2, 2025.' It waives all points of order against consideration and provisions of the joint resolution, limits debate to one hour (divided between the Foreign Affairs Chair and ranking member), allows one motion to recommit, suspends two House rule clauses, and requires the Clerk to notify the Senate of passage within one week.
This is an enabling procedural step with low direct risk, but the substantive joint resolution faces significant Senate and executive hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this resolution is a narrowly focused, well-specified House floor rule that clearly prescribes how H.J. Res. 91 is to be considered, who controls debate, which points of order are waived, and a short administrative transmission deadline.
Liberal emphasizes congressional oversight and ending emergency powers
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes congressional oversight and ending emergency powers
Likely supportive if H.J. Res. 91 seeks to terminate or check a presidential national emergency.
Views expedited consideration as necessary oversight, while noting procedural waivers risk limiting minority input.
Cautiously favorable to a structured rule that enables timely consideration, but concerned about weakened procedural safeguards and limited debate for important constitutional issues.
Likely opposed if the underlying joint resolution restrains presidential emergency authority.
Views the rule's waivers and limited debate as unfairly curtailing executive prerogative and minority rights.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
This is an enabling procedural step with low direct risk, but the substantive joint resolution faces significant Senate and executive hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes congressional oversight and ending emergency powers
This is an enabling procedural step with low direct risk, but the substantive joint resolution faces significant Senate and executive hurdl…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this resolution is a narrowly focused, well-specified House floor rule that clearly prescribes how H.J. Res. 91 is to be considered, who controls debate, which points of order…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.