[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 17, Chapters 34 - 40]
[Ch. 40. Adjournment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 777-778]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
[[Page 777]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary and editing by Charles W. Johnson, III, J.D., Andrew S.
Neal, J.D., and Robert W. Cover, J.D.; manuscript editing by Deborah
Woodard Khalili.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less
Sec. 1. In General
Sec. 2. Adjournment to Another Place
Sec. 3. When in Order; Precedence and Privilege of Motion
Sec. 4. In Committee of the Whole
Sec. 5. Debate on Motion; Amendments
Sec. 6. Voting; Effect of Adoption
Sec. 7. Quorum Requirements
Sec. 8. Dilatory Motions; Repetition of Motion
Sec. 9. To a Day Certain; Three-day Limit
B. Adjournments for More Than Three Days to Date Certain
Sec. 10. In General; House-Senate Adjournments for Differing Periods
Sec. 11. Consideration of Concurrent Resolution; Privilege,
Amendment, Debate, Budget Act Restrictions
Sec. 12. August Recess
Sec. 13. Conditional Adjournments; Recall
C. Adjournment Sine Die
Sec. 14. In General; Privilege; Inclusion of Other Matter
Sec. 15. Conditional Adjournments Sine Die; Recall
Sec. 16. Where Required or Prohibited by Law
Sec. 17. Procedure and Business at Adjournment
[[Page 778]]
Sec. 18. Business Subsequent to
[[Page 779]]
[Page 779-780]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less
Sec. 1. In General
Art. I, Sec. 5 of the United States Constitution, together with
clause 4 of Rule XVI of the rules of the House,(1) establish
the fundamental precedence in parliamentary procedure of the House of
Representatives of the motion to adjourn. Under the Constitution, the
motion to adjourn is given such primacy that it is one of only two
motions (the other being the motion to compel the attendance of
absentees) which can be adopted in the absence of a quorum. Jefferson's
Manual states ``A motion to adjourn simply takes place of all others;
for otherwise the House might be kept sitting against its will, and
indefinitely. Yet this motion cannot be received after another question
is actually put and while the House is engaged in
voting.''(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 911-913 (2007).
2. Id. at Sec. 439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjournments in the House include: (1) adjournments of three days
or less, which are taken pursuant to motion (or by unanimous consent
during pro forma sessions when only the Chair is in the
Chamber);(3) (2) adjournments for more than three days,
which require the consent of the Senate;(4) and (3) an
adjournment sine die, which ends each session of a Congress, and
requires the consent of the Senate or the arrival of the
constitutionally prescribed end of session on Jan. 3, and which may be
combined with either single-House or two-House majority leadership
recall authority (converting a sine die adjournment to adjournment to a
day certain specified in (or pursuant to) the recall).(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Division A, infra.
4. See Division B, infra.
5. See Division C, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjournment is to be distinguished from recess.(6)
Adjournments are normally taken from day to day or to a day certain and
terminate a legislative day, whereas recesses are taken during a
legislative day. Following an adjournment, the Mace is removed from the
upper pedestal at the rostrum in the custody of the Sergeant at Arms
(rather than remain on the rostrum) and the
[[Page 780]]
House is no longer in a receptive mode for business. The hopper is
removed and bills may not be introduced nor reports filed through the
hopper. Restrictions on access to the floor are relaxed for invited
visitors in periods of adjournment as provided in clause 3 of Rule
IV,(7) but not during recesses. While under clause 4 of Rule
XVI the motion to adjourn is of the highest privilege, the declaration
of a recess for a ``short time'' under clause 12(a) of Rule
I(8) is in order when no question is pending, such as when a
Member indicates his desire to offer a motion to adjourn but has not
yet been recognized by the Chair for that purpose.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Ch. 39, infra.
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 (2007).
8. Id. at Sec. 638.
9. See Ch. 39 Sec. 2.22, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in the 108th Congress, declarations of emergency recesses
pursuant to clause 12(b) of Rule I(10) are in order whenever
the Speaker is notified of an imminent danger to the safety of the
House. Such declarations take precedence over pending business and
could even interrupt a pending motion to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 639 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 108th Congress, the rules were amended to permit the Speaker
to alter the time for reconvening during an adjournment period of three
days or less, if notified by the Sergeant at Arms of the imminent
impairment of the place of reconvening and after consultation with the
Minority Leader, either by postponing or advancing the established time
for reconvening for a duration within the established three-day period,
and in an advanced reconvening solely to declare a recess within the
three-day limit.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Compare this formal authority for early reconvening following
overnight adjournment with the twice-used Senate practice of
unauthorized early reconvening followed by ratification by
unanimous consent. See 109 Cong. Rec. 22697-99, 88th Cong. 1st
Sess., Nov. 25, 1963; and 147 Cong. Rec. 16865, 107th Cong. 1st
Sess., Sept. 12, 2001. The Senate felt that it had no other
option in this circumstance than to ``convene and ratify.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 780-784]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less
Sec. 2. Adjournment to Another Place
While an adjournment normally implies a reconvening in the Chamber
from which the House adjourned, under clause 12(d) of Rule
I(1) adopted in the 108th
[[Page 781]]
Congress, the Speaker may convene the House in a place within the seat
of government, the District of Columbia, other than the Hall of the
House. Prior to that time and by precedent since 1949, the House could
by simple resolution adjourn to reconvene at another place within the
seat of government, the concurrence of the Senate not being
necessary.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 639 (2007). The seat of government was
transferred to the District of Columbia by the Act of July 16,
1790 (1 Stat. 30), and provided that ``all offices attached to
the said seat of government be removed to the District.''
2. Ch. 1 Sec. 4.1, supra. See also Sec. 2.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During any adjournment the President may, by law, convene Congress
at a place outside the seat of government due to the existence of
hazardous circumstances within the seat of government.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 2 USC Sec. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Sept. 11, 2001, authority contained in concurrent resolutions
adjourning both Houses for more than three days, or sine die, which
includes joint leadership authority to recall the two Houses, has
allowed reassembly at such place as may be designated.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 2.2, infra.
The House, by unanimous consent, has also considered and
adopted a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 449) providing
that the Congress ``conduct a special meeting in Federal Hall
in New York, New York'' on Sept. 6, 2002, in remembrance of
Sept. 11, 2001. The resolution provided for a strictly
ceremonial meeting. See Ch. 36 Sec. 16.4, supra. Congress has
engaged in ceremonial functions outside the seat of government.
For example, Members of both Houses traveled to Philadelphia
for organized festivities surrounding the bicentennial
anniversary of the Constitution on July 16, 1987. See Ch. 36
Sec. 4.5, supra. On that occasion, a concurrent resolution
authorized the Speaker and the President pro tempore to appoint
an official bicameral delegation to represent the Congress at a
ceremonial session. After a preliminary joint ceremony in
Independence Hall, delegations met separately in their
respective chambers in Congress Hall for ceremonial sessions.
At no time was consideration given to making the proceedings be
an actual session of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 7, 2003, the opening day of the 108th Congress, the House,
consistent with art. I, Sec. 5 of the Constitution, granted
anticipatory consent for the two Houses to assemble at a place outside
the seat of government whenever, in the opinion of the joint leadership
(or their designees) after bipartisan consultation, the public interest
shall warrant it. House Concurrent Resolution 1 was called up as
privileged in the House. The House adopted the concurrent resolution on
Feb. 13, 2003.(5) This concurrent resolution
[[Page 782]]
allowed the Houses to meet only at the same place outside the seat of
government. A concurrent resolution rather than a law was thought
prudent to enable each successive Congress to reaffirm such bicameral
consent contemporaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 2.1, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2.1 The House adopted a privileged concurrent resolution (offered
by the chairman of the Committee on Rules) granting anticipatory
consent for the two Houses to assemble at a place outside the seat
of government whenever, in the opinion of the joint leadership (or
their designees) after bipartisan consultation, the public interest
shall warrant it.
On Jan. 7, 2003,(1) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 147 Cong. Rec. 21, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. For the Senate concurrence
see 147 Cong. Rec. 4080, 108th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 13, 2003.
On the opening day of the 109th Congress the House
considered as privileged and adopted H. Con. Res. 1 to permit
the two Houses to meet outside the seat of government. However,
the Senate took no action on either of those concurrent
resolutions, although that body had acted in the 108th Congress
in 2003. See 151 Cong. Rec. 68, 109th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4,
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGARDING CONSENT TO ASSEMBLE OUTSIDE THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 1) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 1
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That pursuant to clause 4, section 5, article I of
the Constitution, during the One Hundred Eighth Congress the
Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate or
their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation
with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader
of the Senate, may notify the Members of the House and the
Senate, respectively, to assemble at a place outside the
District of Columbia whenever, in their opinion, the public
interest shall warrant it.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 2.2 After Sept. 11, 2001, authority contained in concurrent
resolutions adjourning both Houses for more than three days, or
sine die, which includes joint leadership authority to recall the
two Houses, has allowed reassembly during that adjournment period
at such place inside or outside the seat of government as may be
designated.
[[Page 783]]
On Nov. 22, 2002,(1) the Speaker pro
tempore(2) laid the following privileged concurrent
resolution before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 148 Cong. Rec. 23512, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
2. Brian D. Kerns (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR THE SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT OF THE 107TH CONGRESS,
SECOND SESSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kerns) laid before the House the
privileged Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 160)
providing for the sine die adjournment of the One Hundred Seventh
Congress, Second Session.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 160
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate adjourns at the close of
business on any day from Wednesday, November 20, 2002 through
Saturday, November 23, 2002, or from Monday, November 25, 2002,
through Wednesday, November 27, 2002, or on a motion offered
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader,
or his designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until Members
are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of
the Senate and the House, respectively, to reassemble at such
place and time as they may designate whenever, in their
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Adjournment to House Caucus Room
Sec. 2.3 The House adopted a resolution providing for adjournment to
the caucus room in a House office building for convenings there
until otherwise ordered.
On Nov. 22, 1940,(1) a House resolution was presented
calling for the House to convene following its adjournment (over the
weekend) at another place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 86 Cong. Rec. 13715, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
offer resolution (H. Res. 637) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
House Resolution 637
Resolved, That when this House adjourns on Friday, November
22, 1940, it will adjourn to meet in the caucus room in the New
House Office Building on Monday, November 25, 1940, and it
shall continue to meet there until otherwise ordered.
Resolved, That all rules relating to the Hall of the House
shall be applicable to the caucus room.
Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to
the President of the United States and to the Senate of the
United States.
[[Page 784]]
The resolution was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: The House continued to hold its sessions in
a caucus room in a House office building until the opening of the 77th
Congress. Likewise, the Senate provided that its meetings should be
held in the Capitol Chamber formerly occupied by the Supreme Court.
These actions were necessary because of the precarious condition of the
roofs in the two Chambers.(2) The Majority Leader inserted
in the Congressional Record a letter from the Architect of the Capitol
explaining the urgency of the roof construction in detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 784-820]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less
Sec. 3. When in Order; Precedence and Privilege of Motion
When the House has fixed the daily hour of meeting (as it normally
does on the first day of each session by standing order), the motion to
adjourn, authorized by clause 4 of Rule XVI,(1) is in order
in simple form only (that the House do now adjourn), and may not direct
an immediate adjournment to a day or time certain, or to a day beyond
three days and beyond the constitutional term of that
Congress.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2007).
2. Ibid. See also House Rules and Manual Sec. 912; and Sec. 3.27,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only in a case in which the hour of daily meeting has not been
fixed may the simple motion to adjourn fix the hour of
meeting.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to fix the day to which the House should adjourn was
included within the rule as to the precedence of motions but was
dropped in 1890 and again in 1895 until 1973, because of its use in
obstructive tactics.(4) In 1973, clause 4 of Rule XVI was
revised to restore to the highest privileged status, equal with the
simple motion to adjourn, the nondebatable motion that when the House
adjourns on that day it stand adjourned to a day and time certain
(within three days) but only if the Speaker, in the Speaker's
discretion, recognized a Member for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Ibid. See also 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6740.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interim between 1895(5) until 1973, the motion
that the adjournment on that day be one to a day and time certain was
not privileged against the demand for the regular order.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5301.
6. See Sec. 3.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 785]]
The Chair cannot refuse to recognize a Member having the floor for
a simple motion to adjourn.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 3.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to adjourn may be withdrawn.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. Sec. 3.31, 3.32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to adjourn not only has the highest precedence when a
question is under debate, but with certain restrictions, under all
other conditions as well.(9) The entry of the motion to
reconsider, while highly privileged, is not preferential to the motion
to adjourn.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. Sec. 3.4-3.16, 3.26 infra.
10. See Rule XIX clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1003 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House may adjourn before the Journal is
approved.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 3.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to adjourn may be made during the consideration of a
rule reported from the Committee on Rules, as long as the motion be not
made when another Member has the floor, and must be in writing on
demand of any Member.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 3.6, infra. Under clause 1 of Rule XVI, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 902 (2007), a motion must be reduced to writing on
the demand of any Member, including the motion to adjourn, see
Sec. 3.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to adjourn may not interrupt a Member who has the
floor.(13) The motion is not in order during time yielded
for a parliamentary inquiry.(14) The motion may not be
repeated in the absence of intervening business.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also Sec. Sec. 3.15-3.17, infra.
14. See Sec. 3.18, infra.
15. See Sec. 3.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to adjourn takes precedence over a motion to suspend the
rules,(16) but only one motion to adjourn is in order
pending a motion to suspend the rules.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 3.7, infra.
17. Rule XV clause 1(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 890 (2007). See
also Sec. 3.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to adjourn is in order pending a point of order that a
quorum is not present.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 3.20, 3.25, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to adjourn has precedence over a motion for a call of
the House, but not after a call of the House has been ordered and the
Clerk directed to call the roll.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 3.21-3.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to adjourn takes precedence over questions of
privilege.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule IX clause 2(a), clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 699, 700 (2007). See also Sec. 3.26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to adjourn may not be made prior to a vote on final
passage when the previous question is ordered by operation of a special
rule to final passage without intervening motion.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See Sec. 3.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 786]]
On Sept. 19, 1979,(22) the House rejected a joint
resolution on final passage, after having by ordinary motion under
clause 4 of Rule XVI ordered the previous question to ``final
passage'', and not pursuant to any special rule ordering the previous
question to final passage without intervening motion except one motion
to recommit. The House did not dispose of the motion to reconsider on
that day but later adjourned until the next day. On Sept. 20,
1979,(23) a Member moved to reconsider the vote of the
previous day and the House voted to reconsider the vote on final
passage. Pending the question on final passage, the Speaker entertained
a motion to adjourn ``as preferential and in order'' pending the
putting of the question on final passage for the second time. Thus, the
motion to adjourn was held in order pending final passage where the
previous question has been ordered by motion ``to final passage''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 125 Cong. Rec. 25345, 25353, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. (H.J. Res. 399).
23. See Sec. 3.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to adjourn may be made by any Member, including a
minority Member.(24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. See Sec. 3.30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair may declare the House adjourned by unanimous consent when
no Member is available to offer the motion.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. See Sec. Sec. 3.28, 3.29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In at least one instance, the House adjourned out of respect for a
Member's death without adopting a resolution marking the day's
adjournment.(26)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. See Sec. 3.33, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.1 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker pro
tempore indicated that an amendment in the nature of a substitute
in the form of a concurrent resolution providing for the sine die
adjournment of a session of Congress would not be germane to a
simple motion to adjourn.
On Dec. 30, 1970,(1) during a vote on adjournment, a
Member attempted to interrupt with a parliamentary inquiry. As soon as
the result of the vote had been announced, the Speaker permitted the
Member to make his inquiry, which had to do with amending a simple
motion to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 116 Cong. Rec. 44190, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [W. C.] DANIEL of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mills).(2) The question
is on the motion to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Wilbur D. Mills (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 787]]
Mr. [Durwood G.] HALL of Missouri. Mr. Speaker--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would request that the
gentleman from Missouri permit the Chair to put the question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes had it.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, is a privileged amendment in the form of
a substitute as a concurrent resolution in order on a motion to
adjourn?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise the gentleman
from Missouri that it is not in order on a simple motion to
adjourn.
Sec. 3.2 Between 1895 and 1973,(1) a motion that the
adjournment on that day be one to a day and time certain was not in
order against a demand for the regular order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For the current practice, see Rule XVI clause 4(c), House Rules and
Manual Sec. Sec. 911, 912 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early morning hours of the legislative day of Wednesday,
Feb. 22, 1950,(2) a Member moved that the House adjourn to a
day certain, the calendar day of Friday, Feb. 24. The subsequent
objection of another Member served in effect as a demand for the
regular order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 2254, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 23, 1950 (calendar
day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I move
that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Friday
next at 12 o'clock noon.
Mr. [Joseph W.] MARTIN [Jr.] of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a
point of order.
The SPEAKER.(3) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. The gentleman cannot do that. As I
understand it, we must come in at noon today for the Thursday
session unless unanimous consent is secured to go over until
Friday. Is that the proper parliamentary situation?
The SPEAKER. If the gentleman makes that point.
Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I think the gentleman ought to
proceed in the regular way.
Mr. McCORMACK. Of course, the gentleman is absolutely correct.
I was trying to have an adjournment to a definite time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Friday next at 12 o'clock.
Mr. [John F.] KENNEDY [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
object.
adjournment
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn until 12 o'clock today.
[[Page 788]]
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 19
minutes a. m.), the House adjourned until 12 o'clock noon of
Thursday, February 23, 1950.
Sec. 3.3 The Chair cannot refuse to recognize a Member having the floor
for a simple motion to adjourn.
On Mar. 16, 1945,(1) at the culmination of a series of
exchanges pertaining to the parliamentary situation at the time, the
Speaker indicated that the motion to adjourn is always in order, and
that a Member with the floor is entitled to recognition to so move.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 91 Cong. Rec. 2380, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] HOFFMAN [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER.(2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HOFFMAN. What is the regular order now?
The SPEAKER. The regular order is to see if a quorum develops.
Mr. HOFFMAN. Is it in order to adjourn?
The SPEAKER. That motion is always in order in the House.
Mr. HOFFMAN. If there is not a quorum, Mr. Speaker, I move we
adjourn.
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman withhold that for a moment?
Mr. HOFFMAN. If the Chair is refusing recognition, I will.
The SPEAKER. The Chair cannot do that.
Precedence
Sec. 3.4 The motion to adjourn, though most preferential under clause 4
of Rule XVI,(1) is not available when the previous
question has been ordered (by special rule) to final passage
without intervening motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 911, 912 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 14, 2001,(2) during debate in the House on an
amendment to a bill on which the previous question had been ordered,
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 147 Cong. Rec. 10725, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] LaFALCE [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey).(3) The Chair
is unable to entertain the gentleman's point of order until the
Chair has put the question on the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John Cooksey (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LaFALCE. Would the Chair restate that position? I thought
that I would be able at any point that I was recognized to get up
and made a point of order that a quorum was not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rules of the House, the
Chair may
[[Page 789]]
not recognize the absence of a quorum during debate. The only time
the point of order may be entertained is when the Chair puts the
question to the House on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. LaFALCE. So you could debate within the House of
Representatives without a quorum?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order of no quorum is not
permitted during the debate, no.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to recognize the
motion.
The previous question is ordered under the rule without such
intervening motion.
Mr. [Michael G.] OXLEY [of Ohio]. Point of inquiry. Does the
request have to be in writing?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. On demand, the motion needs to be in
writing.
Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman from New York was recognized for what
particular purpose?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With the previous question having been
ordered to passage without intervening motion pending is the debate
on the amendment controlled by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley)
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). Under the special
rule, no other motions are permissible.
Mr. LaFALCE. A motion to adjourn is not permissible at this
time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. When
is a motion to adjourn permissible?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With the previous question being
ordered to final passage without intervening motion under the rule
that motion can be entertained after the question of passage of the
bill.
Mr. LaFALCE. Not before passage of the bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is the ruling of the Chair.
Sec. 3.5 Although a motion to instruct conferees is privileged under
clause 1(c) of Rule XXVIII(1) a motion to adjourn
remains preferential even after the motion to instruct has been
read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Now Rule XXII clause 7(c)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 1079
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 30, 1997,(2) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 143 Cong. Rec. 20886, 20887, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1757, FOREIGN RELATIONS
AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999, AND EUROPEAN
SECURITY ACT OF 1997
Mr. [Lloyd A.] DOGGETT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged motion.
The SPEAKER.(3) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Newt Gingrich (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Doggett moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes
[[Page 790]]
of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 1757, be instructed to
reject section 1601 of the Senate amendment, which provides for
payment of all claims against the Iraqi Government before those
of U.S. veterans and the U.S. Government (i.e., U.S.
taxpayers). -------------------
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. [C. Joseph] SCARBOROUGH [of Florida]. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. A motion to adjourn is in order.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I had asked earlier for a
question. We can do a motion to adjourn, if I can ask the gentleman
from Texas a question?
The SPEAKER. A motion to adjourn is not debatable, and the
gentleman was not recognized prior to this time.
{time} 0015
Does the gentleman from Florida insist on his motion to
adjourn?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, has the motion been reduced to
writing?
The SPEAKER. Yes. The question is on the motion to adjourn
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
206, nays 183, not voting 44, as follows:
[Roll No. 479] . . .
So the motion to adjourn was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 34 minutes a.m.) the House
adjourned until today, Wednesday, October 1, 1997, at 10 a.m.
Sec. 3.6 The motion to adjourn may be made during the consideration of
a rule reported from the Committee on Rules pursuant to clause 4(b)
of Rule XI,(1) as long as the motion is not made when
another Member has the floor and is reduced to writing on demand of
any Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Now Rule XIII, clause 6, see House Rules and Manual Sec. 857
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 27, 1993,(2) where the House adjourned during
the consideration of a special order reported from the Committee on
Rules, further consideration of the rule would become the unfinished
business when the House next reconvened; and when the consideration of
unfinished business resumed in the House, debate did not begin anew but
recommenced from the point at which it was interrupted.(3)
The following occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 139 Cong. Rec. 22608, 22609, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
3. 139 Cong. Rec. 22719, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 791]]
motion to adjourn
Mr. [Dan] BURTON of Indiana. For that reason, and because of
this rule and because I cannot bring it to the floor to debate it,
Madam Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn, with apologies to
my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Meek).(4) Will the
gentleman from Indiana withhold that motion momentarily?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carrie P. Meek (FL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. As long as it is not going to be
overlooked, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's debate time has
expired. Does the gentleman from Indiana still insist on that
motion?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I do insist, Madam Speaker.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Gerald B. H.] SOLOMON [of New York]. Madam Speaker, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will please state his
inquiry.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I do not believe that the motion is
in writing.
I would like to continue the debate, if we could, and let the
gentleman make it in a timely manner, if that is all right with the
gentleman.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No, Madam Speaker, I do insist on my
motion, with apologies to my colleague.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion must be in writing.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, there is a pending motion
on the floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has
insisted that the motion be in writing. Meanwhile, the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Mica] is recognized for 2 minutes. . . .
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Point of Order
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Meek). The gentleman will state
his point of order.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The Speaker in the chair a few moments
ago asked if I would defer for a few moments while she talked to
somebody up there at the desk. I did defer. Now I want my motion to
be voted upon. The gentlewoman in the Chair, the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek], has it in writing. She asked me to wait. I did
wait. Now I would like the motion to be heard.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Burton of Indiana moves that the House do now adjourn.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. [George W.] GEKAS [of Pennsylvania]. Madam Speaker, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 792]]
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I assume that if the gentleman's
motion is considered by the Chair and put to the House, there would
be an immediate vote on it. My parliamentary inquiry then would be:
If it should be defeated, would we go on with the regular order
of business?
We should. I assume that we would go on with the regular order
of business.
My parliamentary inquiry is:
In the event that it should not fail, that it should prevail,
and this House do adjourn, is it in order to ask prior to the vote
being taken that the adjournment be held over until special orders
are completed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not entertain that
request.
Mr. [Martin] FROST [of Texas]. Regular order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. GEKAS. Could I ask the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton],
in a colloquy pursuant to my parliamentary inquiry----
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask for regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must put the question on the
motion to adjourn.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I have a point of parliamentary
inquiry as to that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania
please state his parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. GEKAS. Is it proper, is it within regular order, to ask the
sponsor of the motion to adjourn to defer adjournment, even if his
motion prevails, until after special orders? Would the gentleman
agree to that condition?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once that motion is agreed to, the
House must adjourn immediately.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I am trying to get across that we
have special orders we would like to get to.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, is it now true that, if the motion
to adjourn is forced on the body, we would have to start this
debate on this rule all over, and that we have just 5 minutes left
on the debate today, and we could do that without further
inconveniencing any of the Members if the gentleman would just
withhold for 5 minutes?
Madam Speaker, we have a lot of very, very important business
to take care of on this floor tomorrow, and I would plead with the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to withhold his motion for 5
minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the House adjourns now, the
resolution will be unfinished business tomorrow.
Mr. SOLOMON. And we would be starting all over again, Madam
Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not necessarily.
Mr. [Robert L.] LIVINGSTON [of Louisiana]. Madam Speaker, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Might I inquire of the Chair if it is possible
to vote on a motion to adjourn by voice vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes. If the ayes have it, then the
House could adjourn.
[[Page 793]]
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, once again I must ask for regular
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to
adjourn offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 5
minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until
tomorrow, Tuesday, September 28, 1993, at 10 a.m.
Sec. 3.7 The motion to adjourn is of the highest privilege under Rule
XVI clause 4,(1) and thus takes precedence over the
motion to suspend the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 911, 912 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 11, 1992,(2) the Speaker entertained
parliamentary inquiries while counting for a quorum on a negative vote
on a motion to adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 138 Cong. Rec. 23085, 23086, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. See also 117 Cong.
Rec. 38536, 38537, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 1, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty).(3) The
question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller] that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill,
H.R. 2144, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Michael R. McNulty (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken.
Mr. [Ron] MARLENEE [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The question was taken.
Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds
that a quorum is not present, and I make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, and the Chair's prior announcement,
further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered
withdrawn. -------------------
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, at this time is a motion to adjourn in order? Is
it a privileged motion?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A motion to adjourn is a privileged
motion. -------------------
FALSE CLAIMS AMENDMENTS ACT
Mr. [Barney] FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4563, with an
amendment. -------------------
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, I had a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, I did not receive a response on my
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 794]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman did receive a response.
The motion is a privileged
motion. -------------------
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is no present, and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will count for a quorum.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. [George W.] GEKAS [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, is the Chair empowered to declare a
recess?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No; he is not. The Chair is counting
for a quorum.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact
that the gentleman who is objecting was upset that bills cost
money, is it relevant that the next bill is a saving to the
taxpayer, according to OMB and CBO, since it is a False Claims
Amendment Act? Maybe the gentleman would like to let us save a few
million dollars.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain that
inquiry, which is not a parliamentary inquiry, when he is counting
for a quorum.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I knew that, Mr. Speaker, but the
gentleman was listening.
{time} 1930
Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. McNulty). The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, what would be the effect of my
withdrawing the point of order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman withdrew his point of
order, the Chair would rely on his earlier declaration that the
noes had it on the voice vote and the motion would not be agreed
to.
Mr. MARLENEE. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws his point of
order of no quorum.
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
Sec. 3.8 The motion to adjourn takes precedence over the Chair's
putting the question on the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
Where less than a quorum rejects a motion to adjourn, the House may
not consider business but may dispose of motions to secure the
attendance of absent Members.
[[Page 795]]
On Nov. 2, 1987,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 133 Cong. Rec. 30386-90, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(2) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the proceedings of the second legislative day of Thursday,
October 29, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. James C. Wright, Jr. (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on approval of that
Journal. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Thomas S.] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged motion.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion. The Clerk read
as follows:
Mr. Foley moves that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [F. James] SENSENBRENNER [Jr., of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker,
I ask for a division.
The SPEAKER. A division is requested.
A division was taken; and the Speaker announced that ayes were
12 and noes were 15.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, that is not a proper motion to make. The House can
adjourn without a quorum.
The SPEAKER. That is true, but when the vote is a negative vote
the House is not adjourned unless the vote were established to be
an affirmative vote. The Chair counted 12 ayes and 15 noes.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman can object to the negative division
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and evidently a
quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
92, nays 100, not voting 241, as follows:
[Roll No. 396] . . .
parliamentariay inquiry
Mr. FOLEY (during the voting). Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, is it the case that until a majority
appears to adjourn the House may not adjourn? Is that correct.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. FOLEY. And, Mr. Speaker, is it also true that the House may
not do any other business?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.
[[Page 796]]
The SPEAKER. The House is not in order.
Will all Members of the House please kindly desist from private
conversations?
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, is it also correct that the House may
not take up any other business pending their conclusion of this
vote by rollcall on adjournment?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. FOLEY. And the House must remain in session pending an
affirmative vote to adjourn, a quorum appearing in support, or a
quorum appearing?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is correct.
point of order
Mr. [Robert S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania] (during the voting).
Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WALKER. Under what rule are we holding discussion while a
vote is still open?
The SPEAKER. Parliamentary inquiries have been propounded to
the Chair. Under the precedents, the Chair is responding to
parliamentary inquiries relating to the pending situation.
Mr. WALKER. While the vote is being taken and that is an
appropriate procedure during the course of a vote, is that correct,
Mr. Speaker?
Mr. FOLEY. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the parliamentary
inquiry is not in order, then the gentleman's point of order is not
in order.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I call for the regular order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will respond to the gentleman's inquiry.
The precedents hold that it is in order for the Chair to
recognize Members for points of parliamentary inquiry if those
points of parliamentary inquiry apply to the business at hand.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. WALKER (during the voting). Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, should this vote fail, there is a
process by which the House could ask the Sergeant at Arms to round
up the absent Members, is that not correct?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. WALKER. And that motion would be in order immediately
following this vote?
The SPEAKER. After the Chair has announced the vote, that
motion would be in order.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the voting). Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, when would that announcement
take place?
The SPEAKER. The announcement will take place when the Chair
announces it, which the Chair is about to do.
The Chair is advised that there are Members on the way to the
Chamber.
On this vote, the yeas are 92, the nays are 100, and the motion
is not agreed to.
[[Page 797]]
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1230
motion offered by mr. sensenbrenner
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sensenbrenner moves, pursuant to rule XV, clause 2(a),
that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to arrest the absent
Members.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
65, nays 130, not voting 238, as follows:
[Roll No. 397] . .
. -------------------
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a highly privileged motion.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Foley moves that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas
95, nays 102, not voting 236, as follows:
[Roll No. 398] . . .
The SPEAKER. Are there other Members in the Chamber who desire
to vote?
announcement by the speaker
The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to announce that in the event
the Sergeant at Arms were instructed to go and to find and arrest
absent Members, the Sergeant at Arms has informed the Chair that he
already has enough volunteers to find and arrest Members from
Hawaii.
Are there other Members in the Chamber who desire to vote?
Are there Members who desire to change their votes?
Mr. de la Garza changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
The SPEAKER. Are there in the Chamber those who just have not
realized that a vote is being taken?
Are there other Members who are on the way from their offices?
Have we received urgent requests from Members to hold the vote
open?
Are there Members in the elevators?
If there are no other Members who desire to vote or to change
their votes, all time has expired.
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
privileged motion offered by mr. walker
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion that I
send to the desk.
[[Page 798]]
Mr. [Henry B.] GONZALEZ [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WALKER. I have a privileged motion, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion.
Mr. Walker moves pursuant to clause 2, rule XV that the
Speaker be authorized to compel the attendance of absent
Members.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the reading of that
motion.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the motion again slowly and in
a clear voice.
The Clerk reread the motion.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I move to table that motion.
The SPEAKER. A motion to table is not in order.
Mr. WALKER. Is that motion at the desk, Mr. Speaker?
If the motion is not at the desk, Mr. Speaker, it is not in
order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is of the opinion that since this is
neither a debatable nor an amendable motion that a motion to table
is not in order under the circumstances.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that the Chair be instructed to compel
the attendance of absent Members.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
102, nays 96, not voting 235, as follows:
[Roll No. 399] . . .
Mr. Shuster changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the motion, the Chair directs that the
Sergeant at Arms proceed with such steps as may be necessary and
efficacious to compel the attendance of absent Members.
Members who have not been heretofore recorded will give their
names to the Clerk upon arriving, and until the establishment of a
quorum no other business can be conducted.
{time} 1330
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to grant
the Speaker authority to declare a recess today to a time certain
at this point?
The SPEAKER. The Chair is advised that in the absence of a
quorum no motion which requires unanimous consent may be
entertained, and that would be such a motion.
Therefore, the Chair regrets that the motion would not be in
order.
Members will observe and stand by.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
[[Page 799]]
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the House be given notice when
sufficient Members have arrived to do business?
Mr. [Larry J.] HOPKINS [of Kentucky]. Mr. Speaker, do we get a
15-minute notice?
The SPEAKER. When a quorum arrives, we will move to dispense
with further proceedings under this motion, and at that point
additional business may be considered. That is all that can be done
under the present circumstances.
Members will stand by and enjoy one another's conviviality.
{time} 1510
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, the names of
those Members who have voluntarily appeared subsequent to rollcall
No. 399 shall be spread upon the Journal.
The list of names referred to is as follows:
Messrs. Shaw; Leath of Texas; Williams; Neal; Walgren;
Sabo; Mfume; Traxler; Dixon; St Germain; Bonior of Michigan;
Volkmer; Jeffords; Andrews; Edwards of California; Roe; Porter;
Dymally; Stenholm; Hatcher; Cheney; and Harris; Mrs. Morella;
and Messrs. Yates; Nagle; and Cardin.
The SPEAKER. Are there other Members who desire to be recorded?
If not, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior]. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. BONIOR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do
now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
116, nays 106, not voting 211, as follows:
[Roll No. 400] . . .
Messrs. FRENZEL, HEFLEY, and LOWERY of California changed their
votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was above recorded.
Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.) the House
adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, November 3, 1987, at 12 noon.
Sec. 3.9 Under Rule XVI clause 4,(1) the motion to adjourn
takes precedence over all other motions and questions, including
the filing of a privileged report pursuant to clause 4(a) of Rule
XI.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 911, 912 (2007).
2. Now Rule XIII, clause 5, see Id. at Sec. 853 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr. 29, 1985,(3) the motion to adjourn took
precedence over the filing of a privileged report on a contested
election from the
[[Page 800]]
Committee on House Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 131 Cong. Rec. 9699, 9700, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT A PRIVILEGED REPORT
Mr. [Leon E.] PANETTA [of California]. Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on House Administration, I submit a
privileged report.
Mrs. [Lynn] MARTIN [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
privileged resolution at the desk.
Mr. Speaker. I have a privileged resolution that I sent to the
desk.
Mr. [Charles E.] SCHUMER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois. No; the gentlewoman cannot with a
privileged resolution.
Mr. SCHUMER. Did the gentlewoman ask for a privileged
revolution or resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(4) The House will be in
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. James C. Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois. One may lead to the other.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order.
The Chair had recognized the gentleman from California [Mr.
Panetta], who has sent a privileged report to the desk.
Has the gentleman from California quite finished with his
request?
Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I believe that my motion
has the highest privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will be recognized in
due course, if the gentlewoman will--
Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois. But I believe my motion has
precedence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not--
Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I believe that my motion
has precedence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will be recognized.
The gentlewoman will state her privileged
motion. -------------------
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman does state a
privileged motion, and the question is on the gentlewoman's motion.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Jim] KOLBE [of Arizona]. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered. The vote was taken by
electronic device, and there were--yeas 124, nays 168, not voting
141, as follows:
[Roll No. 77] . . .
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. . . .
[[Page 801]]
-------------------REPORT ON
RESOLUTION RELATING TO ELECTION OF A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Mr. PANETTA, from the Committee on House Administration,
submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 99-58) on the resolution
(H. Res. 146) relating to election of a Representative from the
Eighth Congressional District of Indiana, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Sec. 3.10 While the motion to adjourn takes precedence over any other
motion under Rule XVI clause 4(a),(1) the Speaker may,
through the power of recognition, recognize the Majority Leader, by
unanimous consent, for one minute where no objection is raised to
announce the legislative program prior to entertaining the motion
to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 14, 1982,(2) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 128 Cong. Rec. 30549, 30550, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Fary for, with Mr. Thomas against.
Mr. John L. Burton for, with Mr. Chappie against.
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER.(3) The Chair recognizes the majority
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Denny] SMITH [of Oregon]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
preferential motion to send to the desk.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will be seated. The Speaker has the
right of recognition.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion.
Mr. [Robert S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Regular order, Mr.
Speaker.
{time} 2040
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Wright). -------------------
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. [James C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, let me
simply announce for the benefit of the Members that it is our
intention now to have no further votes tonight. We plan to take up
the things that we put off last night in order that Members might
go and attend the reception in the White House, the remaining
suspension, and was agreed with the Republican leadership and our
leadership last night, but we will not have any votes. We will roll
the votes until tomorrow, let the votes be the first thing
tomorrow. . . .
[[Page 802]]
-------------------PREFERENTIAL
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF OREGON
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential
motion.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his preferential motion.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the preferential motion offered
by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
122, nays 202, not voting 109, as follows:
[Roll No. 452] . .
. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. The Chair will make the following statement:
It is the usual and customary practice in this House that when
we come to the end of a proceeding, as we did, that the majority
leader then announces the program for the remainder of the night.
The majority leader had informed me that he was going to make that
announcement. Normally it is a unanimous-consent request, and that
is what the Chair anticipated that the majority leader would do.
It is the prerogative and the duty of the Speaker of the House
to run this body in an expeditious manner and he should be informed
when motions are going to be made, whether they are privileged or
otherwise, and when he is suddenly confronted with a privileged
motion, then it is my opinion, while the Chair appreciates that he
follows the rules of the House, it does not improve the decorum of
the House. The Speaker at all times tries to be fair, and thought
he was being fair with the Members when he was recognizing the
majority leader to inform the membership what the program was for
the remainder of the evening.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker recognized the Majority Leader
to announce the program for the remainder of the day and declined to
recognize a Member to offer a motion to adjourn pending that
announcement, although the Majority Leader had neglected to obtain
unanimous consent to address the House for one minute. The Speaker then
suggested that decorum would be maintained by unanimous-consent
permission to announce the leadership program pending a motion to
adjourn. Any Member can force an immediate vote on a privileged motion
to adjourn by objecting to a unanimous-consent request to address the
House for one minute to announce the program. The Speaker may entertain
a unanimous-consent request pending a privileged motion, but in this
instance he merely assumed that the Majority Leader had properly
obtained the
[[Page 803]]
floor. Once the floor is obtained for one minute, a motion to adjourn
cannot interrupt.
Sec. 3.11 The motion to adjourn is highly privileged and may be offered
after the House rejects a motion to lay on the table a motion to
instruct conferees and before the vote occurs on the motion to
instruct.
On May 29, 1980,(1) the House adopted a motion to insist
on its disagreement to a Senate amendment and to request a further
conference with the Senate, and then adopted a motion to instruct the
House conferees, after having rejected a motion to adjourn offered by
the manager of the conference report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 126 Cong. Rec. 12717-19, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
motion to instruct offered by mr. latta
Mr. [Delbert L.] LATTA [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Latta moves to instruct the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on House Concurrent Resolution 307, first concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 1981, to agree to the figures in
functional category 050, national security, of $153.7 billion in
outlays and $171.3 billion in budget authority.
motion to table offered by mr. giaimo
Mr. [Robert N.] GIAIMO [of Connecticut]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
lay the motion on the table.
The SPEAKER.(2) The question is on the motion to
table offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
123, nays 165, not voting 145, as follows:
[Roll No. 273] . . .
motion for adjournment
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
141, nays 145, not voting 147, as follows:
[Roll No. 274] . . .
Mr. TAUZIN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page 804]]
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to instruct offered
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
The motion was agreed to.
appointment of conferees on house concurrent resolution 307
The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. Giaimo, Wright, Ashley, Simon, Mineta, Jones of Oklahoma,
Brodhead, Wirth, Panetta, Gephardt, Nelson, Latta, Conable, Mrs.
Holt, Mr. Regula, and Mr. Rudd.
Sec. 3.12 The motion to adjourn takes precedence over a vote on final
passage where the House has reconsidered the first vote on final
passage and where the previous question has been ordered by motion
to final passage.
On Sept. 20, 1979,(1) the following events occurred in
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 125 Cong. Rec. 25512, 25513, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECONSIDERATION OF VOTE ON HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 399,
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 1980
Mr. [Harold A.] VOLKMER [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, having
voted on the prevailing side, I move to reconsider the vote whereby
House Joint Resolution 399 was not passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rostenkowski).(2) The
Chair will inquire, did the gentleman vote no on final passage?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Dan Rostenkowski (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I voted no on final passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman qualifies.
The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Volkmer moves to reconsider the vote whereby House
Joint Resolution 399 was not passed. . . .
Mr. [Gerald B. H.] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I move
that motion, that House Joint Resolution 399 be laid upon the
table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that is not in
order. It is not the right motion. The joint resolution itself
cannot be laid on the table, the previous question having been
ordered yesterday.
The question is on the motion to reconsider offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Volkmer).
As many as are in favor of the motion will say aye.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion on the
table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that he has put
the question on the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri
and the question is being taken.
The motion offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon)
to lay on the table has come too late.
The question is on the motion to reconsider offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Volkmer).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. [John J.] RHODES [of Arizona]. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote.
[[Page 805]]
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
214, noes 196, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 490] . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
motion offered by mr. grassley
Mr. [Charles E.] GRASSLEY [of Iowa]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Grassley moves to reconsider the vote whereby House
Joint Resolution 399 was read a third time and engrossed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was refused.
So the motion was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the
joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
preferential motion offered by mr. bethune
Mr. [Ed] BETHUNE [of Arkansas]. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to adjourn offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Bethune) is preferential and in order.
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Bethune).
The preferential motion was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending question is on the passage
of the joint resolution.
As many as are in favor will signify by saying ``aye''; as many
as are opposed will signify by saying ``no.''
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the joint
resolution is passed.
recorded vote
Mr. [Kenneth B.] KRAMER [of Colorado]. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A recorded vote is demanded.
Mr. [George E.] DANIELSON [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I make
a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The demand for a recorded vote is in
order.
So many as are in favor will stand and remain standing until
counted.
Forty-seven Members have arisen. A recorded vote is ordered.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Mario] BIAGGI [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Speaker, we had a voice vote on the previous
question,
[[Page 806]]
and then we had intervening business, a motion to adjourn. This is
not in order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question on the passage was never
disposed of.
Forty-seven Members have arisen, a sufficient number. A
recorded vote is ordered.
As many as are in favor of the resolution will vote ``aye''; as
many as are opposed will vote ``no.''
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
196, noes 212, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 491] . . .
So the joint resolution was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Parliamentarian's Note: In light of this precedent, the question
becomes whether the motion to adjourn is in order pending
reconsideration after an initial vote on final passage where instead
the previous question has been ordered by adoption of a special order
governing consideration of the pending measure to final passage without
intervening motion (except one motion to recommit) and not by the
ordinary motion for the previous question. It has been held that the
motion to adjourn is not in order during consideration of a bill where
by special order ``the previous question shall be considered as ordered
. . . and final passage of the bill; and then, without intervening
motion, the vote shall be taken upon the third reading thereof, and
upon the final passage of the bill, and, should a motion to reconsider
be made, upon a motion to lay the latter motion on the
table.''(3) Similarly, the motion to adjourn was held out of
order pending the question of reconsideration of the vote on third
reading, under a special rule ordering the previous question on the
bill ``to its passage whereupon, without intervening motion, votes
shall be taken on said bill until the same shall have been fully
disposed of.''(4) These examples address the denial of
intervening motions, including motions to adjourn not only ``to'' but
``through'' final disposition of the motion to reconsider. A measure is
not considered ``finally'' disposed of until the motion to reconsider
is disposed of.(5) While clause 3 of Rule XIX specifically
gives the motion to adjourn precedence over the entry of a motion to
reconsider under the general rules of the House,(6) an
interpretation of a typical contemporary supervening special order as
reversing this priority and foreclosing the motion to adjourn
[[Page 807]]
until final passage has been finally voted, rather than merely reached,
would be appropriate and not governed by the 1979 ruling, consistent
with the Hinds' Precedents cited above and the proper meaning of
``final passage'' without intervening motion. Only where a record vote
on a motion to reconsider is postponed pursuant to clause 8 of Rule
XX(7) may the motion to adjourn then be entertained (since
the business of passage of the bill would no longer be
pending).(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3212.
4. Id. at Sec. 3213.
5. See Ch. 23 Sec. 33, infra.
6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1003 (2007).
7. Id. at Sec. 1030.
8. See Sec. 6.5, infra, for discussion of clause 6(c) of Rule XX
(House Rules and Manual Sec. 1025 [2007]) on a motion to
adjourn pending the result of a yea and nay vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.13 A motion to adjourn has the highest privilege in the House,
regardless of the lack of Senate action on a collateral matter.
On Friday, July 30, 1971,(1) a Member inquired whether a
motion to adjourn would be in order, given the parliamentary situation
at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 117 Cong. Rec. 28332, 28333, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. [John] CONYERS [Jr., of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. (2) The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) will state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Senate
has put the Lockheed matter over until Monday, would a motion to
adjourn be in order?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that of course a motion to
adjourn is always in order, and the relevance of side or collateral
issues is unimportant.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the Speaker.
Sec. 3.14 Only one motion to adjourn is admissible during consideration
of a motion to suspend the rules.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule XV clause 1(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 890 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 21, 1947,(2) the following took place in the
House after a motion to suspend the rules was moved and seconded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 93 Cong. Rec. 9523, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
motion to adjourn
Mr. [Tom] PICKETT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Pickett) there were--ayes 42, noes 261.
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask for tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr.
Gamble and Mr. Pickett.
The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there
were--ayes, 51, noes 149.
[[Page 808]]
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 85, nays 299, not
voting 46, as follows:
[Roll No. 126]
Subsequently, during debate on the motion to suspend the rules, a
second motion to adjourn was made:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Id. at p. 9529.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas J.] MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. (4) That motion is not in order. Under
the precedents, a motion to adjourn is not in order until the final
vote upon the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Another Member Has the Floor
Sec. 3.15 While the motion to adjourn is of highest privilege under
clause 4 of Rule XVI,(1) it may not be made while
another Member has the floor in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 25, 1993,(2) the following proceedings occurred
on the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 139 Cong. Rec. 6372, 6373, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. Michel asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. [Robert H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I ask for
this extended moment to inquire of the distinguished majority
leader the program for the next week.
Mr. [Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MICHEL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
. . .
Mr. [Robert K.] DORNAN [of California]. . . .
What are we doing here? What is this ugliness and rudeness?
This is the worst session I have ever seen ever and where is the
Speaker, for God's sake? He disappeared a week ago.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lewis of Georgia).(3)
The Chair would advise the gentleman from California, the Speaker
is in the chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John R. Lewis (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICHEL. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say to the minority
leader that as he knows, we have had a number of conversations that
are continuing. We are trading proposals and ideas for how to
reasonably deal with special orders that would be an appropriate
way for all the Members and that Members could agree to.
We will continue to work as hard and as quickly on that as we
can and try to bring back to the membership a set of ideas that we
hope can gain support.
[[Page 809]]
-------------------REQUEST FOR MOTION
TO ADJOURN
Mr. [Gene] TAYLOR [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, there being no
further legislative business before this body, I move that we
adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Michel] has the floor.
Sec. 3.16 A motion to adjourn, while privileged, cannot be entertained
while another Member holds the floor but may be offered as soon as
the floor is yielded.
On June 6, 1968,(1) shortly after the House convened at
noon, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, attempted to call up a
motion to adjourn which he had placed at the desk. However, the
Minority Leader, Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, had just been granted the
floor by unanimous consent for one minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 114 Cong. Rec. 16225, 16226, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 112 Cong.
Rec. 27727, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 19, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Gerald R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
proceed for 1 minute for the purpose of asking the distinguished
majority leader the program for today.
The SPEAKER.(2) Without objection, it is so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the
desk.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Gerald R. Ford] has the floor at the present time and
has been recognized.
When Mr. Ford's time was up, Mr. Ottinger again offered his
privileged motion, which was rejected.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 114 Cong. Rec. 16225, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., June 6, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGED MOTION TO ADJOURN OFFERED BY MR. OTTINGER
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ottinger moves that the House do now adjourn.
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Benjamin S.] ROSENTHAL [of New York]. Mr. Speaker--
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Ottinger].
Mr. OTTINGER. I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will protect the gentleman who is making
the motion.
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
[[Page 810]]
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Ottinger] objects
to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and makes
the point of order that a quorum is not present. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will
notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 70, nays 301, not
voting 62. . . .
So the motion was rejected.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Ottinger, who offered the motion to
adjourn shortly after the House convened, had urged the Speaker to
agree to the early adjournment of the House as a tribute to the late
Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who had died in the early hours of that
morning from bullet wounds inflicted in Los Angeles, California, the
previous evening.
The Speaker pointed out to Mr. Ottinger that the Senate was
planning to conduct business prior to its adjournment and that
precedents of the House indicated that it was customary to proceed with
business on such occasions. Mr. Ottinger had nonetheless remained most
anxious to offer the motion and so was recognized.
Sec. 3.17 A motion to adjourn is not in order while another Member
holds the floor unless the Member with the floor yields for such
motion.
On Oct. 18, 1945,(1) a Member yielded to another Member,
who then moved for adjournment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 91 Cong. Rec. 9814, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 109 Cong. Rec.
10152, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 4, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John Edward] SHERIDAN [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. [Edward E.] COX [of Georgia]. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHERIDAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The SPEAKER.(2) Does the gentleman from Georgia
yield for that purpose?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for that purpose, and the
gentleman should not have taken advantage of the courtesy I
extended to him.
During Parliamentary Inquiries
Sec. 3.18 The motion to adjourn is not in order when offered during
time yielded for a parliamentary inquiry.
On June 3, 1964,(1) a Member who had the floor for
debate and who yielded for a parliamentary inquiry could not then be
deprived of the floor by a motion to adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 110 Cong. Rec. 12522, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Alphonzo] BELL [of California]. Mr. Speaker, it is my
feeling that the
[[Page 811]]
Job Corps proposal does not provide the specialized instruction to
meet this need.
Such retraining must be carried out where the facilities, the
equipment, and the trained personnel are available.
Mr. [Paul C.] JONES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Does the gentleman yield
for a parliamentary inquiry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, is a motion to adjourn now
in order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman yields for that
purpose.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. This is a parliamentary inquiry. I tried
to propound a parliamentary inquiry a minute ago, but I could not
get any response.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's motion is out of
order.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. It is out of order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unless the gentleman yields for that
purpose.
Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.
May Not Be Repeated in Absence of Intervening Business
Sec. 3.19 While the motion to adjourn has the highest privilege in the
House under clause 4 of Rule XVI,(1) it may not be
repeated in the absence of intervening business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 31, 1975,(2) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 121 Cong. Rec. 26243, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles J.] GARNEY [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER.(3) The gentleman from Ohio moves that
the House do now adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] RHODES [of Arizona]. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 184, nays 195,
answered ``present'' 1, not voting 54, as follows:
[Roll No. 474] . . .
So the motion was rejected.
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. O'Hara for, with Mr. Ruppe, against.
Mr. [Philip E.] RUPPE [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, I have a live
pair with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara). If he were
present he would have voted ``yea.'' I voted ``nay.'' I withdraw my
vote and vote ``present.''
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. John L. BURTON [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
[[Page 812]]
The SPEAKER. The motion is not in order since we just had a
vote on a similar motion and there has been no intervening business
or debate.
Mr. John L. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I thought a motion to adjourn
is always in order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will take unanimous-consent requests.
Calls of the House
Sec. 3.20 A motion to adjourn is in order following a call of the
House, and it is not necessary that the Chair announce that a
quorum has failed to respond before entertaining the motion to
adjourn.
On Oct. 14, 1969,(1) a quorum not being present, a
motion to adjourn was made following a call of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 30054, 30055, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Gillespie V.] MONTGOMERY [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER.(2) Evidently a quorum is not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of
the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to
answer to their names:
[Roll No. 223] . . .
Mr. [Donald M.] FRASER [of Minnesota]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FRASER. I would like to ask, if I may, where the matter
stands now of the call of the House which was made by the majority
leader. As I understand it, there is not yet a quorum recorded at
the desk.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. FRASER. Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the options open to the
House at this point?
The SPEAKER. The Chair is patiently waiting to see. Regular
order is the establishment of a quorum. If a quorum is not
established, then a motion to adjourn would be in order.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that if a quorum is not
established, there are only two choices open to the House--either a
motion to adjourn or a motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to
produce the missing Members?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, so long as a quorum is not produced
and in the event the House should instruct the Sergeant at Arms,
would it be possible for the House to proceed, or would the House
have to stand in abeyance with no further proceedings?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the House cannot do
business without a quorum.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 813]]
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, in order to see if I have that point
clearly in mind, if there were an instruction to bring in absent
Members and it did not succeed during the period of time, during
that period of time the House could proceed with no other business;
is that correct?
The SPEAKER. The House cannot proceed at all until a quorum is
established.
Mr. [James H.] QUILLEN [of Tennessee]. Mr. Speaker--
The SPEAKER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Tennessee
rise?
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, due to the lack of a quorum, I move
that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. [Sidney R.] YATES [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, on that I ask
for the yeas and nays.
Mr. [Hale] BOGGS [of Louisiana]. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, does it require a quorum to adjourn?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Louisiana that it does not require a quorum.
Sec. 3.21 A quorum not being present, no motion is in order but for a
call of the House or a motion to adjourn, and the motion to adjourn
takes precedence over a motion for a call of the House.
On June 12, 1963,(1) when a motion for a call of the
House and a motion to adjourn were both before the House, the Speaker
announced that the question was on the motion to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 109 Cong. Rec. 10739, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
Parliamentarian's Note: Following a point of order that a
quorum was not present and prior to the ascertainment thereof
by the Chair, a Member moved a call of the House. Another
Member immediately moved to adjourn. The Chair recognized the
latter and put the question on the higher privileged motion to
adjourn. On a division vote, the House refused to adjourn. In
response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated that the
point of order that a quorum was not present had not been
renewed after the House had refused to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank. J.] BECKER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order a quorum is not present.
Mr. [Donald C.] BRUCE [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I move a call
of the House.
Mr. [Wayne L.] HAYS [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) The question is on the
motion that the House do now adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. W. Homer Thornberry (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Bruce) there were--ayes 23, noes 34.
So the motion was rejected.
Sec. 3.22 A motion to adjourn in the absence of a quorum is
[[Page 814]]
not entertained after a call of the House has been ordered by
motion.
On June 4, 1963,(1) time allotted to two Members of the
minority under previous order of the House was interrupted by seven
quorum calls, seven division votes, a yea and nay vote, and various
motions, including a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was not
entertained because the absence of a quorum had been noted and a quorum
call had already been ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 109 Cong. Rec. 10152, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John Bell] WILLIAMS [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, since
45 or 50 Members have left the floor, I make the point of order a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. (2) Evidently a quorum now is not
present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of
the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will call the roll.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that a call of the House has
been ordered.
The Clerk will call the roll.
Sec. 3.23 A motion to adjourn is in order pending a point of order that
a quorum is not present, but is not entertained after the Clerk has
commenced to call the roll after a call of the House is ordered and
a Member has responded to his name.
On June 3, 1960,(1) the following took place in the
House with regard to the timing of a motion to adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 106 Cong. Rec 11828, 11829, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [Silvio O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I make
the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Albert).(2) Obviously a
quorum is not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I move
a call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
Mr. [Clare E.] HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Is a motion to adjourn in order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not now. The Chair will advise that a
call of the House has been ordered.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Can a member of the minority--
The regular order was demanded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The regular order is demanded. The
Clerk will call the roll.
[[Page 815]]
Sec. 3.24 The motion to adjourn takes precedence of a motion for a call
of the House.
On Apr. 24, 1956,(1) a point of order was made that a
quorum was not present and, prior to ascertainment thereof by the
Chair, a Member moved a call of the House, and another Member
immediately moved to adjourn; the Chair recognized the latter and put
the question on the higher privileged motion to adjourn. The following
took place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 102 Cong. Rec. 6891, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House
do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER.(2) If the gentleman from Georgia
retains the floor, that motion is not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] VINSON [of Georgia]. I retain it, Mr. Speaker. I am
just moving around to get a little exercise.
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Mississippi insist upon
his point of no quorum?
Mr. [William M.] COLMER [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, I insist
upon the point of no quorum.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will count. Evidently there is no quorum
present.
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I move
a call of the House.
Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The motion to adjourn is a privileged motion. The
question is on the motion.
The motion was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
A call of the House was ordered.
Sec. 3.25 A motion to adjourn is in order pending a point of order that
a quorum is not present.
On Aug. 24, 1949,(1) after a point of order was made
that a quorum was not in attendance, but before any action had been
taken on the point of order, a motion to adjourn was entertained, voted
on, and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 95 Cong. Rec. 12191, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adjournment
Mr. [Frank B.] KEEFE [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. [J. Percy] PRIEST [of Tennessee]. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER.(2) The question is on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Keefe) there were--ayes 49, noes 38.
Mr. [Vito] MARCANTONIO [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 186, nays 132, not
voting 114, as follows:
[[Page 816]]
[Roll No. 197] . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
Precedence Over Questions of Privilege
Sec. 3.26 A question of privilege is not entertained pending a vote on
a motion to adjourn.
On Apr. 15, 1970,(1) a Member moved for adjournment, and
while that motion was pending, another Member rose to a point of
privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 116 Cong. Rec. 11940, 11941, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] HAYS [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Charles M. Price (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
Mr. Justice Douglas has been on the Bench for a great many
years, and he can wait for one more night. I have not had my
dinner.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will count.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, I am willing to withhold my motion if
the gentleman wants to ask permission to insert his remarks, but
obviously all these speeches were written by the same author, and I
do not think we ought to have to sit here and listen to them.
Mr. [William L.] SCOTT [of Virginia]. Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will yield, my remarks will not take more than 10
minutes.
Mr. HAYS. I have been hearing that for a long time now.
Mr. [Louis C.] WYMAN [of New Hampshire]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to
a point of special privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is a motion pending.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, I insist on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio insists on the
point of order.
Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will
notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
Beyond Constitutional Term
Sec. 3.27 A motion that when the House adjourns that day it stand
adjourned until a date beyond the constitutional term of that
Congress is not in order under art. I clause 4 of the Constitution,
and under clause 4 of Rule XVI.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr. 18, 2002,(2) a motion that the House adjourn to
a stated
[[Page 817]]
date nine years hence was ruled out of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 148 Cong. Rec. 4969, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles B.] RANGEL [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
request for motion to adjourn
Mr. [Gerald D.] KLECZKA [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House, upon conclusion of today's business, adjourn until
noon, January 1, 2011.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(3) That motion is not in
order at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Michael K. Simpson (ID).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. KLECZKA. Well, Mr. Speaker, if it was in order, it would
give some rationale to the bill before the House.
By Chair's Initiative
Sec. 3.28 The Speaker pro tempore, the only Member present in the
Chamber: (1) convened the House; (2) led the House in the pledge of
allegiance; and (3) adjourned the House (by unanimous consent sua
sponte).
On Feb. 3, 2000,(1) the following proceedings took place
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 146 Cong. Rec. 596, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). . .
. -------------------
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) The Chair will lead the
House in the Pledge of Allegiance. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Paul Ryan (WI). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the House stands
adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday next.
There was no objection.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 2 minutes a.m.), under its
previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, February 7, 2000,
at 2 p.m.
Parliamentarian's Note: This form of unanimous consent is now
common practice on ``pro forma days'' when no special orders or one-
minute speeches are scheduled.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. This was the first instance of this kind in the 106th Congress. For
similar instances see 144 Cong. Rec. 4297, 4298, 105th Cong. 2d
Sess., Mar. 23, 1998; 144 Cong. Rec. 2847, 2848, 105th Cong. 2d
Sess., Mar. 9, 1998; 143 Cong. Rec. 19614, 105th Cong. 1st
Sess., Sept. 22, 1997; 143 Cong. Rec. 11732, 105th Cong. 1st
Sess., June 21, 1997; 143 Cong. Rec. 10344, 105th Cong. 1st
Sess., June 7, 1997; 143 Cong. Rec. 9648, 9649, 105th Cong. 1st
Sess., May 30, 1997; 143 Cong. Rec. 9646, 105th Cong. 1st
Sess., May 27, 1997; 142 Cong. Rec. 2763, 2764, 104th Cong. 2d
Sess., Feb. 16, 1996; and 141 Cong. Rec. 28740, 28774, 104th
Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 20, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 818]]
Sec. 3.29 The Speaker has adjourned the House overnight on his own
initiative by unanimous consent.
On Dec. 11, 1944,(1) the following transpired in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 90 Cong. Rec. 9209, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER.(2) Without objection, the House will
stand adjourned until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection; thereupon (at 5 o'clock and 44 minutes
p.m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 12,
1944, at 12 o'clock noon.
By Minority Member
Sec. 3.30 The Speaker pro tempore having attempted by unanimous consent
to adjourn the House at the end of special-order speeches and there
being an objection, the objecting minority member on the floor was
then recognized to move adjournment--there being no majority member
on the floor at that time.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. This was customarily the prerogative for recognition through the
98th Congress.
Parliamentarian's Note: While no longer the current
practice, in 1984 the Parliamentarian could not recall a recent
example of a minority Member moving adjournment at the end of
special-order speeches on a day, nor could he recall the Chair
adjourning the House by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 23, 1984,(2) the following events occurred on the
floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 130 Cong. Rec. 13960, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(3) Without objection, the
House stands adjourned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sander M. Levin (MI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I
object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Walker) have a motion?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have always wanted to do this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is going to recognize the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker).
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 37
minutes p.m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 24,
1984, at 10 a.m.
Withdrawal of Motion
Sec. 3.31 A motion to adjourn may be withdrawn by the mover thereof,
and unanimous consent for that action is not required.
On Oct. 14, 1969,(1) when a Member asked unanimous
consent
[[Page 819]]
to withdraw his motion to adjourn, two Members objected. The Speaker
ruled unanimous consent unnecessary and allowed the Member to withdraw
his motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 30055, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sidney R.] YATES [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER.(2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. YATES. Is there not a motion to adjourn pending upon which
I have asked for the yeas and nays?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman's inquiry is correct.
Mr. [James H.] QUILLEN [of Tennessee]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw my motion to adjourn.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. [William S.] MOORHEAD [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I
object.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that it does not require
unanimous consent to withdraw the gentleman's motion.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my motion and I yield to
the majority leader.
Sec. 3.32 Where a Member moves to adjourn and then withdraws the
motion, the Member loses the floor, and the Speaker may then
recognize another Member of the House to renew the motion.
On Oct. 14, 1969,(1) a Member withdrawing his motion to
adjourn stated his intention to yield to the Majority Leader. The
Speaker advised the Member that on withdrawing his motion to adjourn he
would lose the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 30055, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James H.] QUILLEN [of Tennessee]. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw
my motion [to adjourn] and I yield to the majority leader.
The SPEAKER.(2) The Chair will state the gentleman
from Tennessee does not have that privilege. The Chair has the
privilege of recognition when the gentleman has withdrawn his
motion. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer
not to make this motion at this time, but in view of the
parliamentary situation, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. [Sidney R.] YATES [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
In Memory
Sec. 3.33 In at least one instance, a Member has offered a motion to
adjourn ``in memory of'' a deceased Member without the House having
adopted a resolution so marking the day's adjournment.
On Oct. 28, 1997,(1) the House adjourned in memory of
Rep. Walter H. Capps, of California, who had died earlier that day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 143 Cong. Rec. 23557, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. For additional
information on adjourning out of respect for deceased Members,
see Ch. 38 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 820]]
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Vic] FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with great
regret that I move that the House do now adjourn in memory of the
late Honorable Walter H. Capps, our dear departed colleague.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 12
minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday,
October 29, 1997, at 10 a.m., in memory of the late Honorable
Walter H. Capps of California.
[Page 820]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less
Sec. 4. In Committee of the Whole
Sec. 4.1 The motion to adjourn is not in order in the Committee of the
Whole.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 333, 912 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 22, 1950,(2) the following transpired in the
Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Federal Fair
Employment Practices Act (H.R. 4453):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 2218, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. See also 95 Cong. Rec.
5616, 5617, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 4, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CHAIRMAN.(3) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Francis E. Walter (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted, etc.--
short title
Section 1. This act may be cited as the ``Federal Fair
Employment Practices Act.''
Mr. [Paul W.] SHAFER [of Michigan]. Mr. Chairman, I move that
we now adjourn.
The CHAIRMAN. That motion is not in order in Committee.
Parliamentarian's Note: In the Committee of the Whole, the proper
motion is that the Committee ``do now rise'', which motion, if adopted,
would then permit a motion to adjourn in the House.
[Page 820-824]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less
Sec. 5. Debate on Motion; Amendments
Because debate on the simple motion to adjourn or on the motion to
fix the day to which the House shall adjourn is precluded by clause
4(b) and clause 4(c) of Rule XVI,(1) a prefatory statement
leading up to the motion is not in order as debate on the motion and is
not carried in the Congressional Record.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2007).
2. See Sec. 5.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to lay on the table the motion to adjourn is not in
order since under clause 4 of Rule XVI, the motion to adjourn is not
debatable.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2007). See also Sec. 5.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 821]]
The motion to adjourn is not subject to amendment fixing the time
of adjournment.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 5.3, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 5.1 Pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XVI, the motion to adjourn is not
debatable.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 13, 2002,(2) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 148 Cong. Rec. 1291, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. [John] LEWIS [of Georgia]. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Mark] FOLEY [of Florida]. Mr. Speaker, if this is the most
important bill to be sent to the floor by discharge petition by the
minority, then why is it they call for adjournment on the day of
the bill's presentation on the floor?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson).(3) The
gentleman from Florida is recognized for a proper parliamentary
inquiry. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John Abney Culberson (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, does the bill, as presented under the
rule, comply with the dictates of the discharge petition, or are we
operating under a substitute version?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House is operating under the terms
of House Resolution 344.
A motion to adjourn has been offered, and it is not debatable.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Lewis).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
13, noes 405, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 18] . . .
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
Sec. 5.2 A motion under clause 4(c) of Rule XVI that when the House
adjourns it stand adjourned to a time certain is not debatable, and
thus is not subject to the motion to lay on the
table.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov. 17, 1981,(2) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 127 Cong. Rec. 27768-71, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(FIRST LEGISLATIVE DAY)
The House met at 12 o'clock noon and was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Wright). . . .
[[Page 822]]
-------------------PRIVATE CALENDAR
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha).(3) This is
Private Calendar day. The Clerk will call the first individual bill
on the Private Calendar. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John P. Murtha, Jr. (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. [Edward P.] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading of the Private Calendar be
dispensed with.
Mr. [Robert S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I
object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I move further reading of the Private
Calendar be dispensed
with. -------------------
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. [F. James] SENSENBRENNER [Jr., of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker,
I make a point of order against the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, clause 6 of rule XXIV, the
second paragraph says that--
On the third Tuesday of each month after the disposal of
such business on the Speaker's table as requires reference
only, the Speaker may direct the Clerk to call the bills and
resolutions on the Private Calendar.
There is a precedent that the Private Calendar may be dispensed
with, but that was only before the first bill was called on the
Private Calendar.
I would state that since the first bill has been called on the
Private Calendar, in order to comply with clause 6 of rule XXIV,
the complete Private Calendar must be called unless dispensed with
by unanimous consent. The unanimous-consent request has been
objected to.
I believe that the point of order should be sustained and the
motion should be ruled out of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that under clause
6, rule XXIV on the first Tuesday of each month, a two-thirds vote
is required to dispense with the call of Private Calendar, that
call being automatic. The Speaker's authority to direct the call is
discretionary on the third Tuesday, and so the rule is silent on
the motion to dispense with the call, and consistent with that
discretionary authority and absent any precedent to the contrary,
the point of order should be overruled.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the decision of the
Chair.
Mr. [Thomas S.] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion to appeal the
Chair's decision be laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to lay
the appeal from the Chair's decision on the table.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Sensenbrenner) there were--yeas 75, nays 37.
[[Page 823]]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Foley moves that when the House adjourns today it
adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. today.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the last sentence of clause 4,
rule XVI, that motion to adjourn is not debatable and therefore
cannot be laid on the table.
The question is on the motion.
{time} 1245
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
191, nays 172, not voting 70, as follows:
[Roll No. 306] . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. . . .
{time} 1300 -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley).
The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
188, nays 172, not voting 73, as follows:
[Roll No. 307] . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
Accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 19 minutes p.m.) the House
adjourned until 4 o'clock p.m.
Parliamentarian's Note: This was the first occasion on which the
motion under clause 4 of Rule XVI was utilized to adjourn to a later
time on the same calendar day, although its use for that purpose has
been previously discussed. The only other occasions where the House
held more than one legislative session on the same legislative day
which appear to be a matter of record occurred in the Second and Fourth
Congresses.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6724, fn. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 5.3 A motion to fix the time to adjourn is not a permissible
motion and thus does not take precedence over the simple motion to
adjourn, and a simple motion to adjourn is not subject to
[[Page 824]]
amendment fixing the time of adjournment.
On Feb. 15, 1950,(1) a Member inquired whether it would
be in order to amend a simple motion to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 96 Cong. Rec. 1808, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Does a motion to fix time to adjourn
take precedence over a motion to adjourn?
The SPEAKER. It does not.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker: Is it in order to offer to a motion to adjourn, an
amendment seeking to fix the time of adjournment?
The SPEAKER. It is not.
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to set the day and time of
reconvening is of equal privilege, at the Speaker's discretion, to the
simple motion to adjourn under clause 4(c) of Rule XVI,(3)
but is to be distinguished from a motion to ``fix the time of
adjournment'' which is not in order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2007).
4. Id. at Sec. 913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 824-828]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less
Sec. 6. Voting; Effect of Adoption
Sec. 6.1 The motion to adjourn is subject to a record vote.
On Feb. 8, 1964,(1) a Member inquired whether a motion
to adjourn would be subject to a roll call vote. The exchange between
the Member and the Speaker was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 110 Cong. Rec. 2616, 2639, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] HALLECK [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER.(2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HALLECK. When the motion to adjourn is made, could that be
subject to a rollcall vote?
The SPEAKER. If a sufficient number stand. . . .
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion.
Mr. [William M.] McCULLOCH [of Ohio]. On that, Mr. Speaker, I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 220, nays 175; not
voting 36. . . .
So the motion to adjourn was agreed to.
Sec. 6.2 Adoption of a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment
sine die or adjournment to a day certain
[[Page 825]]
does not preclude a demand for the yeas and nays on the subsequent
motion to adjourn on that day.
On the legislative day of Sept. 26, 1961,(1) a Member
called up a privileged Senate concurrent resolution for immediate
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 107 Cong. Rec. 21528, 21529, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I call up for
immediate consideration a privileged Senate resolution, Senate
Concurrent Resolution 55.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That the two Houses shall adjourn on Wednesday,
the 27th day of September 1961, and that when they adjourn on
said day they stand adjourned sine die.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
Mr. [H. Carl] ANDERSEN of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) The gentleman will state
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, in case the privilege
is not given to Members to vote by yea and nay on this particular
motion will it not be equally possible for a Member of the House to
request a yea-and-nay vote on the final adjournment of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The answer to that is in the
affirmative; the gentleman can submit the request.
The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Andersen of Minnesota) there were--yeas 192, nays 6.
Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on
the ground a quorum is not present, and make the point of order a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will count. [After
counting.] Two hundred and thirty-two Members are present, a
quorum.
Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 are applicable to both
Houses.
Mr. Speaker, I quote section 132 as follows:
Except in time of war or during a national emergency
proclaimed by the President, the two Houses shall adjourn sine
die not later than the last day (Sundays excepted) in the month
of July in each year unless otherwise provided by the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is aware that we have a
state of
[[Page 826]]
national emergency, and overrules the point of order.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 6.3 A division vote may be held on a motion to adjourn.
On June 15, 1951,(1) a Member inquired as to whether a
division vote would be in order on a question of adjournment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 97 Cong. Rec. 6620, 6621, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Arthur L.] MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER.(2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I expect to make a point
of order that a quorum is not present. Should a motion then be made
to adjourn, will it be in order to ask for a division on the
question of adjournment?
The SPEAKER. It will.
Sec. 6.4 Where the Speaker counted the Members rising to second a
demand for the yeas and nays on a motion to adjourn and then
counted the total number of Members present to determine whether
one-fifth seconded such demand, he declined to honor the request of
a Member that a new count be taken on the ground that some Members
entered the Chamber and were counted after the count of those
seconding the demand.
On Jan. 23, 1950,(1) the following transpired in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 96 Cong. Rec. 785, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. [Vito] MARCANTONIO [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER(2) [after counting]. Fifty-four Members
have arisen, not a sufficient number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Earl] WILSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
There were many Members who came in and were counted after the
standing count was taken. I ask that the vote be taken again.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is not going to make the count again
because he has just counted both the total number of Members and
the number standing to demand the yeas and nays.
The question is on the motion to adjourn.
Mr. MARCANTONIO. On that I demand tellers, Mr. Speaker.
Tellers were ordered, and the Speaker appointed as tellers Mr.
McCormack and Mr. Marcantonio.
The House divided; and the tellers, reported that there were--
ayes 167, noes 109.
So the motion was agreed to.
Sec. 6.5 When a quorum fails to vote on a roll call, the Speaker may
entertain a motion to
[[Page 827]]
adjourn, if seconded by a majority of those present, to be
ascertained by actual count of the Speaker.
On Oct. 10, 1940,(1) the following transpired after an
``automatic'' roll call vote on the issue of referring a vetoed bill to
the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 86 Cong. Rec. 13535, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker--
The SPEAKER. (2) The gentleman from Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire the result of the
roll call just taken?
The SPEAKER. On this roll call 213 Members have answered--108
yeas and 105 nays. This is 3 short of a quorum.
adjournment
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, in view of the situation that
exists, which is obvious to all of us, and of necessity, I move
that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. [John C.] SCHAFER of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second to the motion.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule the demand for a second is in
order. The question is on ordering a second.
The question was taken; and there were--ayes 144, noes 3.
So a second was ordered.
Mr. [Samuel] DICKSTEIN [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. The vote on the motion to refer the bill to the
committee being yeas 108, nays 105, what will happen to the motion
if the House adjourns?
The SPEAKER. The motion will be the continuing business before
the House when it convenes on Monday.
The question is on the motion to adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 35
minutes p.m.) the House, pursuant to its previous order, adjourned
until Monday, October 14, 1940, at 12 o'clock noon.
Parliamentarian's Note: While clause 6(c) of Rule XX(3)
provides that ``[a]t any time after Members have had the requisite
opportunity to respond by the yeas and nays, but before a result has
been announced, a motion that the House adjourn shall be in order if
seconded by a majority of those present, to be ascertained by actual
count by the Speaker. If the House adjourns on such a motion, all
proceedings under this clause shall be considered as vacated.''; this
clause should be read in light of the analysis in Sec. 3, supra, where
the availability of a motion to adjourn under the standing rules may be
foreclosed by a special order of business adopted by
[[Page 828]]
the House which orders the previous question on a (bill) to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with
or without instructions. The same rationale precluding the motion to
adjourn where supervening language of a special rule is operative
should be interpreted to foreclose a motion to adjourn pending the
announcement of the result of a yea and nay vote during the operation
of such supervening language, whether ordered by one-fifth of those
present or automatic under clause 6(a) of Rule XX.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1025 (2007). This clause was formerly
clause 4 of Rule XV.
4. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the occasion of Oct. 10, 1940, the general rules of the House
were operating on the motion to refer a vetoed bill and the House was
not operating a special order of business ordering the previous
question to final passage without intervening motion.
[Page 828-831]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less
Sec. 7. Quorum Requirements
The Constitution provides that ``a majority of each [House] shall
constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn
from day to day . . .''(1) Accordingly, a quorum is not
required to adjourn from day to day, but is required to adjourn to a
day and time certain.(2) And if the Speaker is to entertain
a motion to adjourn under clause 6 of Rule XX after the completion of a
roll call, but before the result has been announced, the motion must be
seconded by a majority of those present to be ascertained by an actual
count of the Speaker.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 1. See also House Rules and
Manual Sec. 52 (2007) and Ch. 20, generally, supra.
2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 913 (2007).
3. Id. at Sec. 1025
(2007). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.1 It is not in order to demand an ``automatic'' roll call under
clause 4, Rule XV(1) on an affirmative vote on the
motion to adjourn, since the motion to adjourn from day-to-day may
be agreed to by less than a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Now Rule XX clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1025 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instance where the yeas and nays were ordered on a motion to adjourn, which
was rejected.
On Nov. 4, 1983,(2) the following events occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 129 Cong. Rec. 30946, 30947, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. [Dan E.] LUNGREN [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
[[Page 829]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(3) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. David Bonior (MI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken, and on a division demanded by Mr.
Lungren there were --ayes 3; noes 1.
Mr. [Henry B.] GONZALEZ [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman
from Texas that he cannot do that on an affirmative vote to
adjourn, only on a negative vote.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman cannot get a recorded
vote in the House based now on the number now present.
Does the gentleman demand the yeas and nays?
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Those in favor of taking this vote by
the yeas and nays will stand.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not my intention to
inconvenience Members who on the assurances that there would be no
recorded votes have left the premises.
On the other hand, I think that the gentleman offering the
motion to adjourn has acted quite unjustly and capriciously in
depriving those of us who have arranged for special orders to be
heard, once the gentleman has had his privilege of being heard.
I would like to ask the gentleman from California if he could
withhold that motion to adjourn, if such a request is in order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Texas may pursue an inquiry.
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. LUNGREN. When the majority leadership decides they will not
even show the least courtesy to the minority here, we have to use
the rules that are available to us. There are very few rules
available to use any more because of the change in rules we had.
Mr. Speaker, I insist on my motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas insist
on his demand for the yeas and nays?
Mr. GONZALEZ. I do Mr. Speaker.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
99, nays 120, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 213, as follows:
[Roll No. 456] . . .
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above
recorded.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. While a quorum is not required on an affirmative motion to adjourn,
a negative vote on that motion by division may precipitate an
``automatic'' roll call pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XX (House
Rules and Manual Sec. 1025 [2007]). See Sec. 6.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.2 Where less than a quorum of the House rejects a motion
[[Page 830]]
to adjourn, the Speaker may not entertain unanimous-consent
requests until a quorum is established.
On Dec. 22, 1973,(1) a Member called attention to the
absence of a quorum. Another Member moved for adjournment and demanded
the yeas and nays. The motion to adjourn was rejected but by less than
a quorum. A parliamentary inquiry was raised as to whether a unanimous-
consent request could be entertained before establishment of a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 43321, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Otis G.] PIKE [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I make the point
of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. (2) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION TO ADJOURN OFFERED BY MR. O'NEILL
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'NEILL [Jr., of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion made by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill) that the House do now
adjourn.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will inform the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Pike) that a quorum is not needed for action upon a motion to
adjourn the House.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were yeas 39,
nays 160, not voting 233, as follows:
[Roll No. 725] . . .
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state it.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, realizing the fact that now a call of
the House is in order, is it permissible for me to ask unanimous
consent that I may address the House for 1 minute?
The SPEAKER. Not in the absence of a quorum.
Sec. 7.3 While a quorum is not required to adjourn, a point raised
against a negative vote on the motion to adjourn precipitates an
automatic roll call under the rule.
On June 15, 1951,(1) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 97 Cong. Rec. 6621, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
point of order
Mr. [A. L.] MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I renew my point
of order that a quorum is not present.
[[Page 831]]
Mr. [Leslie C.] ARENDS [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman from Nebraska withhold that long enough for me to find
out what the program will be for next week?
Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a
quorum here to hear the program for next week.
The SPEAKER.(2) Evidently, a quorum is not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
motion to adjourn
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Miller of Nebraska) there were--ayes 33, noes 53.
Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on
the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
Mr. [John E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker a point of
order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. RANKIN. You do not have to have a quorum to adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The vote was negative; ayes 33, noes 53. The Clerk
will call the roll.
Mr. RANKIN. There has been no roll call demanded. The vote has
already been taken.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman made the point of order that a
quorum was not present on the vote on the motion to adjourn.
Mr. RANKIN. That point of order is not in order for the simple
reason you do not have to have a quorum to adjourn.
The SPEAKER. But the House refused to adjourn on the vote.
Mr. RANKIN. I understand, but a roll call is not in order
unless it is demanded by the House.
The SPEAKER. This matter has been up many times since the
present occupant has been in the chair, and the decision always has
been just what the Chair stated it to be.
Mr. RANKIN. The Chair is in error.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has been following the rules and
precedents established for over 150 years.
Mr. RANKIN. The Chair is still wrong; that never has been the
rule.
The SPEAKER. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will
notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 75, nays 161, not
voting 198, as follows:
[Roll No. 77] . . .
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
[Page 831-836]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less
Sec. 8. Dilatory Motions; Repetition of Motion
A motion to adjourn may be ruled out of order as dilatory--that is,
made solely for the purpose of delaying the legislative
[[Page 832]]
process--pursuant to a point of order raised against the motion by
another Member or at the initiative of the Chair. (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5721, 5731; 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 2796, 2813; and House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 902,
903 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeated motions to adjourn are allowed in the House, if other
business has intervened.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. Sec. 8.1-8.3,
infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeated Motions to Adjourn
Sec. 8.1 The transaction of a unanimous-consent request to delete a
Member's name from the list of cosponsors of a bill is such
``intervening business'' as would enable repetition of the motion
to adjourn.
On Nov. 18, 1999,(1) a Member made a motion that the
House adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 145 Cong. Rec. 30644, 30645, 106th Cong. 1st Sess. For an example
of how the motion to adjourn may not be repeated in absence of
``intervening business'' see Sec. 3.19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. [Ron] KIND [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. [David R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
25, noes 395, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 603] . . .
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above
recorded. -------------------
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 2420
Mr. [Sherwood L.] BOEHLERT [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R.
2420.
The SPEAKER.(2) Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. J. Dennis Hastert (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no
objection. -------------------
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to adjourn offered
by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Sec. 8.2 After the Speaker has entertained a motion that the
[[Page 833]]
House adjourn, it is too late to make the point of order that the
motion is dilatory on the ground that the House rejected such a
motion an hour previously.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(1) the Speaker, having entertained a
motion to adjourn, did not sustain a point of order that the motion to
adjourn was dilatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER. (2) The gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Sikes] moves that the House do now adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Vito] MARCANTONIO [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, a point of
order on the motion.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, I submit the motion to adjourn is
dilatory. While I recognize that intervening business has been
transacted, such as voting on the motion to dispense with Calendar
Wednesday business, it seems to me that the House has expressed its
will on this matter about an hour ago and the House refused to
adjourn. I think it is obvious to the Speaker that the House has
refused to adjourn and the motion, therefore, is dilatory.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has already entertained the motion. The
question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida.
Sec. 8.3 After a motion to adjourn has been made and rejected, a second
motion that the House adjourn is held not dilatory and in order if
other business has intervened.
On Feb. 15, 1950,(1) a Member made a point of order
against a motion to adjourn, claiming it was dilatory:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 96 Cong. Rec. 1809, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
motion to adjourn
Mr. [Ed] GOSSETT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House
do now adjourn.
Mr. [Vito] MARCANTONIO [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The SPEAKER. (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MARCANTONIO. Just preceding the last roll call the House
refused to adjourn. I submit that this motion is dilatory. I
understand that it is entirely within the Speaker's discretion to
rule on these motions, but in view of the fact that we have just
had a motion to adjourn this one obviously is dilatory.
Mr. GOSSETT. Mr. Speaker, if the Chair will hear me on the
point of order, other business has been transacted and another roll
call has intervened.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is prepared to rule. Business has
intervened. The Chair holds the motion to be in order.
Refusal of Recognition
Sec. 8.4 Where a motion to adjourn is rejected pending a
[[Page 834]]
motion to dispense with further proceedings under a call of the
House and that motion is then adopted, recognition for the
immediate repetition of a motion to adjourn may be denied pending
the calling up of a bill on Calendar Wednesday.
On Feb. 15, 1950,(1) the Speaker exercised his
discretion not to recognize Members for motions to adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 96 Cong. Rec. 1810-12, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
call of the house
Mr. [J. Percy] PRIEST [of Tennessee]. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to
answer to their names:
[Roll No. 49] . . .
The SPEAKER.(2) On this roll call 326 Members have
answered to their names, a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there objection to dispensing with further proceedings under
the call?
Mr. [Tom] PICKETT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I move
that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack.]
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Pickett) there were--ayes, 126, noes 17.
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present.
Mr. [Clare E.] HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move that we
do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Evidently
a quorum is not present.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, a preferential motion. I
move that the House do now adjourn; and on that motion I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 126, nays 198, not
voting 108, as follows:
[Roll No. 50] . . .
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The Clerk announced the following pairs: . . .
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] to dispense with further
proceedings under the call.
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, at the time the gentleman from
Michigan moved to adjourn, the Speaker had just stated what the
question was--which was the motion of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] to dispense with further proceedings
under a preceding call of the House. I
[[Page 835]]
objected to the vote, as was revealed by a division on the
question, on the ground that a quorum was not present. Is not now
the order of business an automatic roll call on the motion of the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack]?
The SPEAKER. No; it is not. The vote now comes de novo.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack].
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Pickett) there were--ayes 138, noes 6.
Mr. [William M.] COLMER [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and I make
the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. [Anthony] CAVALCANTE [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. CAVALCANTE. Under the rules of the House, are the
cloakrooms a part of the Hall of the House?
The SPEAKER. The Chair cannot count any Members that he cannot
see.
The Chair will count. [After counting.] Evidently there is no
quorum present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will
notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 243, nays 86,
answered ``present'' 1, not voting 102, as follows:
[Roll No. 51] . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
The Clerk announced the following pairs: . . .
calendar wednesday
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will call the committees.
The Clerk called the Committee on the District of Columbia.
Mr. [Clare E.] HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The Chair does not yield to the gentleman for a
parliamentary inquiry at this time.
Mr. [Howard W.] SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk has called the Committee on the District
of Columbia. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. McMillian].
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do
now adjourn. That motion is always in order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. McMillian].
Mr. [William M.] COLMER [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan]
has been recognized.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillian]
has been recognized.
Parliamentarian's Note: Repeated motions and roll calls were sought
in this instance in an effort to delay business under the Calendar
Wednesday rule, and there was no intervening business
[[Page 836]]
at this point prior to the calling up of the bill.
[Page 836-847]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less
Sec. 9. To a Day Certain; Three-day Limit
The House, in adjourning for not more than three days, must take
into the count either the day of adjourning or the day of the meeting.
Sunday is not taken into account in making this computation unless the
House, by special order, provides for a session on a
Sunday.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 83 (2007). See also Sec. Sec. 9.7-9.10,
infra; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6673, 6674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House has declared itself in a series of recesses subject to
the constraint that the House not adjourn for more than three days
without the consent of the Senate.(2) The Committee on Rules
also has reported a rule authorizing the Speaker to declare recesses
subject to the call of the Chair, each consistent with the
constitutional requirement that neither House adjourn or recess for
more than three days without the consent of the other
House.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Ch. 39, Sec. 2.21, supra.
3. See Sec. 9.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House has adopted a resolution reported from the Committee on
Rules providing that the House meet only Tuesdays and Fridays for a
stipulated period, whereupon the Speaker advised the House that no
business on those days would be conducted, including recognition for
unanimous consent.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 9.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9.1 The House adopted a privileged rule reported by the Committee
on Rules to authorize, inter alia, the Speaker to declare the House
in recesses subject to the call of the Chair during five discrete
periods, each consistent with the constitutional constraint that
neither House (recess or) adjourn for more than three days without
consent of the other House.
On Jan. 5, 1996,(1) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 142 Cong. Rec. 357, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Deborah W.] PRYCE [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 330 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 330
Resolved, That (a) the Speaker may declare recesses subject
to the call of the Chair on the calendar days of Friday,
January 5, 1996,
[[Page 837]]
through Tuesday, January 9, 1996. A recess declared pursuant to
this subsection may not extend beyond the calendar day of
Tuesday, January 9, 1996.
(b) The Speaker may declare recesses subject to the call of
the Chair on the calendar days of Tuesday, January 9, 1996,
through Friday, January 12, 1996. A recess declared pursuant to
this subsection may not extend beyond the calendar day of
Friday, January 12, 1996.
(c) The Speaker may declare recesses subject to the call of
the Chair on the calendar days of Friday, January 12, 1996,
through Tuesday, January 16, 1996. A recess declared pursuant
to this subsection may not extend beyond the calendar day of
Tuesday, January 16, 1996.
(d) The Speaker may declare recesses subject to the call of
the Chair on the calendar days of Tuesday, January 16, 1996,
through Friday, January 19, 1996. A recess declared pursuant to
this subsection may not extend beyond the calendar day of
Friday, January 19, 1996.
(e) The Speaker may declare recesses subject to the call of
the Chair on the calendar days of Friday, January 19, 1996,
through Tuesday, January 23, 1996. A recess declared pursuant
to this subsection may not extend beyond the calendar day of
Tuesday, January 23, 1996.
Sec. 2. The requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from Committee on Rules on
the same day it is presented to the House is waived with
respect to any resolution reported from that committee before
the calendar day of Wednesday, January 24, 1996, and providing
for consideration or disposition of any of the following
measures: . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) The gentlewoman from
Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Jack Kingston (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. PRYCE. . . .
By recessing rather than adjourning, the House will effectively
be on standby, ready to return should the White House come to meet
its responsibility and submit legislation, as promised, that
achieves a balanced budget and puts the Government back into full
operation.
Parliamentarian's Note: Similarly, as in Ch. 39, Sec. 2.21, supra,
an ``overlap'' between three-day periods (one ending and another
beginning on the same calendar day) is considered not infirm under art.
I, Sec. 5 clause 4 of the Constitution. The resolution was within the
authority of the Committee on Rules to report. It did not violate any
procedural restriction in the Constitution. It did not permit the House
to be in adjournment or uninterrupted recess for more than three days
(excepting Sundays).
Sec. 9.2 The House adopted a privileged concurrent resolution providing
for adjournment of the two Houses on any of three days to a day
certain in excess of three days on motions of respective Majority
Leaders or designees, and the House by
[[Page 838]]
unanimous consent permitted an adjournment for three days
contingent upon Senate action on the concurrent resolution.
On Nov. 20, 1987,(1) the following occurred in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 133 Cong. Rec. 33029, 33030, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FROM FRIDAY, NOVEMBER
20, 1987, OR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1987, OR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER
24, 1987, TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1987, AND OF THE SENATE FROM
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1987, OR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1987, OR
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1987, TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1987
Mr. [Thomas S.] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 220) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 220
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on Friday, November
20, 1987, or Monday, November 23, 1987, or Tuesday, November
24, 1987, pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or
his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand
adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian on Monday, November 30,
1987, and that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, November 20,
1987, or Monday, November 23, 1987, or Tuesday, November 24,
1987, pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or his
designee, in accordance with the resolution, it stand adjourned
until 10 o'clock ante meridiem on Monday, November 30, 1987.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. James J. Howard (NJ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. [Steven] GUNDERSON [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
210, noes 181, not voting 42, as follows:
[Roll No. 447] . .
. -------------------
PROVIDING FOR POSSIBLE ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1987
Mr. [Tony] COELHO [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that when the House adjourns today, unless it adjourns
pursuant to the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 220, that
it stand adjourned to meet at noon on Monday next.
The SPEAKER.(3) Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. James C. Wright, Jr. (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 839]]
Mr. [Robert F.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Reserving the right
to object, is that a change in the schedule as previously
announced?
Mr. COELHO. No. This is just in case something would happen
that we are protected and can meet if necessary.
Mr. WALKER. I would like to have an explanation of this.
The SPEAKER. Let the Chair respond to the inquiry of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
This is only a stand-by in the event that the Senate failed to
complete the action on the adjournment resolution so that we would
have a pro forma session. We do not expect that to occur.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
Sec. 9.3 On consecutive privileged motions of the Majority Leader,
pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XVI(1) and at the Speaker's
discretion, the House voted that when it adjourned on that day it
adjourn to meet at 3:15 p.m. for a second legislative day on that
calendar day, and then adjourned [in order to reconvene a new
session and consider a special order reported by the Committee on
Rules on the first legislative day without a two-thirds vote on
``same-day'' consideration].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 29, 1987,(2) the House was concluding
consideration of a special order reported from the Committee on Rules,
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 133 Cong. Rec. 29918, 29919, 29932-35, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Butler] DERRICK [of South Carolina]. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(3) The question is on the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Harold L. Volkmer (MO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. [Trent] LOTT [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
203, noes 217, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 385] . . .
Mr. Watkins changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 840]]
-------------------THE VOTE ON HOUSE
RESOLUTION 296
(Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. [Robert H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I ask for
this 1-minute for the purpose to say that under somewhat otherwise
normal conditions, noting our unanimous vote on this side, we would
be elated with this victory.
Mr. Speaker, we do not look upon it that way. The majority in
this House has said here there ought not be a quick rush to
judgment, that we recognize the urgency of the overall objective,
but this procedure would do it harm. It has been my feeling for the
last week or so in view of what the President has said and in view
of some of our colleagues meeting over in the other body as they
have, that men of good will could bring their divergent thoughts
together, and reach agreement. Had this scenario unfolded this
afternoon the way it was originally described, however, I am just
afraid the tenor of that debate would have given the wrong signal.
I think from the few remarks we might have made earlier and
some of the others, this feeling was shared by Members on both
sides of the aisle and, so, yes, I for one am grateful for that
vote to defeat the rule, but we are not gloating over it.
I just want to say to the distinguished Speaker that there
might be an inclination to quickly go to the Rules Committee, come
back with a stripped-down version, but it should be known now the
Members have attempted to express their desire to give this
bipartisan negotiating team a chance. The distinguished gentleman
from Washington [Mr. Foley] serves on that negotiating team. I
think he would probably buttress what I have said from the
standpoint that there is some movement. There is a good feeling,
and frankly maybe in a shorter time span than one might feel is
possible, I think agreement can be reached.
{time} 1215
Then out of that meeting I would think would come a much better
signal, the kind that all of us would like to project.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say other
than I would hope that it would signal our intention and certainly
our ability to work together, hand and glove, in a bipartisan way
to come to a final
resolution. -------------------
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. WRIGHT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. [James C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I ask for
this time in order to speak to the question of the schedule and
program for the balance of the week.
I appreciate what my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Michel], the minority leader, has suggested. He has been
consistent, suggesting all along that we delay, and see if we can
get some signal as to what the President will accept before we try
to pass anything.
If we do that, it puts the total initiative in the hands of the
executive
[[Page 841]]
branch of Government over something that the Constitution declared
was the primary business of the House of Representatives.
I bow to the majority. That is a part of the business of this
chamber. We recognize that when a majority speaks, we owe them our
respect. The majority quite obviously did not want to vote on this
particular rule. At least 25 or 30 Members have told me personally
in the last couple of days that they just did not believe it
appropriate to be considering this deficit reduction bill at the
same time and in the same package that we were considering a
welfare reform bill. A great many of those Members professed that
they liked the welfare reform bill and that they believe we need
welfare reform, but they thought it inappropriate to consider the
two somewhat different matters together.
The distinguished gentleman from Illinois made that suggestion
to me, as a matter of fact, 2 weeks ago. Obviously a substantial
number of Members feel that way.
Therefore, the Rules committee will convene at 12:45 and we
will be seeking another rule which separates those two somewhat
distinguishable items and takes welfare reform out of it.
I do believe that we have the responsibility as the U.S. House
of Representatives to do our best to come forward with a
reasonable, fair, constructive deficit reduction package so that we
have something that represents our majority to take and put on the
table when we negotiate with the White House. Otherwise, we go
bereft of any suggestions, having said in effect that the House
cannot make up its mind and has no suggestions to offer.
Therefore, I am going to ask that the Rules Committee meet and
bring us back a rule that bows to the express wishes of a great
many Members of the House. I have had a great many Members say to
me that they cannot imagine a fairer revenue measure than the one
that we have to consider. We will give the House that opportunity
and see if a majority of the Members wish to go forward with at
least that much deficit reduction action. And we will stay in
session here until we do that.
So I do implore my colleagues, the minority party, to work with
us. You have chosen throughout this year a course that I recognize
has been a difficult one for you. I could have wished that we would
have had more bipartisan cooperation when the Budget Committee was
trying to come to a mix. For reasons of your own--and I do not
criticize you for it--you chose to stay out of these meetings, to
boycott them. And then we invited you to participate and wished you
had participated along with other Members of the Ways and Means
Committee in putting together a revenue package. And it was your
choice and decision to boycott those meetings.
Notwithstanding that, exactly half the revenues in that bill
are out of the President's request--things that he specifically
requested. So we do want to be reasonable: we want to be
bipartisan. We want to fulfill the wishes of the responsible
majority of this House. That is what we have tried to so that we do
not go home this week having said that we are incapable or
unwilling to face the reality of the need for real deficit
reduction. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEETING OF RULES COMMITTEE
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on
Rules
[[Page 842]]
has authorized me to announce that the Committee on Rules will meet
at 1:15 this afternoon to consider H.R. 3545. . .
. -------------------
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3545,
BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1987
Mr. FROST, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 100-411) on the resolution (H. Res. 298)
providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3545) to provide
for reconciliation pursuant to section 4 of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1988, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. . .
. -------------------
MOTION TO ADJOURN UNTIL 3:15 P.M. TODAY
Mr. [Thomas S.] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I move,
pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI, that when the House adjourns
today it adjourn to meet at 3:15 p.m. today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Volkmer). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Trent] LOTT [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, I object to the
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point
of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
243, nays 166, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 386] . .
. -------------------
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Foley was allowed to proceed out of
order for 1 minute.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to advise the Members
on both sides of the aisle of what we intend for the program this
afternoon. The Committee on Rules has reported and the rule to
provide for consideration of the Guaranteed Deficit Reduction
Reconciliation Act has been filed. Because the Rules of the House
require a two-thirds vote for it to be brought up on the same day,
it was our intention to ask for unanimous consent so that this
might occur. Since I have been advised, however, that will not be
granted, we now intend to move that the House adjourn today, and,
should that motion be adopted, we would reconsider the rule, the
general debate, and complete action on the Guaranteed Deficit
Reduction Reconciliation Act.
We feel frankly, that this is in the interest of Members on
both sides of the aisle since it avoids the possibility of a
prolonged session tomorrow and the inconvenience this would cause
because of commitments made earlier on the assumption the House
would not be in session this Friday.
So the purpose of this announcement is to suggest to Members on
both sides of the aisle that, assuming adoption of
[[Page 843]]
the motion, the adjournment of the House will not signal the end of
business today. We will reconvene at 3:15.
Mr. [Edward R.] MADIGAN [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Madigan].
Mr. MADIGAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the purpose of our having 2
legislative days in 1 calendar day is so that the House avoids the
necessity of having a two-thirds majority to be able to consider
this and can consider it only with a simple majority, is that the
gentleman's point?
Mr. FOLEY. Actually, there is not any requirement for a special
vote to consider it on the next legislative day. A two-thirds vote
is required to consider it on the same day. The rule could be
adopted under these circumstances with a majority vote. . .
. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Volkmer). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas
236, nays 171, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 387] . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), under its
previous order, the House adjourned until today, Thursday, October
29, 1987, at 3:15 p.m.
Parliamentarian's Note: Because the Majority Leader held the floor
beyond 3 p.m. before moving to adjourn, even though the House was to
reconvene at 3:15 p.m., the east clock (facing the chair) had to be
stopped to permit the 15-minute vote by electronic device on the motion
to adjourn to remain open for 15 minutes before 3:15 p.m., the precise
time at which the House had voted to reconvene.
Sec. 9.4 A motion that when the House adjourns, it stand adjourned to a
day and time certain under clause 4 of Rule XVI(1) is
only in order if offered on the legislative day to which the
adjournment applies and may not merely set a different time for
convening on a subsequent day beyond the next legislative day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 911, 912 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 844]]
On Sept. 23, 1976,(2) the following unanimous-consent
request was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 122 Cong. Rec. 32104, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] MURPHY [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House convenes on Tuesday,
September 28, 1976, it convene at 10 o'clock a.m.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(3) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence E.] MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move that when the House
convenes on Tuesday next, it convene at 10 o'clock a.m.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that the motion
is not in order at this time.
Parliamentarian's Note: Upon adjourning on Sept. 23, 1976, the
House met on Monday, Sept. 27, 1976, on which day the motion to set the
convening time for Sept. 28, 1976, would have been in order.
Sec. 9.5 The motion that the adjournment on that day be one to a day
and time certain requires a quorum for adoption.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 911, 912 (2007). See also 4 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 2954. See also Sec. 7, supra, for additional
information on quorum requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 19, 1975,(2) the following occurred in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 121 Cong. Rec. 19789, 19790, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'NEILL [Jr., of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
move that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10
o'clock tomorrow morning. . . .
The SPEAKER.(3) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [John M.] ASHBOOK [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I object to the
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point
of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device; and there were--yeas
384, nays 13, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 321] . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
Serial Adjournments to Days Certain
Sec. 9.6 The House agreed to a resolution providing that the House meet
only Tuesdays and Fridays for a stipulated
[[Page 845]]
period. The Speaker advised the membership that when the House met
on those days, it would meet only to adjourn.
On Aug. 25, 1949,(1) the House, by two-thirds vote,
agreed to consider on that same day a resolution reported out from the
Committee on Rules. The proceedings on the resolution were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 95 Cong. Rec. 12287, 12288, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward E.] COX [of Georgia], from the Committee on Rules,
submitted the following resolution (H. Res. 345), which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed:
Resolved, That until Wednesday, September 21, 1949, the
House shall meet only on Tuesday and Friday of each week unless
otherwise ordered.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask for immediate consideration of the
resolution.
The SPEAKER.(2) The question is, Will the House
consider the resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and (two thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the House decided to consider the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution (H. Res. 345) as follows:
Resolved, That until Wednesday, September 21, 1949, the
House shall meet only on Tuesday and Friday of each week unless
otherwise ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A Member then asked whether business would be permitted on those
Tuesdays and Fridays.
Mr. [Earl C.] MICHENER [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, it is
understood that the House will take 3-day recesses as provided in
the resolution.
What business will be permitted on the days the House meets?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state, in answer to the inquiry of
the gentleman from Michigan, that if the Senate had agreed to
cooperate with us and had passed the resolution as the House passed
it yesterday, of course, there would have been an adjournment from
tomorrow until September 21. The Senate did not see fit to
cooperate with us in that. Of course, during that time there would
have been no business whatever transacted.
The Chair thinks, under the circumstances, that when the House
meets on Tuesdays and Fridays it will meet only to adjourn. No
public business will be transacted; there will be no 1-minute
speeches or extensions of remarks.
And, as the gentleman made this inquiry, the Chair takes the
opportunity to give all Members assurance that there will be no
business of any kind transacted until the 21st of September.
Adjournments to Sunday Session
Sec. 9.7 By unanimous consent, the House established a Sunday as a
legislative day.
On Aug. 20, 1994,(1) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 140 Cong. Rec. 23367, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 846]]
ADJOURNMENT TO SUNDAY, AUGUST 21, 1994
Mr. [Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to
meet at 1 p.m. on Sunday, August 21, 1994.
The SPEAKER.(2) Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas S. Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 9.8 By unanimous consent the House ordered a legislative session
to convene on a Sunday, ordinarily a ``dies non''.
On Nov. 17, 1989,(1) the following occurred in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 135 Cong. Rec. 30029, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT TO SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1989
Mr. [Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to
meet at 1 p.m. on Sunday, November 19, 1989.
The SPEAKER.(2) Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas S. Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 9.9 By unanimous consent, the House may provide for a session of
the House on a Sunday, traditionally a ``dies non'' under the
precedents of the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6673, 6674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 18, 1987,(2) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 133 Cong. Rec. 36352, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FROM SATURDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1987, TO
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1987
Mr. [Thomas S.] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House adjourns from any session on
Saturday, December 19, 1987, that it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. on
Sunday, December 20, 1987.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(3) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kenneth J. Gray (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 9.10 By unanimous-consent request of the Majority Leader, a
session of the House on Sunday (a ``dies non'' under the precedents
of the House) was made in order (thus permitting a subsequent
motion to adjourn from Saturday until Sunday).
On Dec. 17, 1982,(1) the following occurred in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 128 Cong. Rec. 31946, 31948, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZING THE HOLDING OF A SESSION ON SUNDAY, DECEMBER 19,
1982
Mr. [James C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that it shall be in order for a session to be
held on Sunday next.
[[Page 847]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John P. Murtha, Jr. (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Manuel] LUJAN [Jr., of New Mexico]. Mr. Speaker, I
withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Parliamentarian's Note: The House has, in recent history, continued
in session beyond midnight Saturday into the calendar day of
Sunday, but this appears to be the first instance since that
recorded in 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6732 (June 29, 1902),
7168 (Feb. 1, 1903), 7169 (Apr. 10, 1904), and 7246 (Feb. 8,
1903), where the House met on separate legislative days on
Sundays for eulogies to deceased Members, although those days
were counted as legislative days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 848]]
[Page 848-857]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
B. Adjournments for More Than Three Days to Date Certain
Sec. 10. In General; House-Senate Adjournments for Differing Periods
Under art. I, Sec. 5, clause 4 of the Constitution, neither House
may adjourn (or recess) for more than three days without the consent of
the other. Thus, while the House may adjourn by motion from Thursday to
Monday, or from Friday to Tuesday, the House cannot adjourn from Monday
to Friday without the Senate's consent.(1) Sundays are not
included in the calculation unless the House has agreed to meet on
Sunday as a separate legislative day.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 82, 84 (2007).
2. See Sec. 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The form which is used for the two Houses to provide their
respective consent to the adjournment to the other is the concurrent
resolution. The concurrent resolution may set forth the times at which
the adjournment is to begin and end, but frequently the resolution will
provide optional dates so as to give each House some discretion in
determining the exact period of its own adjournment.(3) A
concurrent resolution may grant the consent of the House for
adjournments or recesses of the Senate for periods of more than three
days as determined by the Senate during such period,(4) or
may grant the consent of the Senate to an adjournment of the House for
more than three days to a day certain, or to any day before that day as
determined by the House.(5) Often a concurrent resolution
originating in one House and providing only for an adjournment of that
House is amended in the other House to provide a separate adjournment
date and/or times for that House where those arrangements are not
negotiated in advance.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See, e.g., Sec. 10.7 supra.
4. See Sec. 10.1, infra.
5. See Sec. 10.3, infra.
6. See Sec. 10.4, infra.
For a discussion of the authority of the President to
determine the period of adjournment when the two Houses are
unable to agree with respect thereto, see House Rules and
Manual Sec. 171
(2007). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.1 The House has adopted a privileged resolution providing for
adjournment sine die of the House on Monday, Dec. 20, or Tuesday,
Dec. 21, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or his
designee in accordance with
[[Page 849]]
the resolution, and providing the consent of the House to
adjournment sine die of the Senate at any time prior to Jan. 3,
1983, as determined by the Senate, and the consent of the House for
adjournments or recesses of the Senate for periods of more than
three days as determined by the Senate during such period.
On Dec. 20, 1982,(1) the majority whip offered a
concurrent resolution as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 128 Cong. Rec. 32951, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adjournment sine die of the house and senate
Mr. [Thomas S.] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 438) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 438
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the House of Representatives shall adjourn
Monday, December 20, 1982, or on Tuesday, December 21, 1982,
pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or his
designee, in accordance with this resolution, and that when it
adjourns on said day, it stand adjourned sine die; and be it
further
Resolved, That the consent of the House of Representatives
is hereby given to an adjournment sine die of the Senate at any
time prior to January 3, 1983, when the Senate shall so
determine; and that pending such sine die adjournment, the
Senate may adjourn or recess for such period or periods in
excess of 3 days as it may determine.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, just in order that the Members not
believe that this adjournment resolution indicates any imminent
action on the part of the leadership to move adjournment sine die,
it is done for the purpose of referring it to the other body.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
Alternative Dates Certain
Sec. 10.2 The House concurred in a privileged Senate concurrent
resolution providing adjournments from and to separate days certain
in excess of three days (on either of two days in the House on
motion by the Majority Leader or his designee) with joint majority
leadership recall authority.
On Mar. 16, 1989,(1) the Speaker(2) laid
before the House the following Senate concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 135 Cong. Rec. 4480, 4481, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
2. James C. Wright, Jr. (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 850]]
CONDITIONAL RECESS OR ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE FROM MARCH 17,
1989, UNTIL APRIL 4, 1989, AND CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE
HOUSE FROM MARCH 23, 1989, OR MARCH 24, 1989, UNTIL APRIL 3,
1989
The SPEAKER laid before the House a privileged Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 23) providing for a conditional
recess or adjournment of the Senate from March 17, 1989, until
April 4, 1989, and a conditional adjournment of the House from
March 23 or 24, 1989, until April 3, 1989.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 23
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the
close of business on Friday, March 17, 1989, it stand recessed
or adjourned until 2:15 post meridiem on Tuesday, April 4,
1989, or until 12 o'clock meridian on the second day after
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of
this resolution; and that when the House adjourns on Thursday,
March 23, 1989, or on Friday, March 24, 1989, pursuant to a
motion made by the Majority Leader, or his designee, in
accordance with this resolution, it stand adjourned until 12:00
o'clock meridian on Monday, April 3, 1989, or until 12 o'clock
meridian on the second day after Members are notified to
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this resolution.
Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House, acting jointly after consultation with the
Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and the House,
respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 10.3 A Senate concurrent resolution, providing for adjournment of
the Senate to a day certain and giving the Senate consent for House
adjournment for more than three days until a day certain or any
prior day determined by the House, was taken from the Speaker's
table and laid before the House as privileged by the Speaker.
On May 27, 1982,(1) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 128 Cong. Rec. 12504, 12505, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Parliamentarian advised that a
quorum was required under clause 4 of Rule XVI (House Rules and
Manual Sec. 913 [2007]) to adopt a motion setting the day and
hour of reconvening and that a simple motion to adjourn
pursuant to S. Con. Res. 102 to a day certain specified in the
motion would have required a quorum since the concurrent
resolution required ``as determined by the House'' and would
not have been tantamount to a simple motion to adjourn.
Further, any change in the hour of convening was permitted
under clause 4 of Rule XVI (House Rules and Manual Sec. 913
[2007]) but required a quorum and could not be included in a
final simple motion to adjourn. The last time the two Houses
agreed to such a concurrent resolution was in the 83d Congress.
Such a resolution offers the advantage of flexibility where one
House is ready to adjourn but the other cannot yet decide on an
adjournment or return date. See 100 Cong. Rec. 15554, 83d Cong.
2d Sess., Aug. 20, 1954 (H. Con. Res. 266).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 851]]
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE AND GIVING CONSENT FOR
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER laid before the House a privileged Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 102) providing for an
adjournment of the Senate from May 27, 1982, May 28, 1982, or May
29, 1982, until June 8, 1982, and giving the consent of the Senate
to an adjournment of the House for more than 3 days.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 102
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, May 27,
1982, Friday, May 28, 1982, or Saturday, May 29, 1982, pursuant
to a motion made by the Majority Leader in accordance with this
resolution, it stand adjourned until 12:00 noon on Tuesday,
June 8, 1982.
Sec. 2. That the consent of the Senate is hereby given to
an adjournment of more than three days to a day certain by the
House of Representatives to begin on May 27, 1982, or any day
thereafter and terminating on June 8, 1982 or any day before
that day as determined by the House of Representatives.
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . .
. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT TO WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1982
Mr. [James C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution 102, and clause 4,
rule XVI, I move that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to
meet at noon on Wednesday, June 2, 1982.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 10.4 A Senate concurrent resolution providing for the adjournment
of the two Houses of Congress to a day certain was amended in the
House to provide that the House should reconvene a week later than
the Senate.
On July 2, 1960, (1) a Senate concurrent resolution
providing for an adjournment of the two Houses to Aug. 8, 1960, was
called up by the Majority Leader as privileged in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 106 Cong. Rec. 15828, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I call
up
[[Page 852]]
Senate Concurrent Resolution 112 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That the two Houses shall adjourn on Saturday,
July 2, 1960, and that when they adjourn on said day they stand
adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Monday, August 8, 1960.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McCormack: Strike out all after
the resolving clause and insert: ``That when the two Houses
shall adjourn on Sunday, July 3, 1960, the Senate shall stand
adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Monday, August 8, 1960, and
the House of Representatives shall stand adjourned until 12
o'clock noon on Monday, August 15, 1960.''
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. . . .
The SPEAKER. (2) Without objection, the previous
question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
Mr. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]. Mr. Speaker, on that I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused. . . .
The resolution was agreed to.
Alternative Departure Dates
Sec. 10.5 The House agreed to a privileged concurrent resolution
providing for (recess or) adjournment of each House for more than
three days from alternate departure dates to separate dates
certain, subject to joint leadership recall at such place and time
as they may designate.
On Feb. 13, 2003,(1) the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 149 Cong. Rec. 3917, 108th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE TWO HOUSES
Mr. [Mark] FOLEY [of Florida]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 41) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 41
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Thursday, February 13, 2003, or Friday, February 14,
2003, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, or until
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that
when the Senate recesses or adjourns on Thursday, February 13,
2003, Friday, February 14,
[[Page 853]]
2003, Saturday, February 15, 2003, or any date from Monday,
February 17, 2003, through Friday, February 21, 2003, on a
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned
until noon on Monday, February 24, 2003, or at such other time
on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his
designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until Members
are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the
Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the
House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place
and time as they may designate whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 10.6 The House agreed to a privileged concurrent resolution
providing for the ``August recess'' adjournment of the House from
the then-current legislative day of more than three days to a date
certain, and of the Senate to recess or adjourn on any day during a
week-long period to a different date certain and providing joint
majority leadership recall authority.
On Aug. 3, 1990,(1) a Member offered a privileged
concurrent resolution as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 136 Cong. Rec. 22182, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVDING FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FROM FRIDAY, AUGUST 3,
1990, TO WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1990, AND ADJOURNMENT OR
RECESS OF THE SENATE FROM ANY DAY BETWEEN AUGUST 3 AND AUGUST
10, 1990, TO SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
Mr. [William H.] GRAY [III, of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 360) and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 360
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Friday, August 3, 1990, it stand adjourned until 12
o'clock meridian on Wednesday, September 5, 1990, or until 12
o'clock meridian on the second day after Members are notified
to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate
recesses or adjourns on any day from Friday, August 3, 1990, to
Friday, August 10, 1990, pursuant to a motion made by the
Majority Leader, or his designee, it stand in recess or stand
adjourned until 10 o'clock ante meridian on Monday, September
10, 1990, or until 12 o'clock meridian on the second day after
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
[[Page 854]]
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate,
shall notify the Members of the House and the Senate,
respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 10.7 The House concurred in privileged Senate amendments to a
House concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of the
House for more than three days to a day certain, providing that
when the Senate recesses on one of four designated days pursuant to
a motion made by the Senate Majority Leader in accordance with the
resolution, it stand in recess for more than three days to a day
certain.
On Aug. 17, 1978,(1) the Speaker pro
tempore(2) laid before the House the following communication
from the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 124 Cong. Rec. 26794, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
2. Lucien N. Nedzi (MI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FROM AUGUST 17 TO
SEPTEMBER 6, 1978, AND OF THE SENATE FROM AUGUST 25, 26, 28, OR
29 TO SEPTEMBER 6, 1978
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair lays before the House the
following communication from the Senate.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That the concurrent resolution from the House of
Representatives (H. Con Res. 696) entitled ``concurrent
resolution providing for an adjournment of the House from
August 17 to September 6, 1978,'' do pass with the following
amendments: Page 1, line 4, after ``1978'' insert: ``, and that
when the Senate recesses on Friday, August 25, Saturday, August
26, Monday, August 28 or Tuesday, August 29, 1978, pursuant to
a motion made by the Majority Leader in accordance with this
resolution, it stand in recess until 10 o'clock a.m. on
Wednesday, September 6, 1979''.
Amend the title so as to read: ``Concurrent resolution
providing for an adjournment of the House from August 17 until
September 6, 1978, and for a recess of the Senate from August
25, 26, 28, or 29 until September 6, 1978.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the Senate
amendments.
The Senate amendments were concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Contingent Adjournment Pending Senate Action
Sec. 10.8 The House, by unanimous consent, fixed the time to which it
would adjourn as
[[Page 855]]
the second day hence, unless the House sooner were to receive a
message from the Senate transmitting its adoption of (1) a
conference report providing omnibus appropriations and, (2) a
House-originated concurrent resolution of adjournment, in which
case the House would stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent
resolution.
On Feb. 13, 2003,(1) the following occurred in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 149 Cong. Rec. 3917, 3937, 108th Cong. 1st Sess.
Parliamentarian's Note: This form of unanimous-consent
request has become standard practice in the House where the
House has originated action on a concurrent resolution of
adjournment and is awaiting concurrence by the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT TO FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2003
Mr. [Mark] FOLEY [of Florida]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourns to meet at
2 p.m. on Friday, February 14, 2003, unless it sooner has received
a message or messages from the Senate transmitting both its
adoption of the conference report to accompany House Joint
Resolution 2 and its adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 41, in
which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that
concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. J. Gresham Barrett (SC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . .
. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Scott] McINNIS [of Colorado]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
House Concurrent Resolution 41 of the 108th Congress, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of South Carolina).
Accordingly, pursuant to the previous order of the House of today,
the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Friday, February 14,
2003, unless it sooner has received a message or messages from the
Senate transmitting both its adoption of the conference report to
accompany House Joint Resolution 2 and its adoption of House
Concurrent Resolution 41, in which case the House shall stand
adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, pursuant to
House Concurrent Resolution 41.
Thereupon, (at 9 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.), pursuant to
House Concurrent Resolution 41, 108th Congress, and its previous
order, the House adjourned until Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 2
p.m.
Sec. 10.9 The Senate amended a House concurrent resolution providing
for an adjournment of the House for more than three days to a day
certain by providing that when the Senate completed its disposition
of a designated bill, it stand in recess until that same date
certain.
[[Page 856]]
On June 29, 1978,(1) the following House concurrent
resolution with Senate amendments was laid before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 124 Cong. Rec. 19466, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS UNTIL MONDAY, JULY 10, 1978--
COMMUNICATION FROM THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rostenkowski)(2) laid
before the House the following communication from the Secretary of
the Senate of the United States:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Dan Rostenkowski (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the concurrent resolution from the House of
Representatives (H. Con. Res. 654) entitled ``concurrent
resolution providing for an adjournment of the House from June
29 until July 10, 1978'', do pass with the following
amendments:
Page 1, line 5, strike out ``1978.'' and insert ``1978, and
that when the Senate completes its disposition of H.R. 12426,
Calendar No. 883, it stand in recess until 11:00 o'clock a.m.
on Monday, July 10, 1978.''.
Amend the title so as to read: ``Concurrent resolution
providing for an adjournment of the House from June 29 until
July 10, 1978, and for a recess of the Senate from the time
H.R. 12426 is disposed of until July 10, 1978''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the Senate
amendments.
The Senate amendments were concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: While an amendment in the House to render
an adjournment to a day certain, contingent upon completion of specific
legislative action, would not normally be germane,(3) when
the Senate imposes this condition on itself as an amendment, the House
must dispose of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 11.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concurrent Resolution Amended to Include the House
Sec. 10.10 A Senate concurrent resolution, providing for an adjournment
of that body to a day certain, was amended by the House to provide
for its adjournment to a different time.
On Nov. 24, 1969,(1) the two Houses adjourned for a
five-day period over the Thanksgiving holiday. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 35539, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT FROM WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26 TO
MONDAY, DECEMBER 1
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I call up Senate
Concurrent Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 48
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That
[[Page 857]]
when the Senate adjourns on Wednesday, November 26, 1969, it
stand adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday, December 1, 1969.
amendment offered by mr. albert
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Albert: On page 1, line 4, strike
out the period and insert the following: ``; and that when the
House adjourns on Wednesday, November 26, 1969, it stand
adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Monday, Dec. 1, 1969.''
The amendment was agreed to.
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[Page 857-868]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
B. Adjournments for More Than Three Days to Date Certain
Sec. 11. Consideration of Concurrent Resolution; Privilege, Amendment,
Debate, Budget Act Restrictions
A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of the House
or of the Senate, or of both Houses, is called up as privileged in the
House,(1) even though it provides for an adjournment of the
two Houses to different days certain.(2) Amendments of one
House to a concurrent resolution of the other are also privileged for
consideration.(3) An adjournment resolution remains
privileged, despite its inclusion of additional matter, so long as such
additional matter would be privileged in its own right, such as a
declaration asserted as a question of the privileges of the House
relating to the ability of the House to receive veto messages during
the adjournment.(4) On the other hand, an adjournment
resolution including a provision establishing an order of business for
the following session of the Congress is not privileged.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 84 (2007).
2. See Sec. Sec. 10.2-10.4, supra, and Sec. 11.1, infra.
3. See, e.g., 128 Cong. Rec. 1472, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 10, 1982.
4. See Sec. 15.4, infra.
5. See Sec. 14.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1985, Sec. Sec. 309 and 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 were amended to prohibit the consideration of concurrent
resolutions providing adjournments during the month of July in excess
of three days until the House had passed general annual appropriation
bills within the jurisdictions of all the appropriations subcommittees
for the ensuing fiscal year; and until the House had completed action
on all reconciliation legislation for the ensuing fiscal year required
to be reported by the final adopted concurrent resolution on the budget
for that
[[Page 858]]
fiscal year.(6) The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act repealed Sec. 310(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 which had prevented consideration of sine die adjournment
resolutions until Congress had completed action on the second
concurrent resolution and reconciliation legislation required by a
second budget resolution.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 1127 (2007).
7. Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment to a date
certain is not debatable (except by unanimous consent or by reserving
objection to a unanimous-consent request to dispense with
reading)(8) and is not amendable if the previous question is
ordered thereon.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Id. at Sec. 84. See also Sec. Sec. 11.3, 11.8, 11.9, 11.11, infra.
9. See Sec. Sec. 11.2, 11.12,
infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 11.1 Consideration by unanimous consent of a concurrent resolution
providing for adjournment of both Houses in July on motions of
majority leaders or their designees from alternate days to days
certain, subject to joint majority leadership recall.
On June 23, 1989,(1) the following occurred in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 135 Cong. Rec. 13271, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING CONDITIONAL RECESS OR ADJOURNMENT OF SENATE AND
CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE OVER THE JULY 4TH HOLIDAY
Mr. [Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 50) providing for a conditional
recess or adjournment of the Senate and a conditional adjournment
of the House over the July 4th holiday, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kweisi Mfume (MD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 50
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the
close of business on Thursday, June 22, 1989, Friday, June 23,
1989, Saturday, June 24, 1989, Sunday, June 25, 1989, Monday,
June 26, 1989, Tuesday, June 27, 1989, Wednesday, June 28,
1989, Thursday, June 29, 1989, Friday, June 30, 1989, or
Saturday, July 1, 1989, pursuant to a motion made by the
Majority Leader, or his designee, in accordance with this
resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until 8:30 a.m. on
Tuesday, July 11, 1989, or until 12 o'clock noon on the second
day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to
section 2 of this resolution, whichever occurs first; and that
when the House adjourns on Thursday, June 29, 1989,
[[Page 859]]
or Friday, June 30, 1989, pursuant to a motion made by the
Majority Leader, or his designee, in accordance with this
resolution, it stand adjourned until 12:00 o'clock noon on
Monday, July 10, 1989, or until 12 o'clock noon on the second
day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to
section 2 of this resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House, acting jointly after consultation with the
Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and the House,
respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Parliamentarian's Note: Unanimous consent was required for
consideration of this resolution covering more than three days
in July since under Sec. 309 of the Budget Act the House had
not passed all general appropriation bills for the ensuing
fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 11.2 Although a Senate concurrent resolution providing for an
adjournment of more than three days to a day certain of the House
and Senate is not subject to amendment if the previous question is
ordered thereon, a motion to commit to a committee with
instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment may be
offered after the previous question is ordered.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Rule XIX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1001 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 1, 1980,(2) a Senate concurrent resolution was
laid before the House as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 126 Cong. Rec. 28576, 28577, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER laid before the House a privileged Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 126) providing for a recess of
the Senate and an adjournment of the House of Representatives until
Wednesday, November 12, 1980.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 126
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate recesses on any day beginning
with Tuesday, September 30, 1980, but no later than Thursday,
October 2, 1980, as determined by the majority leader, after
consultation with the minority leader, and as so moved by the
majority leader in accordance with this resolution, it stand in
recess until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, November 12, 1980, and that
when the House of Representatives adjourns on Thursday, October
2, 1980, it stand adjourned until 12 meridian on Wednesday,
November 12, 1980.
The SPEAKER.(3) Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the Senate concurrent resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
[[Page 860]]
motion to commit with instructions offered by mr. rhodes
Mr. [John J.] RHODES [of Arizona]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rhodes moves to commit Senate Concurrent Resolution 126
to the Committee on Rules with instructions that the Committee
report the resolution back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Strike out ``when the House of Representatives adjourns on
Thursday, October 2, 1980'' and insert in lieu thereof the
following, ``when the House of Representatives adjourns on the
day following the consideration by the House of a second
concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year 1981
pursuant to the provisions of section 305 of Public Law 93-
344''.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
161, nays 231, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 614]
Parliamentarian's Note: While normally a concurrent resolution of
adjournment would not be subject to an amendment making it contingent
upon prior legislative action, in this case no germaneness point of
order was raised against the contingency.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See also Sec. 10.9, supra, and Sec. 13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 11.3 Although a privileged concurrent resolution providing for an
adjournment of the House for more than three days to a day certain
is not subject to debate, the Chair may entertain a parliamentary
inquiry pending the adoption of the resolution.
On June 28, 1978,(1) the following privileged concurrent
resolution was considered and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 124 Cong. Rec. 19390, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT FROM THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1978 TO MONDAY, JULY 10,
1978
Mr. [James C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I send to
the desk a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 654) and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 654
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on Thursday, June 29,
1979, it stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian on Monday,
July 10, 1978.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) The gentleman will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Joseph G. Minish (NJ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 861]]
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly from what
the majority leader said previously that the terms of this
resolution are such that all Members will have to return to their
districts to work and they are not allowed on world junkets or to
indulge in any taxpayer financed foreign travel; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that that is not
a parliamentary inquiry, but that is what the majority leader
implied.
Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the Chair and seriously doubt the majority
leader's implication although I endorse it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 11.4 A House concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of
the House to a day certain, with Senate amendments thereto, is laid
before the House as privileged by the Speaker.
On May 23, 1973,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
laid before the House the following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 16804, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS OVER MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY
The SPEAKER laid before the House the concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 221) providing for an adjournment of the House from May
24, 1973, until May 29, 1973, together with the Senate amendments
thereto.
The clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:
Page 1, line 4, strike out ``1973.'' and insert: ``1973,
and that when the Senate adjourns on Wednesday, May 23, 1973,
it stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian, Tuesday, May 29,
1973.''
Amend the title so as to read: ``Concurrent resolution
providing for the adjournment of the two Houses of Congress
over the Memorial Day Holiday.''
The Senate amendments were concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 11.5 The Speaker laid before the House as privileged a House
concurrent resolution with a Senate amendment thereto, providing
for an adjournment of the two Houses to days certain.
On Feb. 8, 1973,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
laid before
[[Page 862]]
the House as privileged House Concurrent Resolution 105. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 3908, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under the procedure prior to the
92d Congress, the Majority Leader offered a privileged motion
to take the concurrent resolution from the Speaker's table,
with the Senate amendment, and to concur in the Senate
amendment. Either procedure is appropriate, since the Senate
amendments are entitled to privileged consideration in the
House either by motion or by the Speaker putting the question
on their adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT OF THE CONGRESS COMMENCING FEBRUARY 8, 1973
The SPEAKER laid before the House the concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 105), providing for an adjournment of the House from
Thursday, February 8, 1973, to Monday, February 19, 1973, together
with the Senate amendment thereto.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Page 1, line 4, strike out ``1973.'' and insert: ``1973,
and that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, February 8,
1973, it stand adjourned until 11 o'clock antemeridian,
Thursday, February 15, 1973.''
The Senate amendment was concurred in. . . .
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 11.6 A Senate concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment
of the Senate to a day certain is laid before the House by the
Speaker as privileged and may then be amended by motion to provide
for a comparable adjournment by the House.
On Aug. 18, 1972,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
laid before the House the following privileged Senate concurrent
resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 118 Cong. Rec. 29136, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSES FROM AUGUST 18 TO SEPTEMBER 5, 1972
The SPEAKER laid before the House the Senate concurrent
resolution (S. Con. Res. 94) providing for an adjournment of the
two Houses from August 18, 1972, to September 5, 1972:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate adjourns on Friday, August 18,
1972, it stand adjourned until 10 o'clock ante meridian on Tuesday,
September 5, 1972.
An amendment was then offered from the floor by the Majority
Leader:
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'NEILL [Jr., of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. O'Neill: Strike out in page 1, line
four, ``1972.'', and insert the following: ``1972, and that when
the House adjourns on Friday, August 18, 1972, it stand adjourned
until 12 noon on Tuesday, September 5, 1972.''
The amendment was agreed to.
The Senate concurrent resolution, as amended, was concurred in.
Sec. 11.7 A Senate concurrent resolution, providing for an adjournment
during the month
[[Page 863]]
of July of the two Houses to a day certain, was called up as
privileged.
On June 30, 1972,(1) the Senate concurrent resolution
below was called up in the House as privileged and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 118 Cong. Rec. 23740, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'NEILL [Jr., of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
call up Senate Concurrent Resolution 88 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution as follows:
S. Con. Res. 88
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Friday, June
30, 1972, they stand adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Monday,
July 17, 1972.
Parliamentarian's Note: Such a concurrent resolution providing for
a July adjournment would be liable to a point of order in the House
under Sec. 309 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended in
1985, if the House has not completed initial action on all general
appropriation bills.
Sec. 11.8 While a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of
the House to a day certain is, under the precedents, not debatable,
debate under the ``one-minute rule'' has sometimes been allowed to
proceed by unanimous consent.
On May 23, 1972,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
permitted a unanimous-consent request for the Majority Leader to be
recognized for one minute while there was pending a House concurrent
resolution providing for an adjournment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 118 Cong. Rec. 18545, 18546, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hale] BOGGS [of Louisiana]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 619) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, May 24,
1972, it stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian, Tuesday, May
30, 1972.
(Mr. BOGGS asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. . . .
The SPEAKER. The question is on the concurrent resolution.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
On Nov. 6, 1969,(2) a privileged concurrent resolution
for adjournment was called up. The Speaker
[[Page 864]]
recognized a Member by unanimous consent for one minute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 115 Cong. Rec. 33260, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I again offer the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 441) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 441
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on Thursday, November
6, 1969, it stand adjourned until 12:00 meridian, Wednesday,
November 12, 1969.
Mr. [Durward G.] HALL [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker--
The SPEAKER.(3) Does the gentleman from Missouri
desire to be recognized for 1 minute?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HALL. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader has consulted with
me since this joint resolution was first brought up today, but I do
not yet understand why we adjourned at 12:26 on Monday and why we
have had limited debate and bills programmed this week; and why we
are not going to work tomorrow but plan to work into the late hours
tonight in order to accomplish the completion of the aviation and
airport bill under two separate rules, and then we do not plan to
meet Monday. Now, surely no one can object to us going over on
Armistice Day, but this is November 7, and we approach the yearend.
. . .
Mr. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa] . . .
There is nothing the gentleman from Missouri or the gentleman
from Iowa can do that would be effective for it is not within our
power to schedule legislation. But we can protest and serve notice
that not only for the remainder of this year and certainly at the
beginning of next year we can insist that the legislative machinery
operate as the citizens of this country expect it to be operated.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
Sec. 11.9 Although neither a concurrent resolution providing for an
adjournment to a day certain nor an amendment thereto are
debatable, the Majority Leader was, by unanimous consent, permitted
to proceed for one minute.
On Mar. 26, 1970,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, by unanimous consent, recognized the Majority Leader for
one minute while a nondebatable proposed House amendment to a
nondebatable House concurrent resolution was pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 116 Cong. Rec. 9467, 9468, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I call up Senate
Concurrent Resolution 59 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
[[Page 865]]
S. Con. Res. 59
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate adjourn on March 26, 1970, it
stand in adjournment until 12 o'clock meridian, Tuesday, March
31, 1970.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Albert: On line 4, page 1, strike
out the period and insert: ``; and that when the House adjourns
on Thursday, March 26, 1970, it stand adjourned until 12
o'clock meridian, Tuesday, March 31, 1970.''
(Mr. Albert asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment.
Sec. 11.10 A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of the
House may be offered as privileged and then withdrawn prior to
action thereon.
On Nov. 6, 1969,(1) the following privileged resolution
was offered in the House by the Majority Leader:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 33255, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution could have been
withdrawn by Mr. Albert without asking unanimous consent since
no action had been taken on the resolution. Although a voice
vote had been taken, the result had not been finally announced,
since the Chair only announced that the ayes ``appeared to have
it.''See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5349, where an announced
division vote on a motion to adjourn was superceded by ordering
of tellers, thereby rendering the division vote inoperative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Con. Res. 441
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on Thursday, November 6,
1969, it stand adjourned until 12:00 meridian, Wednesday, November
12, 1969.
The SPEAKER. (2) The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Durward G.] HALL [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri objects to the vote on
the ground that a quorum is not present and makes the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
point of order, provided the other request is withdrawn, until
other arrangements can be made.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman can withdraw his point of order.
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw the concurrent resolution temporarily.
[[Page 866]]
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Sec. 11.11 A concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of
Congress to a day certain is not debatable.
On Aug. 28, 1967,(1) a Member attempted to debate a
concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of Congress to a day
certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 113 Cong. Rec. 24201, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I call up House
Concurrent Resolution 497 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:
H. Con. Res. 497
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the two Houses shall adjourn on Thursday, August
31, 1967, and that when they adjourn on said day they stand
adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Monday, September 11, 1967.
Mr. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the
last word.
The SPEAKER.(2) The Chair will state that this is
not a debatable resolution. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
Sec. 11.12 A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of the
Congress to a day certain is subject to amendment if the previous
question has not been ordered.
On Sept. 22, 1950,(1) the Speaker clarified for a Member
the circumstances under which an amendment to a concurrent resolution
for adjournment to a day certain would be in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 96 Cong. Rec. 15635, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [J. Percy] PRIEST [of Tennessee]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Con. Res. 287), and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Saturday,
September 23, 1950, they stand adjourned until 12 o'clock
meridian on Monday, November 27, 1950.
Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
Mr. [John W.] HESELTON [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER.(2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, is it possible to offer an amendment
to the resolution at this point?
The SPEAKER. Inasmuch as the previous question has been moved,
it is not in order; and, of course, if the previous question is
ordered, it is not in
[[Page 867]]
order to offer amendments to the resolution.
Mr. HESELTON. If the previous question is not ordered, then
would an amendment be in order?
The SPEAKER. If the previous question is not ordered, then if
the gentlemen is recognized he may offer an amendment.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee
[Mr. Priest] for the previous question.
Sec. 11.13 A concurrent resolution providing that the two Houses
adjourn to a day certain is not operative until agreed to by both,
and where the Senate amends the resolution, the amendment is
disposed of by privileged motion which requires a quorum for
adoption.
On Mar. 30, 1944,(1) the House considered a Senate
amendment to a House concurrent resolution adjourning Congress until
Apr. 12, 1944:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 90 Cong. Rec. 3318, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (2) The Chair lays before
the House, House Concurrent Resolution No. 75, with a Senate
amendment, which the Clerk will report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment: On page 2, line 3, strike out ``Thursday,
March 30'' and insert ``Saturday, April 1.''
Amend the title so as to read: ``Concurrent resolution
providing for the adjournment of Congress from Saturday, April 1,
1944, to Wednesday, April 12, 1944.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
Mr. [Clare E.] HOFFMAN [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I make a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HOFFMAN. What is the procedure?
Mr. [Robert] RAMSPECK [of Georgia]. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House concur in the Senate amendment.
Mr. HOFFMAN. Well, Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman propounding a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HOFFMAN. What is the procedure on this resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is a privileged resolution, and the
procedure would be for some Member--and the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Ramspeck] has done so--to make a motion that the House concur
in the Senate amendment.
Mr. HOFFMAN. And then a vote is taken on the motion?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. HOFFMAN. Does that require a quorum?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any action by the House requires a
quorum if
[[Page 868]]
the one who takes such step raises that question.
Mr. [John E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. RANKIN. As I understand the situation, whether there is a
quorum present or not, unless this amendment is agreed to the
resolution does not become final until this amendment is disposed
of. That is correct, is it not?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. RANKIN. And therefore we would not be in a position to
recess for the time mentioned until this amendment is disposed of
one way or the other.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The understanding of the Chair is the
same as that of the gentleman from Mississippi.
The gentleman from Georgia moves that the House concur in the
Senate amendment.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will count.
Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of no quorum for
the time being.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, further
consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 75) will
be withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker pro tempore, having laid the
Senate amendment before the House as privileged, could have withdrawn
it as a matter of right without unanimous consent since no action had
been taken thereon.
[Page 868-877]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
B. Adjournments for More Than Three Days to Date Certain
Sec. 12. August Recess
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 provides for a sine die
adjournment, or (in an odd-numbered year) for an adjournment of
slightly over a month (from that Friday in August which is at least 30
days before Labor Day to the Wednesday following Labor Day) unless the
Nation is in a state of war, declared by Congress.(1) Prior
to that revision, the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act provided for
adjournment sine die of the two Houses not later than the last day of
July each year, except during time of war or a national emergency
proclaimed by the President. Presidentially declared emergencies
negated operation of the provision.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 84 Stat. 11140 Sec. 461(b). See also House Rules and Manual
Sec. 1106 (2007).
2. See Sec. 6.2, supra, and Sec. 16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress may waive the current requirement and make other
determinations regarding its August adjournment.(3) In an
odd-numbered year a concurrent resolution
[[Page 869]]
conforming to this requirement is called up as privileged and requires
a yea and nay vote for adoption(4) and is not
debatable,(5) but the House may adjourn by simple motion on
July 31 to meet on Aug. 1, and so the statute has no binding effect
absent subsequent action.(6) In even-numbered and some odd-
numbered years, the House has agreed to concurrent resolutions waiving
the provisions of this law to provide that the two Houses shall not
adjourn for more than three days or sine die until they have adopted a
concurrent resolution to that effect.(7) To obviate the
requirement of a concurrent resolution waiving the requirement, the
House has included the language ``in consonance with section 132(a)''
in its concurrent resolution providing for an August
adjournment.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 84 (2007).
4. See Sec. Sec. 12.2, 12.5, infra.
5. See Sec. 12.2, infra. See also House Rules and Manual Sec. 1106
(2007).
6. See Sec. 12.3, infra.
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1106 (2007).
8. See Sec. 12.1, infra. See also House Rules and Manual Sec. 1106
(2007). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.1 The House adopted an ``August recess'' resolution by the yeas
and nays, ``in consonance with'' Sec. 132 of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, on July 31 of an odd-numbered year
requiring a roll call vote.
On July 31, 1997,(1) the House adopted the following
concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 143 Cong. Rec. 17018, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVDING FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FROM AUGUST 1, OR AUGUST
2, 1997, TO SEPTEMBER 3, 1997, AND ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE
SENATE FROM JULY 31, AUGUST 1, OR AUGUST 2, 1997, TO SEPTEMBER
2, 1997
Mr. [Porter J.] GOSS [of Florida]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 136) and I ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 136
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, when the House adjourns
on the legislative day of Friday, August 1, 1997 or Saturday,
August 2, 1997, pursuant to a motion made by the majority
leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until noon on
Wednesday, September 3, 1997, or until noon on the second day
after members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2
of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that
when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business
on Thursday, July 31, 1997, Friday, August 1, 1997, or
Saturday, August 2, 1997, pursuant to a motion made by the
majority leader
[[Page 870]]
or his designee in accordance with this concurrent resolution,
it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Tuesday, September
2, 1997, or until such time on that day as may be specified by
the majority leader or his designee in the motion to recess or
adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the majority leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the minority
leader of the House and the minority leader of the Senate,
shall notify the Members of the House and Senate, respectively,
to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest
shall warrant it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood).(2) Pursuant to
section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as
amended, the yeas and nays are ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
403, nays 16, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 351] . . .
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: Sec. 132 of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946 provides that ``unless otherwise provided by the Congress,
the two houses shall (1) adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of
each year; or (2) in the case of an odd-numbered year, provide, not
later than July 31 of such year, by concurrent resolution adopted in
each house by rollcall vote, for [an August recess].'' Consideration of
the adjournment resolution on July 31 meant that (1) the resolution
could be treated as privileged; (2) the question of adopting the
resolution required a roll call vote; and (3) a concurrent resolution
permitting the two Houses to remain in session beyond July 31 in an
odd-numbered year was not necessary.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. For forms of resolutions permitting the two Houses to remain in
session beyond July 31 in an odd-numbered year, see, e.g.,
Sec. 12.2, infra, and 141 Cong. Rec. 21223, 104th Cong. 1st
Sess., July 31, 1995. Notwithstanding the ostensible
requirements of Sec. 132, the House could adjourn by simple
motion on July 31 to meet on Aug. 1 of an odd-numbered year.
See Sec. 12.3, infra.
For discussion of the sine die requirement in even-numbered
years, see Sec. 16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.2 Pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as
amended, a concurrent resolution providing in an odd-numbered year
for an adjournment for the month of August or until sooner recalled
by the joint leadership is called up as privileged, is
[[Page 871]]
not debatable, and requires a yea and nay vote for adoption if
considered prior to Aug. 1.
On July 31, 1991,(1) the following privileged concurrent
resolution was laid before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 137 Cong. Rec. 20675, 20676, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FROM FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, SATURDAY,
AUGUST 3, SUNDAY, AUGUST 4, OR MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 1991, TO
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
Mr. [Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I send to
the desk a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 191) and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 191
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on Friday, August 2,
Saturday, August 3, Sunday, August 4, or Monday, August 5,
1991, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or his
designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand
adjourned until noon on Wednesday, September 11, 1991, or until
noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever
occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House, after consultation with
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of
the House to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public
interest shall warrant it.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER.(2) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas S. Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, is the resolution before the House
debatable?
The SPEAKER. No. The Chair will tell the gentleman, it is not
debatable. The vote must be taken by the yeas and nays.
Mr. WALKER. The vote must be taken by the yeas and nays, but
the resolution is not subject to an hour's debate?
The SPEAKER. The resolution is not subject to an hour's debate,
the gentleman is correct.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair.
The SPEAKER. Under the statute, this vote must be taken by the
yeas and nays.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
406, nays 16, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 246] . . .
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery).(3) Without
objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (MS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I object.
[[Page 872]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Ms. [Louise M.] SLAUGHTER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the concurrent resolution was agreed
to.
Mr. [Peter H.] KOSTMAYER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kostmayer], to lay on the
table the motion offered by the gentleman [sic] from New York [Mr.
[sic] Slaughter].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand tellers.
Mr. [Harold L.] VOLKMER [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The demand for the yeas and nays takes
precedence.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
391, nays 22, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 247]
Sec. 12.3 Each House may, under the Constitution, by simple motion on
July 31 adjourn ``from day to day'' to meet on Aug. 1, unless
provided otherwise by concurrent resolution in accordance with a
law requiring an ``August recess''.
On July 31, 1991,(1) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 137 Cong. Rec. 20677, 20678, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (MS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Dan] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
342, nays 70, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 248] . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.) under the
Constitution, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, August
1, 1991, at 10 a.m.
Sec. 12.4 By unanimous consent, the House considered, and by voice vote
agreed to, a concurrent resolution providing, notwithstanding the
requirements of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970(1)
[[Page 873]]
that the two Houses adopt, not later than July 31 of an odd-
numbered year by roll call vote, a concurrent resolution adjourning
for August, that the House and the Senate shall not adjourn for
more than three days or sine die until they have adopted a
subsequent concurrent resolution to that effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2 USC Sec. 198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 29, 1987,(2) the Majority Leader called up by
unanimous consent House Concurrent Resolution 170, waiving the
requirement of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 for ``August
recess'' by roll call by July 31:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 133 Cong. Rec. 21459, 21460, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATIVE TO ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE CERTAIN DURING THE REMAINDER
OF THE 100TH CONGRESS
Mr. [Thomas S.] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 170), and I ask unanimous
consent for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Traxler).(3) The Clerk
will report the concurrent resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Bob Traxler (MI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 170
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That notwithstanding the provisions of section
132(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C.
198), as amended by section 461 of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-510; 84 Stat. 1193),
the House of Representatives and the Senate shall not adjourn
for a period in excess of three days, or adjourn sine die,
until both Houses to Congress have adopted a concurrent
resolution providing either for an adjournment (in excess of
three days) to a day certain or for adjournment sine die.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Washington?
Mr. [Robert H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but might I
just use this opportunity to ask the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Foley], the distinguished majority leader, how the program unfolds
for the balance of this day and tomorrow?
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is hoped that we will adopt this
resolution which dispenses with the statutory July 31 sine die
adjournment of the act, an anachronism unfortunately of other years
and times but still a part of the law.
After we dispose of this matter, we have no legislative program
for tonight. Tomorrow we will continue to consider Price-Anderson,
and we would hope to conclude at a fairly early hour tomorrow. . .
.
Mr. [Robert S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, if we would fail to pass the
resolution before the House, would
[[Page 874]]
the Congress actually have to adjourn as of the end of this month?
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
That is an interesting question. The gentleman always asks
interesting questions.
I do not have a very interesting answer.
Mr. WALKER. I would say to the gentleman that I have many
constituents who think the country would be better off if in fact
we lived within the law.
Mr. FOLEY. I know there is another theory that a former
distinguished Member of the other body, Senator Anderson, held; and
that was that the worst mistake that was ever made by the Congress
in this century was to air-condition the Capitol in 1938.
Since we are now air-conditioned, and since this is
unfortunately a legal anachronism, we would hope that the Members
would treat it as such and not attempt to take a premature
departure from the legislative business.
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, why do we
not just repeal the anachronism? It seems to me it would make far
more sense rather than go through this exercise, if in fact it
would cause major problems for the House to carry out what is in
the law.
Mr. FOLEY. I think that is an excellent suggestion, and it was
the subject of discussion between the distinguished Republican
leader and myself just before this matter was brought forward.
I think we are in essential agreement that it should be
repealed; and except for the proper procedures, I would not want to
try to do it tonight.
The gentleman's suggestion is very well taken. It is a total
anachronism and should be repealed.
Not to engage in further anecdotes, but there was a former
Member of this body, I am told, who always adjourned himself
personally on the 31st of July in accordance with the statute not
regarding the action of the House or the other body.
The Member used to go to the well and say that it was his
purpose to obey the law as well as to make it; and since the
statute was in existence, he hereby adjourned himself sine die.
The distinguished gentleman died in office.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
That gentleman was from my home State of Illinois, and used to
sit invariably right where the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Gekas] is sitting now.
The gentleman's name is Noah Mason, a former schoolteacher,
very precise; and I can just about mimic him perfectly as he used
to get up, as you indicated, on the floor and say, ``Mr. Speaker,
it is July 31, and I just want to inform the membership that this
Member is going to abide by the law and return to his home district
for the benefit of his constituents'' and so forth like that.
{time} 1740
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
[[Page 875]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: While Rep. Foley did not directly respond
to Rep. Walker's question whether Congress would be forced to adjourn
at the end of July absent adoption of this concurrent resolution, it
has been the consistent opinion of House and Senate Parliamentarians
that the constitutional requirement that neither House can adjourn for
more than three days without the consent of the other (by concurrent
resolution) would mandate that the House and Senate would not be forced
to adjourn sine die under this law. Indeed, each House could by simple
motion adjourn overnight to meet on Aug. 1 or could by unanimous
consent or motion adjourn for not more than three days. Neither House
has treated Sec. 132 as the equivalent of a sine die adjournment
resolution adopted by both Houses, since no message is transmitted
between the two Houses establishing that date as the sine die
adjournment day and essentially because the enactment of such a rule
separately in each House does not constitute contemporaneous
``consent'' within the meaning of art. I, Sec. 5 of the Constitution.
Absent specific incorporation by both Houses of such statutory
provisions enacted in a prior Congress, constituting contemporaneous
consent in the current Congress, the Parliamentarians agreed that no
point of order would lie against a motion on July 31(4) to
adjourn overnight absent adoption of a Sec. 132 concurrent resolution,
and that language is directory and not mandatory in nature. Since it is
not mandatory, no privilege need be attached to the Sec. 132 concurrent
resolution described herein permitting the two Houses to remain in
session. In the 101st Congress, the House did pass a joint resolution
reported from the Committee on Rules repealing this statutory
requirement, but the Senate did not act on the measure.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 12.3, supra.
5. See 136 Cong. Rec. 20178, 20179, 101st Cong. 2d Sess., July 27,
1990 (H.J. Res. 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.5 A Senate concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment
of the two Houses from the first Friday in August until the second
day after Labor Day in an odd-
[[Page 876]]
numbered year (see 2 USC Sec. 198), or until notified to reassemble
pursuant to a joint agreement of the majority or minority
leadership of the two Houses, requires a yea and nay vote for
adoption.
On July 30, 1973,(1) the House adopted the following
concurrent resolution, called up as privileged from the Speaker's table
by the Majority Leader:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 26657, 26658, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'NEILL [Jr., of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
call up the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 42)
providing for a conditional adjournment of the two Houses from
August 3 until September 5, 1973, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution as follows:
S. Con. Res. 42
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Friday, August
3, 1973, they shall stand adjourned until 12:00 noon on
Wednesday, September 5, 1973, or until 12:00 noon on the second
day after their respective Members are notified to reassemble
in accordance with section 2 of this resolution, whichever
event first occurs.
Sec. 2. The President pro tempore of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall notify the
Members of the Senate and the House, respectively, to
reassemble whenever in their opinion legislative expediency
shall warrant it or whenever the majority leader of the Senate
and the majority leader of the House, acting jointly, or the
minority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the
House, acting jointly, file a written request with the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House that the
Congress reassemble for the consideration of legislation.
The SPEAKER.(2) The question is on concurring in the
Senate concurrent resolution. Under the rules of the House, this
vote must be taken by the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
370, nays, 22, not voting 41, as follows:
[Roll No. 401] . . .
So the concurrent resolution was concurred in.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: Beginning in 1976, this joint minority
leadership recall provision was eliminated from concurrent resolutions
providing joint House-Senate recall authority in subsequent Congresses,
where the minority role was consultative only.
Sec. 12.6 The vote on a House concurrent resolution providing for an
adjournment of the two Houses for the August recess in an odd-
numbered year must be taken by the yeas and nays.
[[Page 877]]
On July 30, 1971,(1) the House adopted the concurrent
resolution called up as privileged by the Majority Leader, the Speaker
indicating that a roll call vote was required under the applicable
statute, 2 USC Sec. 198:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 117 Cong. Rec. 28332, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hale] BOGGS [of Louisiana]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 384) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:
H. Con. Res. 384
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Friday, August 6,
1971, they stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian on Wednesday,
September 8, 1971.
The SPEAKER.(2) Under the rules and under the law,
this vote must be taken by the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 334, nays 41, not
voting 58, as follows:
[Roll No. 224] . . .
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to. . . .
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[Page 877-895]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
B. Adjournments for More Than Three Days to Date Certain
Sec. 13. Conditional Adjournments; Recall
On occasion, a concurrent resolution (or a Senate amendment to a
concurrent resolution) providing for adjournment to a date certain
included a condition that a designated legislative action first be
completed before a motion to adjourn pursuant to the resolution could
be offered.(1) Inclusion of such a condition does not
destroy the privilege of the resolution (or of the Senate amendment).
Such a condition, when included in the original text of the resolution
(or Senate amendment), is to be distinguished from an amendment offered
from the floor to a concurrent resolution which does not have such a
contingency, where the amendment proposes to render the adjournment
authority provided in the resolution contingent upon completion of a
legislative action. In such a case, the proposed amendment would be
subject to a point of order as not being germane to the pending
concurrent resolution.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 10.9, supra.
2. See Sec. 11.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two Houses have adjourned to a date certain, with a provision
that they may be reassembled earlier by the joint leadership (the
Speaker and Majority Leader of
[[Page 878]]
the Senate, acting jointly, upon consultation with the two Minority
Leaders), subject to a stated standard for the decision to reassemble
early. The standards used for such a decision to reassemble early have
included ``if legislative expedience so requires'' and ``wherever the
public interest shall warrant it.''(3) The two Houses have
adjourned to a date certain with a provision that the House be subject
to recall by the Speaker. A concurrent resolution may provide that the
Senate shall adjourn to a date certain after it has disposed of a
certain bill.(4) Such recall authority may allow the
respective designees of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker to
reassemble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See, e.g., Sec. 13.1, infra.
4. See Sec. 10.9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 78th and 79th Congresses, the two Houses adopted concurrent
resolutions adjourning to dates certain for ``summer recesses'' with
leadership recall provisions permitting either the Speaker and
President of the Senate acting jointly for legislative expediency, or
the Majority Leaders of the two Houses, acting jointly, or the Minority
Leaders of the two Houses, acting jointly, to request the consideration
of legislation.(5) In the 79th Congress, the form was varied
to provide for alternative dates of Senate adjournment during the
months of August and September until the same date certain as the
House.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 13.4, infra.
6. See Sec. 13.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 80th Congress, the form of the concurrent resolution was
varied to eliminate the ability of the Minority Leaders of the two
Houses, acting jointly, to reconvene the two Houses during a lengthy
adjournment to a date certain (from the end of July to the day prior to
the expiration of that session in January) authorizing only the
presiding officers and the Majority Leaders, all acting jointly, to
recall the two Houses where the public interest shall
warrant.(7) In 1974, the two Houses, on one occasion again
provided for minority leadership joint recall during an adjournment to
a date certain.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 13.2, infra.
8. See Sec. 13.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On an occasion in 1947, the House was required to amend the Senate
concurrent resolution since it had assumed an adjournment on the
calendar day of July 26, 1947, and the two Houses had remained in
session beyond midnight.(9) The modern form of concurrent
resolutions provides for adjournments on the ``legislative
[[Page 879]]
day of '' a specified date, in order to account for this possibility
and avoid the necessity for an amendment.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 13.2, infra.
10. See Sec. 13.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1947 precedent was the first use of leadership recall language
wherein the two Houses had shifted political majorities to the party
opposite that of the President, and the ability of the President's
minority party leadership to accomplish a joint recall contained in
resolutions of the previous two Congresses was eliminated. Thus,
President Truman, desiring to recall the two Houses on Nov. 17, 1947,
did so by Presidential Proclamation issued Oct. 23, 1947, pursuant to
Article I of the Constitution. The session was considered a
continuation of the first session of the 80th Congress, rather than an
extra special session, because the two Houses had adjourned to a date
certain of Jan. 2, 1948, rather than sine die. This is in contrast with
the reconvening of the Congress by proclamation of President Franklin
D. Roosevelt on Sept. 13, 1939, in ``extra session'', where the Houses
had previously adjourned sine die until the next regular session in
Jan. 1940.
From the 81st Congress until the 91st Congress, leadership recall
provisions were not included in concurrent resolutions of adjournment,
either to a date certain or sine die. Then on July 20,
1970,(11) the House and Senate for the first time adopted an
``August recess'' concurrent resolution authorizing the Speaker to
recall the House if legislative expedience so warranted. That single
House recall authority was not again contained in a concurrent
resolution of adjournment until 1998, when the two Houses adjourned
sine die on Oct. 20, 1998,(12) but also provided for
alternative joint leadership recall authority of the two Houses by the
two majority leaderships or for a House-only recall by the Speaker in
the event the public interest warranted it. That recall authority, of a
``lame duck'' session of the House, was exercised by Speaker Newt
Gingrich, of Georgia, to reassemble the House on Dec. 17,
1998,(13) to consider four Articles of Impeachment of
President William J. Clinton that had been reported by the Committee on
the Judiciary.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 13.1, infra.
12. See Sec. 15.3, infra.
13. See Sec. 15.2, infra.
14. See Sec. 15, infra, for discussion of recall provisions included in
sine die adjournment concurrent resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint leadership recall authority was not exercised pursuant to
authority provided in a concurrent
[[Page 880]]
resolution of adjournment until the 109th Congress, when such authority
was used twice during the first session. The first instance was on Mar.
20, 2005, when the House was recalled during an adjournment to a date
certain (the Senate having remained in session).(15) The
second instance was on Sept. 2, 2005, during the annual ``August
recess'', when the two Houses were reconvened (on consecutive days), to
consider emergency appropriations legislation for disaster relief
arising from Hurricane Katrina on Aug. 29, 2005.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 13.11, infra.
16. See Sec. 13.12, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.1 A concurrent resolution, providing for an adjournment of the
House to a date certain or to such earlier date as the House is
reassembled by the Speaker, is called up as privileged.
On July 20, 1970,(1) the following privileged concurrent
resolution was called up by the Majority Leader:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 116 Cong. Rec. 24978, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT FROM FRIDAY, AUGUST 14, TO WEDNESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 9
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 689) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 689
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on Friday, August 14,
1970, it shall stand adjourned until 12 o'clock on Wednesday,
September 9, 1970, or until 12 o'clock meridian on the third
day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to
provisions of section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. At any time during this adjournment of the House,
whenever the Speaker of the House determines that legislative
expediency so warrants, he shall notify the Members of the
House to reassemble.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: The House subsequently, on Aug. 10,
1970,(2) agreed to a Senate amendment to that concurrent
resolution providing for a shorter adjournment of the Senate to a date
certain and leaving unamended the House-only recall authority. This is
the first instance of Speaker House-only recall authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at p. 28037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.2 The House amended a Senate concurrent resolution to provide
that the two
[[Page 881]]
Houses adjourn from the calendar day of Sunday, July 27, 1947,
until Jan. 2, 1948, and providing authority for the joint majority
leadership to reassemble the two Houses if legislative expediency
shall so warrant it.
On July 26, 1947,(1) the following Senate concurrent
resolution was laid before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 93 Cong. Rec. 10521, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 94 Cong. Rec.
10247, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 7, 1948 (H. Con. Res. 222),
and 94 Cong. Rec. 9348, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 19, 1948 (H.
Con. Res. 218).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adjournment resolution
The SPEAKER.(2) The Chair lays before the House a
Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 33), which the Clerk
will report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Saturday, July
26, 1947, they shall stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian
on Friday, January 2, 1948, or until 12 o'clock meridian on the
third day after the respective Members are notified to
reassemble in accordance with section 2 of this resolution,
whichever event first occurs.
Sec. 2. The President pro tempore of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of
the Senate, and the majority leader of the House of
Representatives, all acting jointly, shall notify the Members
of the Senate and the House respectively, to reassemble
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant
it.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . .
adjournment resolution
Mr. [Charles A.] HALLECK [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings by which the House
concurred in Senate Concurrent Resolution 33.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to Senate
Concurrent Resolution 33 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Halleck: On page 1 of the
amendment strike out ``Saturday, July 26, 1947'' and insert
``Sunday, July 27, 1947.''
The amendment was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: The need for this amendment changing the
calendar day is obviated in modern practice by using ``legislative
days,'' rather than calendar days, in the original resolution, thereby
allowing the House to recess or otherwise remain in session beyond
midnight while still remaining in the same legislative day.
[[Page 882]]
Sec. 13.3 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution providing that
the House adjourn from July 21, 1945, to Oct. 8, 1945, giving
consent to the Senate to adjourn during the month of August or
September until that same date, and making provision for the
reassembling of the two Houses upon joint recall from majority or
minority leaders if legislative expediency shall so warrant it.
On July 18, 1945,(1) the Majority Leader offered the
following concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 91 Cong. Rec. 7733, 7734, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 90 Cong.
Rec. 8108, 8109, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 21, 1944 (S. Con.
Res. 54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adjourment of the house until october 8, 1945
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a privileged resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on Saturday, July 21,
1945, it stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian on Monday,
October 8, 1945, or until 12 o'clock meridian on the third day
after Members are notified to reassemble in accordance with
section 3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first.
Sec. 2. That the consent of the House of Representatives is
hereby given to an adjournment of the Senate at any time during
the month of August or September, 1945, until 12 o'clock
meridian on Monday, October 8, 1945, or until 12 o'clock
meridian on the third day after Members are notified to
reassemble in accordance with section 3 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 3. The President pro tempore of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall notify the
Members of the Senate and the House, respectively, to
reassemble whenever in their opinion legislative expediency
shall warrant it or whenever the majority leader of the Senate
and the majority leader of the House, acting jointly, or the
minority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the
House, acting jointly, file a written request with the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House that the
Congress reassemble for the consideration of legislation. . . .
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 13.4 The House agreed to a Senate concurrent resolution providing
for adjournment of the two Houses from July 8, 1943, to Sept. 14,
1943, or until a time when Members were notified to reassemble in
accordance with a process set out therein for presiding officers or
majority or minority party leaders acting jointly to recall them if
legislative expediency so warranted.
[[Page 883]]
On July 8, 1943,(1) the following Senate concurrent
resolution was called up by unanimous consent in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 89 Cong. Rec. 7516, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 90 Cong. Rec.
6667, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adjournment resolution
Mr. [Robert] RAMSPECK [of Georgia]. Mr. Speaker, I call up
Senate Concurrent Resolution 17.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Thursday, July
8, 1943, they shall stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian
on Tuesday, September 14, 1943, or until 12 o'clock meridian on
the third day after their respective Members are notified to
reassemble in accordance with section 2 of this resolution,
whichever event first occurs.
Sec. 2. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives shall notify the Members of the Senate
and the House, respectively, to reassemble whenever in their
opinion legislative expediency shall warrant it or whenever the
majority leader of the Senate and the majority leader of the
House, acting jointly, or the minority leader of the Senate and
the minority leader of the House, acting jointly, file a
written request with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House that the Congress reassemble for the consideration
of legislation.
Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
Mr. [John E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, I offer an
amendment.
The SPEAKER.(2) The question is on ordering the
previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previous question was ordered.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . .
Parliamentarian's Note: Because the motion for the previous
question took precedence over an amendment, Rep. Rankin was unable to
offer an amendment and was relegated to a subsequent
explanation(3) of his intent, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 89 Cong. Rec. 7516, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 8, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the adjournment of the House until September 14,
1943, the Clerk of the House be authorized to receive messages from
the Senate.
Mr. RANKIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I wish
to explain to the House that the amendment which I proposed to
offer a moment ago provided for striking out the words ``September
14'' in the adjournment resolution and inserting the date of
``August 10.'' In my opinion, Congress is making a serious mistake
in adjourning for 2 months in view of the critical conditions now
facing the country.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia?
There was no objection.
[[Page 884]]
Recall Authority
Sec. 13.5 The House concurred in a Senate concurrent resolution
(rendered nonprivileged by Sec. 309 of the Budget Act for
noncompletion of House action on 13 regular general appropriation
bills but considered pursuant to a special order from the Committee
on Rules) providing for adjournment (or recess) for more than three
days (1) of the House, from a specific legislative day in July to a
date certain in September, and (2) of the Senate, from alternate
departure dates to a date certain, each subject to joint leadership
recall by the Speaker and the Majority Leader or their designees
whom the Speaker then named.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See also Sec. 15.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 26, 2002,(2) the Speaker pro tempore laid before
the House the following Senate concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 148 Cong. Rec. 15138, 15139, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL RECESS OR ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE
AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson).(3) Pursuant
to section 2 of House Resolution 461, the Chair lays before the
House the following Senate concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Michael K. Simpson (ID).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 132
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, when the Senate
recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday,
August 1, 2002, Friday, August 2, 2002, or Saturday, August 3,
2002, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Tuesday, September 3,
2002, or until such other time on that day as may be specified
by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess
or adjourn, or until Members are notified to reassemble
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever
occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on the
legislative day of Friday, July 26, 2002, on a motion offered
by its Majority Leader or his designee pursuant to this
concurrent resolution, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, September 4, 2002, or until Members are notified to
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of
the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such place
and time as they may designate whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
[[Page 885]]
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. -------------------
RECALL DESIGNEE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker of the House of Representatives:
Washington, DC,
July 27, 2002.
Pursuant to section 2 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 132, I
hereby designate Representative Richard K. Armey of Texas to act
jointly with the Majority Leader of the Senate or his designee, in
the event of my death or inability, to notify the Members of the
House and the Senate, respectively, of any reassembly under that
concurrent resolution. In the event of the death or inability of my
designee, the alternate Members of the House listed in the letter
bearing this date that I have placed with the Clerk are designated,
in turn, for the same purpose.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Parliamentarian's Note: Because the Senate concurrent resolution
provided for an adjournment in July, it was in violation of Sec. 309 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and hence was not privileged for
consideration in the House. It did not require the yeas and nays since
consideration was in an even-numbered year. On June 27,
2002,(4) the House adopted House Resolution 461, a special
order reported from the Committee on Rules, providing as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 148 Cong. Rec. 11754, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2. That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall
be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary
notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions providing
for adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of
July.
The special order was necessary to waive points of order against
Senate Concurrent Resolution 132 as in violation of Sec. 309 of the
Budget Act.
Sec. 13.6 In October 2001, after the ``9/11'' terrorist attacks, the
``recall'' language in a concurrent resolution of adjournment
included for the first time a ``place'' element (in addition to the
customary ``time'' element) to authorize, during adjournment to a
date certain, a joint recall to another place (other than the seat
of Government) consistent with clause 4 of Sec. 5 of Article I of
the Constitution.
On Oct. 17, 2001,(1) the following privileged concurrent
resolution was offered by the Majority Leader:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 147 Cong. Rec. 20210, 20211, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 886]]
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FROM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17,
2001, TO TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2001, AND FOR CONDITIONAL RECESS OR
ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE FROM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2001, OR
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2001, TO TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2001
Mr. [Richard K.] ARMEY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 251) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 251
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Wednesday, October 17, 2001, it stand adjourned until
12:30 p.m on Tuesday, October 23, 2001, for morning hour
debate, or until Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the
close of business on Wednesday, October 17, 2001, or Thursday,
October 18, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee,
it stand recessed or adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday,
October 23, 2001, or at such other time on that day as may be
specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion
to recess or adjourn, or until Members are notified to
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate,
shall notify the Members of the House and the Senate,
respectively, to reassembly at such place and time as they may
designate whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall
warrant it.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 13.7 The House concurred in Senate amendments to a House
concurrent resolution adding Senate adjournment dates and inserting
joint Presiding Officer or separate joint majority or minority
leadership recall authority.
On Apr. 11, 1974,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 120 Cong. Rec. 10775, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CONGRESS FROM APRIL 11, 1974,
UNTIL APRIL 22, 1974
The SPEAKER laid before the House the concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 475), providing for a conditional adjournment of the
House from April 11 until April 22, 1974, with the Senate
amendments thereto.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:
Page 1, strike out line 2 and insert: ``when the two Houses
adjourn
[[Page 887]]
on Thursday, April 11, 1974, they stand''.
Page 1, line 4, strike out ``its Members'' and insert:
``their respective Members''.
Page 1, strike out lines 7 to 13, inclusive, and insert:
``Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the President pro tempore of the Senate shall notify the
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant
it, or whenever the majority leader of the Senate, and the
majority leader of the House, acting jointly, or the minority
leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the House,
acting jointly, file a written request with the Secretary of
the Senate and the Clerk of the House that the Congress
reassemble for the consideration of legislation.''
Amend the title so as to read: ``Concurrent resolution
providing for a conditional adjournment of the House and Senate
from April 11 until April 22, 1974.''
The Senate amendments were concurred in.
The concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: The customary practice in preparing an
adjournment resolution is for the leadership of the originating House,
after consultation with the leadership of the other House, to include
in the resolution alternative or joint adjournment and reconvening
dates for both Houses so as to avoid the necessity for amendment by the
second House. However, in the instance set forth above, the House
originated the concurrent resolution with no Senate dates and without
joint recall authority.
Theresa Schiavo
Sec. 13.8 The Senate reconvened on a date earlier than the date to
which it had adjourned, such reconvening being ordered under
authority previously provided the joint Senate leadership in a
Senate resolution of the previous Congress which remained in place
as a standing order of the Senate.
Parliamentarian's Note: In March 2005, during the 109th Congress,
as the time for the beginning of the scheduled two-week Easter recess
neared, the two Houses became embroiled in events surrounding legal
challenges to the removal of life support from a woman in Florida named
Theresa Marie Schiavo.
Each of the two Houses had adjourned on Thursday, Mar. 17, to meet
on Monday, Mar. 21. The adjournment of the House to Monday, Mar. 21,
was conditional: if it sooner received a message transmitting the
Senate's adoption of a concurrent resolution of adjournment originated
by the House on that Thursday, then it would have
[[Page 888]]
stood adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution. However, the
Senate had adjourned without having adopted the adjournment resolution
originated by the House.
As Ms. Schiavo's chances for survival decreased daily, pressure
built on both Houses to reconvene over the weekend to consider
legislation relating to her circumstances.
During the previous year, the Senate had adopted a resolution (S.
Res. 296 of the 108th Congress) authorizing its Majority and Minority
Leaders, acting jointly, to ``modify any order for the time or place of
the convening of the Senate'' when ``such action is warranted by
intervening circumstances.'' (This resolution was adopted by the Senate
without advance notice to or consultation with the House, resulting in
concern by the House leadership that the Senate might use the authority
provided in the Senate resolution to vary the duration of a Senate
adjournment of more than three days to which the House had given its
consent through adoption of a concurrent resolution. The Senate
resolution also concerned the House leadership because it required the
``concurrence'' of the two Senate leaders rather than mere
consultation, thereby tending to raise the standard for bipartisan
action in such matters.) In the March 2005 instance, the Senate was not
adjourned for more than three days or pursuant to an adjournment
resolution. So, its prospective use of Senate Resolution 296 related
only to an over-the-weekend adjournment.
Senate Resolution 296 provided that body with very flexible
authority to vary its reconvening from an adjournment overnight or over
a weekend. The House has such authority only in the case of an imminent
impairment at the place of convening (see Rule I clause 12(c), House
Rules and Manual Sec. 639 [2007]). The Senate leadership used that
authority to reconvene the Senate on Saturday, Mar. 19, in order to
adopt the adjournment resolution (H. Con. Res. 103)(1) that,
in turn, would put the House in adjournment pursuant to that concurrent
resolution upon receipt by the House Clerk of the formal notification
of that Senate action. Once the House stood adjourned pursuant to that
concurrent resolution, the recall authority provided in Sec. 2 thereof
was available to provide for reassembly of the House on Sunday, Mar.
20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See 151 Cong. Rec. 5143, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 17, 2005,(2) the following proceedings occurred
in the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at pp. 5391, 5392.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 889]]
ORDERS FOR MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2005
Mr. [William H.] FRIST [of Tennessee]. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business
today, it adjourn until 4 p.m. on Monday, March 21; I further ask
that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be
deemed to have expired, the Journal of the proceedings be approved
to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate
begin a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.(3) Without objection, it is
so ordered. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John E. Sununu (NH). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2005 AT 4 P.M.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to
come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in adjournment under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 11:48 p.m., adjourned
until Monday, March 21, 2005, at 4 p.m.
On Mar. 19, 2005,(4) the following occurred in the
Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 151 Cong. Rec. 5444, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the Congress has been working nonstop
over the last 3 days to do its part to uphold human dignity and
affirm the culture of life. I am pleased to announce that the House
and Senate Republican leadership have reached an agreement on a
legislative solution. The Senate has come in today to pass an
adjournment resolution which we will send shortly to the House of
Representatives. Procedurally, this action will have the effect of
bringing the House into session so they can either pass compromise
legislation by unanimous consent on Sunday or place this
legislation on the suspension calendar for consideration early
Monday morning. The Senate will be prepared to reconvene as soon as
the House passes this new legislation.
It has been more than 24 hours since Terri Schiavo's feeding
tube was removed. Under the legislation we will soon consider,
Terri Schiavo will have another chance. It is a simple bill, only
two pages long. It allows Terri's case to be heard in Federal
court. More specifically, it allows a Federal district judge to
consider a claim ``by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the
alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the
Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the
withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment
necessary to sustain her life.''
I am pleased with our progress thus far, and I am committed as
leader to see this legislation pass and give Terri Schiavo one last
chance at life.
Sec. 13.9 The Senate agreed to a House concurrent resolution of
adjournment, thereby enabling the recall authority provided in
Sec. 2 of that resolution.
Parliamentarian's Note: The House adopted House Concurrent
[[Page 890]]
Resolution 103 on Thursday, Mar. 17, 2005, but could not use its recall
provision until such time as it actually stood adjourned pursuant to
that concurrent resolution(1) which depended on its receipt
of a message from the Senate announcing the Senate's concurrence
therein. A new adjournment resolution (S. Con. Res. 23) was adopted
Mar. 20, 2005, to provide for an Easter recess after the reassembly
under House Concurrent Resolution 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For the notice provided to reassemble the House for impeachment
proceedings against President Clinton, see Sec. 15.3, infra.
For the reassembly of both Houses during an August recess for
consideration of legislation relating to Hurricane Katrina, see
Sec. 13.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 19, 2005,(2) the following occurred in the
Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 151 Cong. Rec. 5444, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. [William H.] FRIST [of Tennessee]. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the adjournment
resolution (H. Con. Res. 103) which is at the desk, provided that
the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.(3) Without
objection, it is so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Richard J. Santorum (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution was agreed to, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 103
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Thursday, March 17, 2005, Friday, March 18, 2005, or
Saturday, March 19, 2005, on a motion offered pursuant to this
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee,
it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, April 5, 2005, or
until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when
the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, March
17, 2005, through Saturday, March 26, 2005, on a motion offered
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader
or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on
Monday, April 4, 2005, or at such other time on that day as may
be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the
motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any
reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the
Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the
House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place
and time as they may designate whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to be clear about what we just
agreed to.
Today we will not be adjourning under the authority provided by
the resolution that we just considered. This adjournment resolution
will now
[[Page 891]]
allow the House to be called into session to consider legislative
matters. At the close of business today, we will adjourn until
Sunday. Once we are able to complete our work as it relates to
Theresa Marie Schiavo, we are prepared to clear a new adjournment
resolution so that we may begin the Easter recess.
Sec. 13.10 The Senate fixed the time to which it would adjourn as 2
p.m. on the following day (Sunday) and adjourned under that order
(rather than under the concurrent resolution of adjournment just
adopted).
On Mar. 19, 2005,(1) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 151 Cong. Rec. 5445, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDERS FOR SUNDAY, MARCH 20, 2005
Mr. [William H.] FRIST [of Tennessee]. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business
today, the Senate adjourn until 2 p.m. on Sunday, March 20. I
further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour
be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date,
the time of the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin
a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for
up to 10 minutes each.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.(2) Without
objection, it is so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Richard J. Santorum
(PA). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will convene for
a short period of morning business. There will be no rollcall votes
tomorrow. It appears that we have achieved compromise language with
the House with respect to the Schiavo situation. It is my hope that
the House will act on this language and send it to us early
tomorrow afternoon, and I will have more to say on that
tomorrow. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 2 P.M. TOMORROW
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to
come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in adjournment under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:22 p.m., adjourned
until Sunday, March 20, 2005, at 2 p.m.
Sec. 13.11 Privileged concurrent resolution providing for adjournment
(or recess) of each House for more than three days from separate,
alternate dates of departure to separate dates certain, subject to
joint leadership recall.
Parliamentarian's Note: In the 109th Congress, first session, the
first ``Easter recess'' adjournment resolution (H. Con. Res. 103),
adopted by the House on Mar. 17, 2005, and by the Senate on Mar. 19,
2005, was exhausted by reassembly thereunder on Mar. 20,
[[Page 892]]
2005. When the Senate originated Senate Concurrent Resolution 23, it
included a multitude of get-away days for the House in case it was
unable to pass S. 686, the measure the House was recalled to consider.
On Sunday, Mar, 20, 2005,(1) two reports were filed from
the Committee on Rules, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 151 Cong. Rec. 5481, 5482, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE
XXIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
Mr. GINGREY, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 109-27) on the resolution (H. Res.
181) waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect
to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee
on Rules, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to
be printed. -------------------
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 686, FOR
THE RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO
Mr. GINGREY, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 109-28) on the resolution (H. Res.
182) providing for consideration of the Senate bill (S. 686) for
the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed. -------------------
PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE TWO
HOUSES
The Speaker laid before the House the following privileged
Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 23) providing for a
conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate, and a conditional
adjournment of the House of Representatives.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 23
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any
day from Sunday, March 20, 2005, through Sunday, April 3, 2005,
on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by
its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or
adjourned until noon on Monday, April 4, 2005, or until such
other time as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his
designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time
of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House
adjourns on any day from Sunday, March 20, 2005, through
Monday, April 4, 2005, on a motion offered pursuant to this
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee,
it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, April 5, 2005, or
until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of
the Senate and House, respectively,
[[Page 893]]
to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant
it.
The SPEAKER.(2) Without objection, the concurrent
resolution is concurred in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. J. Dennis Hastert (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . .
. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Tom] DeLAY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate
Concurrent Resolution 23, 109th Congress, I move that the House do
now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the provisions of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 23, 109th Congress, the House stands adjourned until 2
p.m. Tuesday, April 5, 2005.
Thereupon (at 12 o'clock and 46 minutes a.m., Monday, March 21,
2005), pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 23, 109th Congress,
the House adjourned until Tuesday, April 5, 2005, at 2 p.m.
Hurricane Katrina
Sec. 13.12 Pursuant to notice issued jointly by the Speaker and the
Senate Majority Leader under the recall authority conferred in a
concurrent resolution of adjournment, the House reassembled from
its adjournment pursuant to that concurrent resolution.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate had reassembled on the previous
day. As with the previous recall during the first session of the 109th
Congress (see Sec. 13.9, supra), Members were given minimal notice of
the reassembly. The bicameral leadership decided on Thursday, Sept. 1,
2005, that both Houses would have to come back early from the summer
recess to address disaster-relief legislation relating to Hurricane
Katrina. The Senate reassembled at 10 p.m. that night, and the House at
1 p.m. the next day, Friday, Sept. 2.
Thus Members had official notice of (at most) 19 hours (compared to
about 17 hours for the reassembly of Mar. 20, 2005, and about three
days for the House-only recall for impeachment proceedings on Dec. 17,
1998).
The Senate and the House reassembled on different days. In
subsequent resolutions the language used for recall authority in
concurrent resolutions of adjournment was modified to provide explicit
authority to reassemble on separate days, by alluding to reassembly of
the two Houses ``at such place and respective time'' as the joint
leadership may designate.
[[Page 894]]
On Sept. 2, 2005,(1) the following occurred in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 151 Cong. Rec. 19424, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 2 of House Concurrent Resolution 225, 109th
Congress, the House met at 1 p.m. and was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
DeLay). -------------------
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The Speaker pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
September 2, 2005.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Tom Delay to act as Speaker
pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of
Representatives. -------------------
NOTIFICATION OF REASSEMBLING OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair lays before the House the
text of the formal notification sent to Members on Thursday,
September 1, 2005, of the reassembling of the House.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 1, 2005.
Dear Colleague: Pursuant to section 2 of House Concurrent
Resolution 225, after consultation with the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives and the Minority Leader of the Senate, we
hereby notify the Members of the Senate to reassemble at 10:00 p.m.
on Thursday, September 1, 2005, and the members of the House of
Representatives to reassemble at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, September 2,
2005.
Sincerely,
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House.
William H. Frist, M.D.,
Majority Leader of the Senate.
Sec. 13.13 The two Houses adopted a concurrent resolution providing for
adjournment (or recess) of each House, the Senate from alternate
departure dates, to a common date certain, subject to joint
leadership recall authority.
Parliamentarian's Note: Although the contemplated period of
adjournment for the House would not exceed three constitutional days, a
concurrent resolution was used not only to permit the Senate to span
Thursday and Tuesday but also to enable a further recall during the
three-day Labor Day weekend, should the need arise.
On Sept. 2, 2005,(1) the following occurred in the
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id. at p. 19443.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE TWO HOUSES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
privileged Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con.
[[Page 895]]
Res. 51) providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the
Senate, and a conditional adjournment of the House of
Representatives.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 51
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the
close of business on Thursday, September 1, or on Friday,
September 2, 2005, on a motion offered pursuant to this
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee,
it stand recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on Tuesday,
September 6, 2005, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant
to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first; and that when the House adjourns on the legislative day
of Friday, September 2, 2005, on a motion offered pursuant to
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his
designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September
6, 2005, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first.
Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of
the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such place
and time as they may designate whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Without objection, the
Senate concurrent resolution is concurred in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Tom DeLay (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 896]]
[Page 896-916]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
C. Adjournment Sine Die
Sec. 14. In General; Privilege; Inclusion of Other Matter
Adjournment sine die (literally ``without day,'' that is, without
setting the date for reconvening in the concurrent resolution) is used
to terminate a session of a Congress. Since under art. I, Sec. 5,
clause 4 of the Constitution neither House may adjourn for more than
three days without the consent of the other House, and since Congress
normally completes its work for a session more than three days prior to
the constitutional date for the convening of the next session, in the
usual practice adjournment sine die is accomplished by the adoption of
a concurrent resolution. This is the practice even where the final
adjournment of a session is only one or two days before the
constitutional end of term.(1) A sine die adjournment
resolution need not specify the date of reconvening because under
Sec. 2 of the 20th Amendment, a regular session of a Congress begins at
noon of Jan. 3 of every year, unless Congress sets a different date by
law.(2) A session terminates automatically at the end of the
constitutional term.(3) Until recent years, sine die
adjournments in even-numbered (election) years were normally taken by
October (under the assumption that the business of the Congress be
completed before Members to the next Congress are elected), and usually
somewhat later in nonelection odd-numbered years. In more recent
(105th-108th) Congresses, however, the final sine die adjournment of
Congress has come after a ``lame-duck'' session following the election
of Members to the Congress beginning in January of the subsequent odd-
numbered year.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 14.1, infra.
2. See Ch. 1, Sec. 3, supra.
3. See Sec. Sec. 14.11, 14.12, infra.
4. See 150 Cong. Rec. 25728, 108th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 7, 2004 (H.
Con. Res. 531); 148 Cong. Rec. 23523, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.,
Nov. 22, 2002 (S Con. Res. 160); 146 Cong. Rec. 27111, 106th
Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 15, 2000 (H. Con. Res. 446); and 144 Cong.
Rec. 28113, 105th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 19, 1998 (H. Con. Res.
353). See also House Rules and Manual Sec. 84 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sine die adjournment concurrent resolutions may be called up from
the floor as privileged, or if originating in the Senate, may be laid
before the House from the Speaker's table as privileged. While such a
resolution is not debatable, a Member may be recognized during its
consideration either by unanimous consent or
[[Page 897]]
under a reservation of objection to a unanimous-consent request that
the resolution be agreed to.(5) The resolution requires a
quorum for adoption.(6) Unless called up as privileged, a
measure relating to ``final'' adjournment of Congress is within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.(7) Once a session of
Congress has been adjourned sine die, it may be reconvened either
pursuant to leadership recall provisions contained in the concurrent
resolution(8) or by the President under the Constitution
``on extraordinary Occasions''.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 14.9, infra.
6. See Sec. 14.2, infra.
7. Rule X clause 1(n)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 733 (2007).
8. See Sec. 15, infra.
9. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A sine die resolution may specify the particular legislative or
calendar day of adjournment or may specify two or more optional dates,
in the latter case effected by a motion of the Majority Leader or the
Majority Leader's designee, and may be amended to provide for an
adjournment on a date other than that specified.(10) A
resolution may provide for an adjournment to a date certain, unless the
House sooner received a specified message from the Senate that it has
adopted a House-passed sine die adjournment resolution, in which case
it would stand adjourned sine die.(11) A resolution
providing sine die adjournment of a first session may include a
provision that when the second session convenes, the two Houses may not
conduct organizational or legislative business but shall adjourn on
that day to a date certain, unless sooner recalled. However, such a
resolution is not privileged since containing an order of business in
addition to the sine die adjournment.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See, e.g., Sec. 14.6, infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 14.14, 15.1, infra.
12. See Sec. 14.13, infra; but see Sec. 14.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inclusion in such a resolution of a section asserting congressional
prerogatives regarding ``pocket vetoes'' during sine die periods does
not destroy the privilege of the concurrent resolution, since
constituting a separate question of privilege.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also Sec. Sec. 14.15, 14.16,
infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privileged Status
Sec. 14.1 A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of the
two Houses sine die is called up as privileged.
On Dec. 31, 1970,(1) the concurrent resolution below was
called
[[Page 898]]
up as privileged by the Majority Leader:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 116 Cong. Rec. 44308, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 799) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 799
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall adjourn on
Saturday, January 2, 1971, and that when they adjourn on said
day, they stand adjourned sine die.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. For additional instances of first session adjournments, see
Sec. 14.6, infra. See also 117 Cong. Rec. 47676, 92d Cong. 1st
Sess., Dec. 17, 1971 (H. Con. Res. 498); and 107 Cong. Rec.
21528, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1961 (Calendar Day) (S.
Con. Res. 55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Requirement
Sec. 14.2 A quorum is required for the adoption of a concurrent
resolution providing for a sine die adjournment of the two Houses.
On Oct. 18, 1972,(1) when a concurrent resolution to the
effect that Congress adjourn sine die was offered in the House, a point
of order was made that a quorum was not present on the question of
adoption:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 118 Cong. Rec. 37061, 37062, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'NEILL [Jr., of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 726) and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 726
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall adjourn on
Wednesday, October 18, 1972, and that when they adjourn on said
day, they stand adjourned sine die.
The SPEAKER.(2) The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [James G.] O'HARA [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk
will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 240, nays 21, not
voting 170, as follows:
[Roll No. 460] . . .
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
Rejection of Resolution
Sec. 14.3 The House has rejected a concurrent resolution providing for
adjournment sine die.
[[Page 899]]
On July 29, 1954,(1) the House by a yea and nay vote
rejected a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment sine die:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 100 Cong. Rec. 12561, 12562, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. See also H. Jour.
pp. 812, 813 (1954).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] HALLECK [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Con. Res. 265) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring therein), That the two Houses of Congress shall
adjourn on Saturday, July 31, 1954, and that when they adjourn
on said day they stand adjourned sine die.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER.(2) The question is on the passage of
the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, on
that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 183, nays 193, not
voting 56, as follows:
[Roll No. 126] . . .
So the concurrent resolution was rejected.
Effect of Rejection of Previous Resolution
Sec. 14.4 Where the House rejected a concurrent resolution providing
for adjournment sine die, a second identical concurrent resolution
providing for adjournment sine die was in order during the same
week inasmuch as there had been intervening business.
On July 30, 1954,(1) a Member objected to a second
concurrent resolution for adjournment sine die:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 100 Cong. Rec. 12810, 12811, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] HALLECK [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
House Concurrent Resolution 266
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring therein), That the two Houses of Congress shall
adjourn on Saturday, July 31, 1954, and that when they adjourn
on said day they stand adjourned sine die. . . .
Mr. [Herman P.] EBERHARTER [of Pennsylvania]. My parliamentary
inquiry is this: Within this week the House voted on an exactly
similar resolution. Thereafter a motion to reconsider was laid on
the table. I make the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that the motion
to reconsider having been laid on the table on exactly the same
resolution, it is not again in order at this time.
[[Page 900]]
The SPEAKER.(2) In reply to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, the Chair will say that the House has transacted
considerable legislative business since the last resolution was
defeated on a preceding day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
Changing Date of Adjournment
Sec. 14.5 The House agreed to a Senate amendment in the nature of a
substitute to a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment
sine die, changing the date of adjournment from Oct. 11, 1984, to
that date or Oct. 12, 1984.
On Oct. 11, 1984,(1) the Speaker laid before the House
as privileged a Senate amendment to a concurrent resolution providing
for adjournment sine die:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 130 Cong. Rec. 32314, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) The Chair lays before
the House the following privileged message from the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Frank Harrison (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That the concurrent resolution from the House of
Representatives (H. Con. Res. 377) entitled ``Concurrent
resolution providing for the sine die adjournment of the
Ninety-eighth Congress''.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
That the two Houses of Congress shall adjourn on Thursday,
October 11, 1984, or on Friday October 12, 1984, and that when
they adjourn on said day, they stand adjourned sine die.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Tom] LOEFFLER [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, for the
clarification of the body, is it correct to assume that this
technical amendment to the sine die resolution does not include the
so-called call-back provision but, rather, addresses the dates of
today and tomorrow so that we might conclude our work without
having to stop the clock?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's assumption is correct.
Mr. LOEFFLER. I thank the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the Senate
amendment.
The Senate amendment was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 14.6 A House concurrent resolution providing for adjournment sine
die was amended by the Senate to provide for adjournment on a later
day than that originally proposed in the resolution.
[[Page 901]]
On the legislative day of Sept. 14, 1959,(1) Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, laid before the House as privileged, Senate
amendments to a House concurrent resolution, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 105 Cong. Rec. 19746, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 15, 1959
(Calendar Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Concurrent Resolution 440
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall adjourn on
Monday, September 14, 1959, and that when they adjourn on said day,
they stand adjourned sine die.
With the following Senate amendments:
Line 3, strike out ``Monday, September 14,'' and insert
``Tuesday, September 15.''
Amend the title so as to read: ``Establishing that when the two
Houses adjourn on Tuesday, September 15, 1959, they stand adjourned
sine die.''
The Senate amendments were concurred in.
Sec. 14.7 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution adjourning the
first session of the 80th Congress sine die on Dec. 19, 1947,
notwithstanding a concurrent resolution adopted at an earlier date
adjourning the Congress until Jan. 2, 1948.
On Dec. 19, 1947,(1) the House agreed to a concurrent
resolution changing the date for adjournment sine die. The Congress had
adjourned from July 27, 1947, until Jan. 2, 1948, but the President
called the Congress back into session on Nov. 17, 1947, thus resuming
the first session on a date earlier than that to which it had
adjourned. Hence the language of the following adjournment resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 93 Cong. Rec. 11738, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] HALLECK [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
[privileged] House concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 127) which I
send to the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That notwithstanding the provisions of the Senate
Concurrent Resolution 33, Eightieth Congress, the two Houses of
Congress shall adjourn on Friday, December 19, 1947, and that
when they adjourn on said day, they stand adjourned sine die.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
House Consent to Subsequent Senate Adjournment
Sec. 14.8 The House adopted a concurrent resolution providing for an
adjournment sine die of the House and giving the consent of the
House to a subsequent adjournment sine die of the Senate, and in
the interim, to such Senate adjournments in excess of
[[Page 902]]
three days as it might determine.
On Aug. 20, 1954,(1) a House concurrent resolution
affecting dates of adjournment sine die of the two Houses was called up
with an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 100 Cong. Rec. 15554, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Leo E.] ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I call up the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 266) providing for adjournment
sine die of the 83d Congress, 2d session, with an amendment of the
Senate thereto, and move that the House concur in the Senate
amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert ``That
the House of Representatives shall adjourn on August 20, 1954,
and that when it adjourns on said day, it stand adjourned sine
die.
``Resolved further, That the consent of the House of
Representatives is hereby given to an adjournment sine die of
the Senate at any time prior to December 25, 1954, when the
Senate shall so determine; and that the Senate, in the meantime
may adjourn or recess for such periods in excess of 3 days as
it may determine.''
The Senate amendment was concurred in, and a motion to
reconsider was laid on the table.
Debate on Resolution
Sec. 14.9 Although a concurrent resolution providing for the
adjournment of the second session of a Congress sine die is not
debatable, a Member may be recognized during the consideration of
such a concurrent resolution under a reservation of objection to a
unanimous-consent request propounded by the Chair that the
concurrent resolution be agreed to.
On Oct. 27, 1990,(1) the House, for the first time since
the 93d Congress,(2) included recall language in a
privileged concurrent resolution providing for the adjournment of a
second session sine die:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 136 Cong. Rec. 36850, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
2. See 15.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FROM SATURDAY, OCTOBER
27, 1990, SINE DIE, AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE FROM
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27, SUNDAY, OCTOBER 28, OR MONDAY, OCTOBER
29, 1990, SINE DIE
Mr. [Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 399) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 399
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on
[[Page 903]]
the legislative day of October 27, 1990, and the Senate
adjourns on Saturday, October 27, Sunday, October 28 or Monday,
October 29, 1990, they stand adjourned sine die or until noon
on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate,
shall notify the Members of the House and Senate, respectively,
to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest
shall warrant it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(3) Is there objection to
agreeing to the resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Michael R. McNulty (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, I shall not object, but I just want
to inquire of the majority leader: there was some question on our
side about the recall provision of this that I have been asked
about. The minority leader is here now.
Mr. Leader, reserving the right to object, have we cleared that
language?
Mr. [Robert H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield
to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentleman, of
course, the administration would prefer that there be no reference
whatsoever, but, quite frankly, it is not a joint resolution and
does not require the President's signature.
There is ample precedent for it, I think, in 1974 when
President Ford, during one of those sessions, and also in 1943,
and, quite frankly, it says, in effect, that if the Speaker and the
majority leader of the Senate after consultation with the minority
leader of both the House and the Senate feel that there ought to be
a reconvening of the Members for whatever purpose that, from my
point of view, I think it is well in order, and that we ought to
approve it as it is written.
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, under that
provision, since we adjourn sine die, would that be a
reconstitution then of the 101st Congress at that point, or would
we have a new session if this Congress was adjourned sine die?
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I believe such recall would be a
reassembling of this session of the 101st Congress.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the adoption of
the concurrent resolution? . . .
Is there objection to agreeing to the resolution?
There was no objection.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 14.10 A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment sine
die is ordinarily
[[Page 904]]
not debatable; however, debate has been permitted where no point of
order was raised against it. A resolution appointing a committee to
notify the President of an impending sine die adjournment is
debatable.
In the Senate, on Oct. 11, 1968,(1) a Senate concurrent
resolution (S. Con. Res. 83) was called up and agreed to. This
concurrent resolution provided for the sine die adjournment of both
Houses of Congress at the close of business on Friday, Oct. 11, 1968.
The resolution was not taken up on this date in the House as certain
Members of the House hoped that those Senators opposed to a bill
permitting nationally televised debates between Presidential candidates
might reconsider their position. (The matter was not, however, brought
to a vote in the Senate.) The House did agree to a resolution
authorizing the appointment of a committee to join a similar Senate
committee to notify the President of plans to adjourn sine
die.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 114 Cong. Rec. 31103, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
2. Id. at p. 30767.
For discussion of House agreement to Senate concurrent
resolutions, see Chs. 24, 32, 33, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 1320) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1320
Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by
the House to join a similar committee appointed by the Senate,
to wait upon the President of the United States and inform him
that the two Houses have completed their business of the
session and are ready to adjourn, unless the President has some
other communication to make to them.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half minute to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara] to make a statement.
Mr. [James G.] O'HARA of Michigan, Mr. Speaker, as many Members
of the House are aware, I am not in agreement with the statement in
the resolution that both Houses have completed their business. I am
very strongly of the opinion that the Senate has very important
business remaining, but on this resolution I would not attempt to
make that judgment for the Senate. I hope that they will reach that
decision for themselves. I will, therefore, not oppose this
resolution, Mr. Speaker, but I will, of course, reserve the right
to oppose a motion to adjourn sine die.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER.(3) The Chair appoints as members on the
part of the House of the committee to notify the President, the
gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Albert, and the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Gerald R. Ford.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of House concurrence to the Senate resolution for
[[Page 905]]
adjournment sine die, the Senate adjourned until Monday noon, Oct. 14,
1968.(4) The House adjourned at 7:53 p.m. on Friday, Oct.
11, 1968,(5) to reconvene Saturday, Oct. 12, 1968, at noon.
On Saturday, Oct. 12, 1968,(6) the House convened at 12
noon, and at 1:06 p.m., adjourned until Monday, Oct. 14, at
noon.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 114 Cong. Rec. 31115, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 11, 1968.
5. Id. at p. 30817.
6. Id. at p. 31116.
7. Id. at p. 31154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the House convened on Monday, Oct. 14,(8) the
Senate resolution was called up in the House, and an amendment was
offered changing the date to conform with the date anticipated for
adjournment, that same Monday, the 14th.(9) Mr. James G.
O'Hara, of Michigan, was yielded five minutes for debate by the
Majority Leader, who was recognized for debate without objection:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Id. at p. 31311.
9. Id. at pp. 31312, 31313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I call up Senate
Concurrent Resolution 83, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 83
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall adjourn on
Friday, October 11, 1968, and that when they adjourn on said
day, they stand adjourned sine die.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Albert: Page 1, line 3, strike out
``Friday, October 11, 1968,'' and insert ``Monday, October 14,
1968.''
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes for the purpose of
debate to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara]. . . .
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I had announced on Friday
of last week that I would attempt to prevent the adjournment of
this session of Congress until the Senate had considered what I
believe to be, in terms of the functioning of our political system,
one of the most important bills that we have considered in the last
4 years. That proposal, Mr. Speaker, was the proposal that would
have permitted network TV debates among the major candidates, for
the Presidency of the United States. . . .
I have also had an opportunity to carefully review the
situation in which the U.S. Senate finds itself. I have come to the
reluctant conclusion that it will probably not be possible to
acquire a quorum for the consideration of this legislation. I have
become convinced that the minority will persist in its
obstructionist tactics; that it is desperate to avoid this
confrontation.
For these reasons and because I certainly do not want to
inconvenience
[[Page 906]]
Members of the House of Representatives, I wish to announce that I
will not attempt to prevent the passage of the sine die adjournment
resolution. But I remain convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the other
body has done a disservice to the country, that the Congress has an
unfulfilled obligation to the American people and that we ought to
be dealing with that obligation rather than going home.
Then, Mr. Albert, who had yielded the time to Mr. O'Hara, yielded
himself one minute to concur with Mr. O'Hara's statements regarding the
House's position on televised debates, the situation in the Senate, and
the adjournment:(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 31313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute only for the
purpose of observing that the bill which has precipitated this
discussion came to this body from the Senate. It was a Senate bill.
The House amended the bill and sent it back to the Senate. It seems
to us, therefore, that the Senate should have taken action under
the circumstances. The statement made by our distinguish colleague,
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara], amply sets forth the
numerous reasons why we on this side of the aisle feel as we do
about this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert].
The amendment was agreed to.
The resolution was agreed to.
Declaration at Constitutional End of Session
Sec. 14.11 Because Sec. 2 of the 20th Amendment requires that a regular
session of a Congress begin at noon on Jan. 3 of each year (unless
a different date is set by law), then if the House is in session at
that time the Speaker declares the pending session adjourned sine
die so that the next regular session may begin at noon.
On Jan. 3, 1996,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 142 Cong. Rec. 38609, 38610, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at 11 o'clock and 55 minutes
a.m. -------------------
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Rev. James David Ford, D.D., offered the . . .
prayer[.] . . . -------------------
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER.(2) Will the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Solomon]
[[Page 907]]
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Newt Gingrich (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Solomon led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all. -------------------
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate had passed with an amendment a bill of
the House of the following title:
H.R. 1643. An act to authorize the extension of
nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) to
the products of Bulgaria. . .
. -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE HONORABLE TOM DELAY, MAJORITY WHIP
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Honorable Tom DeLay, majority whip: . . .
COMMUNICATION FROM THE SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives: . . .
-------------------COMMUNICATION FROM
THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following message from
the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
House of Representatives,
Office of the Clerk,
Washington, DC, December 29, 1995.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in clause
5 of rule III of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I have
the honor to transmit a sealed envelope received from the White
House on Friday, December 29, 1995, at 12:10 p.m. and said to
contain a message from the President whereby he submits a
semiannual report on the Russian Federation's continued compliance
with emigration criteria as required by sections 402 and 409 of the
Trade Act of 1974.
Sincerely,
Robin H. Carle,
Clerk. -------------------
CONTINUED MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS FOR RUSSIAN FEDERATION--
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO.
104-154)
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following message from
the President of the United States; which was read and, together
with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Ways and
Means and ordered to be printed: . . .
[[Page 908]]
-------------------PARLIAMENTARY
INQUIRY
Mr. [Steny H.] HOYER [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for me at this
time to ask unanimous consent to take up H.R. 1643, the bill just
reported to us by the other body?
The SPEAKER. The Chair asks the gentleman to suspend. The House
will come right back in session. . .
. -------------------
SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the 20th amendment of the Constitution
of the United States, the Chair declares the 1st session of the
104th Congress adjourned sine die.
Thereupon (at 12 noon) pursuant to the 20th amendment of the
Constitution of the United States, the House adjourned.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker laid these matters before the
House within the five minutes remaining in the session, but could have
waited until the second session, beginning at noon. On Jan. 3, 1992,
the House adjourned by motion, but it seemed more prudent to adjourn by
the Speaker's declaration, since a recorded vote on the motion, if
ordered, might have taken the House beyond the noon expiration time for
the session, requiring the clock to be stopped to avoid a point of
order under the Constitution.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 137 Cong. Rec. 36367, 102d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 126 Cong. Rec.
3, 6, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 3, 1980; and House Rules and
Manual Sec. 242 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.12 Pursuant to Sec. 2 of the 20th Amendment to the
Constitution, a regular session of a Congress must begin at noon on
Jan. 3 of every year, unless Congress establishes a different date
by law, and if the House is in session at that time the Speaker
declares the House adjourned sine die without a motion being made
from the floor, so that the next regular session of that Congress,
or the first regular session of the next Congress, as the case may
be, may assemble at noon on that day.
On Jan. 3, 1980,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 126 Cong. Rec. 37773, 37774, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 11:55 a.m. and was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Moakley).
The Chaplain, Rev. James David Ford, D.D., offered the . . .
prayer[.] . . .
[[Page 909]]
-------------------THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) The Chair has examined
the Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the
House his approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John Joseph Moakley (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, and without objection, the
Journal stands approved.
There was no objection. . .
. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The hour of 12 noon having arrived,
pursuant to the 20th amendment of the Constitution, the Chair
declares the first session of the 96th Congress adjourned sine die.
Thereupon (at 12 o'clock noon), pursuant to the 20th amendment
of the Constitution, the House adjourned sine die.
Parliamentarian's Note: There are two prior instances wherein the
House or both Houses adjourned at the constitutional expiration of the
session. On Dec. 1, 1913, the House adjourned sine die on the final day
by declaration.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3375. See also The Congressional
Globe, 816, 817, 40th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 2, 1867.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inclusion of Nonprivileged Matter
Sec. 14.13 By unanimous consent the House considered a nonprivileged
concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of the House and
the Senate to 11:55 a.m. on Jan. 3 or until recalled by joint
leadership; providing that the House shall not conduct
organizational or legislative business when reconvening the second
session on Jan. 3; and providing for an adjournment from Jan. 3 to
Jan. 22 or until recalled by joint leadership.
On Nov. 26, 1991,(1) the Majority Leader offered the
following concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 137 Cong. Rec. 35840, 35841, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 260) and I ask unanimous
consent for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) The Clerk will report
the concurrent resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Steny H. Hoyer (MD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 260
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House and Senate adjourn on the
calendar day of Wednesday, November 27, 1991, in accordance
with this resolution, they stand adjourned until 11:55 a.m. on
Friday, January 3, 1992, or until noon on the second day after
Members are notified to reassemble, whichever occurs first.
[[Page 910]]
Sec. 2. That when the Congress convenes on January 3, 1992,
for the second session of the 102d Congress, the House shall
not conduct organizational or legislative business and when it
adjourns on that day, it stand adjourned until noon on
Wednesday, January 22, 1992, or until noon on the second day
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 3
of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 3. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and
the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
legislative program
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time to explain the
resolution and give the Members a sense of the schedule.
Let me first say on the schedule that there obviously could be
a vote on this adjournment resolution in the next few moments. It
is not debatable, and we will move to vote very rapidly if there is
a vote.
After that, there is one additional matter that I am aware of
that may require a vote, and that has to do with the Medicaid
legislation which is here, and we will be coming forward with a
rule, and there could be a vote on it at the end of its
consideration.
Other than that, there should not be further votes, assuming
the adjournment resolution passes.
Let me say this: This concurrent resolution provides that the
House will, when we finish business today, recess until 11:55 a.m.,
January 3, 1992, at which time we will conclude the first session
of this, the 102d Congress. At 12 noon that day, January 3, 1992,
we will convene the second session of the 102d Congress and will
then immediately proceed to recess until January 22, 1992.
During these recess periods, the House will be subject to the
call of the Chair. If it becomes necessary or desirable to
reconvene the two Houses to act on the President's returned veto of
legislation we are sending to him for his consideration or because
the scheduled work of the committees which has been described
produces economic legislation which is ready for floor action or
for other reasons, we will be able to reconvene in a timely manner.
Any such reconvening of the House will be done in the
consultation with the leadership on both sides of the aisle.
That concludes my explanation of the concurrent resolution.
Parliamentarian's Note: The prohibition of business in the next
session, stipulated in Sec. 2 of the concurrent resolution, destroyed
its privilege.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See 125 Cong. Rec. 37317, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 20, 1979 (H.
Con. Res. 232), for the last time (which was also the first
time) a sine die adjournment and an adjournment to a date
certain in the next session were combined in a single
resolution (although, here, it was not technically a sine die
adjournment). But see Sec. 14.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.14 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution providing for
adjournment of
[[Page 911]]
the first session of the 106th Congress sine die and providing that
the House conduct no organizational or legislative business on the
first day of the second session.
On Nov. 18, 1999,(1) the Majority Leader offered the
following concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 145 Cong. Rec. 30734, 30735, 106th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE AFTER COMPLETION OF BUSINESS
OF FIRST SESSION OF 106TH CONGRESS AND SETTING FORTH SCHEDULE
FOR CERTAIN DATES DURING JANUARY 2000 OF SECOND SESSION
Mr. [Richard K.] ARMEY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 235), and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) The Clerk will report
the concurrent resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ed Pease (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
That when the House adjourns on any legislative day from
Thursday, November 18, 1999, through Monday, November 22, 1999,
on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by
its Majority Leader or his designee, it shall stand adjourned
until noon on Thursday, December 2, 1999 (unless it sooner has
received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence
in the conference report to accompany H.R. 3194, in which case
the House shall stand adjourned sine die), or until noon on the
second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to
section 3 of this concurrent resolution; and that when the
Senate adjourns on any day from Thursday, November 18, 1999,
through Thursday, December 2, 1999, on a motion offered
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader
or his designee, it shall stand adjourned sine die, or until
noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble
pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution.
Sec. 2. When the House convenes for the second session of
the One Hundred Sixth Congress, it shall conduct no
organizational or legislative business on that day and, when
the House adjourns on that day, it shall stand adjourned until
noon on January 27, 2000, or until noon on the second day after
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 3 of
this concurrent resolution.
Sec. 3. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate,
shall notify the Members of the House and Senate, respectively,
to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest
shall warrant it.
Sec. 4. The Congress declares that clause 2(h) of rule II
of the Rules of the House of Representatives and the order of
the Senate of January 6, 1999, authorize for the duration of
the One Hundred Sixth Congress the Clerk of the House of
Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate, respectively,
to receive messages from the President during periods when the
House and Senate are not in session, and thereby preserve until
adjournment sine die of the final regular session of the One
Hundred Sixth Congress the constitutional prerogative of the
House and
[[Page 912]]
Senate to reconsider vetoed measures in light of the objections
of the President, since the availability of the Clerk and the
Secretary during any earlier adjournment of either House during
the current Congress does not prevent the return by the
President of any bill presented to him for approval.
Sec. 5. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall
inform the President of the United States of the adoption of
this concurrent resolution.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: Although Majority Leader Armey claimed to
be calling up the resolution as privileged, it was not privileged as
indicated in Sec. 14.13, supra, since it included a special order of
business.
Pocket Vetoes During Sine Die and Intrasession Periods
Sec. 14.15 The President's return to the House by message under seal of
a bill previously presented to him, together with a statement of
his objections thereto, in which he asserted the power to ``pocket
veto'' the bill during an intrasession adjournment of the
originating House by withholding his approval, was laid before the
House by the Speaker accompanied by an announcement from the chair
regarding prior correspondence in the Congressional Record.
On Nov. 13, 2000,(1) the House, by unanimous consent,
referred a veto message and bill to committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 147 Cong. Rec. 26022, 26023, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. See also
Sec. 14.16, infra, for the complete Extension of Remarks
carried in the Congressional Record.
See also Ch. 24, supra, for further discussion on pocket
vetoes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001--VETO
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
veto message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
Today, I am disapproving H.R. 4392, the ``Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001,'' because of one badly
flawed provision that would have made a felony of unauthorized
disclosures of classified information. Although well intentioned,
that provision is overbroad and may unnecessarily chill legitimate
activities that are at the heart of a democracy. . . .
Since the adjournment of the congress has prevented my return
of H.R. 4392 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2
of the Constitution, my withholding of approval from the bill
precludes its becoming law. The
[[Page 913]]
Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding
my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to
``pocket veto'' bills during an adjournment of the Congress, to
avoid litigation, I am also sending H.R. 4392 to the House of
Representatives with my objections, to leave no possible doubt that
I have vetoed the measure.
Sincerely,
William J. Clinton.
The White House, November 4, 2000.
{time} 1845
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. PEASE).(2) The
objections of the President will be spread at large upon the
Journal, and the veto message and the bill will be printed as a
House document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ed Pease (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 19, 2000, the Speaker inserted in the Extensions
of Remarks portion of the Record a copy of a letter dated September
7, 2000, signed jointly by him and the Democratic leader and
addressed to the President of the United States, expressing their
views on the limits of the ``pocket-veto'' power and including a
similar letter from Speaker Foley and Republican leader Michel sent
to President Bush on November 21, 1989. Without objection, that
correspondence is reinserted at this point in the Record, since no
response has been received to the September 7, 2000, letter and the
same assertion by the President of ``pocket-veto'' power during an
intrasession adjournment of Congress to a day certain is contained
in the veto message just read to the House.
Parliamentarian's Note: While treatment of pocket vetoes is also
included in Ch. 24, supra, it is included here as related to
congressional adjournments.
Sec. 14.16 Under permission to extend remarks, the Speaker inserted in
the Congressional Record correspondence dated Sept. 7, 2000, to
President Clinton from Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader
Gephardt, and dated Nov. 21, 1989, to President Bush from Speaker
Foley and Minority Leader Michel, expressing views on the extent of
the President's ``pocket veto'' authority during sine die and
intrasession adjournment periods.
On Sept. 19, 2000,(1) the following was inserted into
the Extension of Remarks section of the Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 136 Cong. Rec. 18594, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POCKET-VETO POWER
HON. J. DENNIS HASTERT
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of a
letter signed jointly by myself and the Democratic Leader, Mr.
Gephardt. It is addressed to President Clinton. In it, we
[[Page 914]]
express our views on the limits of the ``pocket-veto'' power. I
also submit a copy of the letter referenced therein, which was sent
to President Bush on November 21, 1989, by Speaker Foley and
Republican Leader Michel.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives
Washington, DC, September 7, 2000.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The President, The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: This is in response to your actions on H.R.
4810, the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, and H.R.
8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. On August 5, 2000, you
returned H.R. 4810 to the House of Representatives without your
approval and with a message stating your objections to its
enactment. On August 31, 2000, you returned H.R. 8 to the House of
Representatives without your approval and with a message stating
your objections to its enactment. In addition, however, in both
cases you included near the end of your message the following:
[``]Since the adjournment of the Congress has prevented my
return of [the respective bill] within the meaning of Article I,
section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution, my withholding of approval
from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279
U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my signature and
thereby invoking my constitutional power to ``pocket veto'' bills
during an adjournment of the Congress, to avoid litigation, I am
also sending [the respective bill] to the House of Representatives
with my objections, to leave no possible doubt that I have vetoed
the measure.['']
President Bush similarly asserted a pocket-veto authority
during an intersession adjournment with respect to H.R. 2712 of the
101st Congress but, by nevertheless returning the enrollment,
similarly permitted the Congress to reconsider it in light of his
objections, as contemplated by the Constitution. Your allusion to
the existence of a pocket-veto power during even an intrasession
adjournment continues to be most troubling. We find that assertion
to be inconsistent with the return-veto that it accompanies. We
also find that assertion to be inconsistent with your previous use
of the return-veto under similar circumstances but without similar
dictum concerning the pocket-veto. On January 9, 1996, you stated
your disapproval of H.R. 4 of the 104th Congress and, on January
10, 1996--the tenth Constitutional day after its presentment--
returned the bill to the Clerk of the House. At the time, the House
stood adjourned to a date certain 12 days hence. Your message
included no dictum concerning the pocket-veto.
We enclose a copy of a letter dated November 21, 1989, from
Speaker Foley and Minority Leader Michel to President Bush. That
letter expressed the profound concern of the bipartisan leaderships
over the assertion of a pocket veto during an intrasession
adjournment. That letter states in pertinent part that
``[s]uccessive Presidential administrations since 1974 have, in
accommodation of Kennedy v. Sampson, exercised the veto power
during intrasession adjournments only by messages returning
measures to the Congress.'' It also states our belief that it is
not ``constructive to resurrect constitutional controversies long
considered as settled, especially without notice or consultation.''
The Congress, on
[[Page 915]]
numerous occasions, has reinforced the stance taken in that letter
by including in certain resolutions of adjournment language
affirming to the President the absence of ``pocket veto'' authority
during adjournments between its first and second sessions. The
House and the Senate continue to designate the Clerk of the House
and the Secretary of the Senate, respectively, as their agents to
receive messages from the President during periods of adjournment.
Clause 2(h) of rule II, Rules of the House of Representatives;
House Resolution 5, 106th Congress, January 6, 1999; the standing
order of the Senate of January 6, 1999. In Kennedy v. Sampson, 511
F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1974), the court held that the ``pocket veto''
is not constitutionally available during an intrasession
adjournment of the Congress if a congressional agent is appointed
to receive veto messages from the President during such
adjournment.
On these premises we find your assertion of a pocket veto power
during an intrasession adjournment extremely troublesome. Such
assertions should be avoided, in appropriate deference to such
judicial resolution of the question as has been possible within the
bounds of justifiability.
Meanwhile, citing the precedent of January 23, 1990, relating
to H.R. 2712 of the 101st Congress, the House yesterday treated
both H.R. 4810 and H.R. 8 as having been returned to the
originating House, their respective returns not having been
prevented by an adjournment within the meaning of article I,
section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution.
Sincerely,
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker.
Richard A. Gephardt,
Democratic Leader
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, November 21, 1989.
Hon. George Bush,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. President: This is in response to your action on House
Joint Resolution 390. On August 16, 1989, you issued a memorandum
of disapproval asserting that you would ``prevent H.J. Res. 390
from becoming a law by withholding (your) signature from it.'' You
did not return the bill to the House of Representatives.
House Joint Resolution 390 authorized a ``hand enrollment'' of
H.R. 1278, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989, by waiving the requirement that the bill
be printed on parchment. The hand enrollment option was requested
by the Department of the Treasury to insure that the mounting daily
costs of the savings-and-loan crisis could be stemmed by the
earliest practicable enactment of H.R. 1278. In the end, a hand
enrollment was not necessary since the bill was printed on
parchment in time to be presented to you in that form.
We appreciate your judgment that House Joint Resolution 390
was, in the end, unnecessary. We believe, however, that you should
communicate any such veto by a message returning the resolution to
the Congress since the intrasession pocket veto is constitutionally
infirm.
In Kennedy v. Sampson, the United States Court of Appeals held
that ``pocket veto'' is not constitutionally available during an
intrasession adjournment of the Congress if a congressional agent
is appointed to receive veto messages from the President during
such adjournment. 511 F.2d 430
[[Page 916]]
(D.C. Cir. 1974). In the standing rules of the House, the Clerk is
duly authorized to receive messages from the President at any time
that the House is not in session. (Clause 5, Rule III, Rules of the
House of Representatives; House Resolution 5, 101st Congress,
January 3, 1989.)
Successive Presidential administrations since 1974 have, in
accommodation of Kennedy v. Sampson, exercised the veto power
during intrasession adjournments only by messages returning
measures to the Congress.
We therefore find your assertion of a pocket veto power during
an intrasession adjournment extremely troublesome. We do not think
it constructive to resurrect constitutional controversies long
considered as settled, especially without notice of consultation.
It is our hope that you might join us in urging the Archivist to
assign a public law number to House Joint Resolution 390, and that
you might eschew the notion of an intrasession pocket veto power,
in appropriate deference to the judicial resolution of that
question.
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker.
Robert H. Michel,
Republican Leader.
[Page 916-929]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
C. Adjournment Sine Die
Sec. 15. Conditional Adjournments Sine Die; Recall
The first examples of coupling sine die adjournment with the
conferral of leadership recall authority during the sine die period
were in the 93d Congress, on Dec. 22, 1973, and on Dec. 20,
1974.(1) Inclusion of leadership recall authority in
adjournment resolutions was discontinued in 1975 and reinstituted in
the 101st Congress, second session, when the joint recall authority was
conferred only on the majority leaderships (not separately on the joint
minority leaderships, who merely had to be consulted).(2)
The form of leadership recall authority as reinstituted in the 101st
Congress remained the practice through the 108th
Congress.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. Sec. 15.10, 15.11, infra.
2. See Sec. 15.7, infra.
3. See Sec. Sec. 15.1, 15.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the inclusion of leadership recall authority, only the
President could reconvene either or both Houses after sine die
adjournment, pursuant to art. II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution. The
President's authority in the same section to adjourn the two Houses to
such time as he shall think proper, where there is a disagreement
between the two Houses, has never been used.
See also Sec. 13, supra, for discussion of leadership recall
authority included in concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment
to a day certain. The now-standard recall language allowing reassembly
at another ``place'' was first used
[[Page 917]]
on Oct. 17, 2001,(4) and the language empowering designees
of the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader to exercise the recall
authority in exigent circumstances was first included on July 26,
2002.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 13.6, supra.
5. See Sec. 13.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also Sec. 13, supra, for discussion of adjournments to a day
and time certain immediately before the constitutional end of a
Congress on Jan. 3 of an odd-numbered year with recall authority, in
effect tantamount to a sine die adjournment with recall, but treated as
continuation of the existing session rather than a new (third) session
upon the recall. -------------------
Sec. 15.1 The House agreed to a privileged concurrent resolution
providing for adjournment of the Congress sine die including
alternate departure dates for each House and provision for joint-
leadership recall.
On Dec. 7, 2004,(1) the Majority Leader offered the
following privileged concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 150 Cong. Rec. 25708, 108th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT OF SECOND SESSION OF 108TH
CONGRESS
Mr. [Tom] DeLAY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 531) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 531
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on any legislative
day from Tuesday, December 7, 2004, through Friday, December
10, 2004, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
adjourned sine die, or until the time of any reassembly
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution; and that
when the Senate adjourns on any day from Tuesday, December 7,
2004, through Saturday, December 11, 2004, on a motion offered
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader
or his designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until the time
of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the
Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the
House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place
and time as they may designate whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 15.2 Pursuant to notice issued by the Speaker under
[[Page 918]]
authority conferred in a concurrent resolution of adjournment, the
House reassembled from a second session adjournment sine die as a
continuation of that session.
On Dec. 17, 1998,(1) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 144 Cong. Rec. 27770, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 3 of House Concurrent Resolution 353, One
Hundred Fifth Congress, the House met at 10 a.m. and was called to
order by the Speaker, Hon. Newt
Gingrich. -------------------
NOTIFICATION OF REASSEMBLING OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER.(2) The Chair lays before the House the
text of the formal notification sent to Members on Monday, December
14, 1998, of the reassembling of the House, which the Clerk will
read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Newt Gingrich (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of the Speaker,
Washington, DC, December 14, 1998.
Pursuant to section 3 of House Concurrent Resolution 353
and after consultation with the Minority Leader, the public
interest requires the Members of the House of Representatives
to reassemble at 10 a.m. on Thursday, December 17, 1998. The
Sergeant at Arms is directed to notify all Members of the
reassembly of the House of Representatives for the second
session of the One Hundred Fifth Congress.
Sincerely yours,
Newt Gingrich,
Speaker.
Parliamentarian's Note: As the Speaker's notification itself
indicates, the reassembly of the House (the House and Senate having
adjourned sine die) became a continuation of the second session rather
than a new third session, under the terms of the concurrent resolution.
Sec. 15.3 Form of privileged concurrent resolution of adjournment sine
die providing both joint-leadership recall authority and House-only
recall authority with subsequent sine die House adjournment if
utilized.
On Oct. 20, 1998,(1) the following privileged concurrent
resolution was considered in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 144 Cong. Rec. 27348, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE OF THE CONGRESS ON
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1998, OR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1998
Mr. [Gerald B. H.] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 353) and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
[[Page 919]]
H. Con. Res. 353
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Wednesday, October 21, 1998, or Thursday, October 22,
1998, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
adjourned sine die or until noon on the second day after
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of
this concurrent resolution, or until a time designated pursuant
to section 2 of this resolution; and that when the Senate
adjourns on Wednesday, October 21, 1998, or Thursday, October
22, 1998, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day after
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of
this concurrent resolution.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate,
shall notify the Members of the House and the Senate,
respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
Sec. 3. During any adjournment of the House pursuant to
this concurrent resolution, the Speaker, acting after
consultation with the Minority Leader, may notify the Members
of the House to reassemble whenever, in his opinion, the public
interest shall warrant it. After reassembling pursuant to this
section, when the House adjourns on any day on a motion offered
pursuant to this section by its Majority Leader or his
designee, the House shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the
first section of this concurrent resolution.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: The House needed separate recall authority,
independent of the Senate, in order to be prepared to consider
potential articles of impeachment reported from the Committee on the
Judiciary following the sine die adjournment. The House was recalled by
Speaker Gingrich on Dec. 17, 1998.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 15.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, on Oct. 21, 1998,(3) the House adjourned
sine die.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 144 Cong. Rec. 27410, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 17.3,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Gerald B. H. SOLOMON] [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to House concurrent resolution 353 and as the designee of the
majority leader, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(4) In accordance with the
provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 353, the Chair declares
the second session of the 105th Congress adjourned sine die.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Edward A. Pease (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thereupon (at 5 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 353, the House adjourned.
Sec. 15.4 The House agreed to a privileged Senate concurrent resolution
providing for the
[[Page 920]]
adjournment sine die of the first session of a Congress (subject to
recall by the joint House-Senate majority leaderships) and
declaring the position of the Congress with respect to the
assertion by the President of a ``pocket veto'' power between
sessions of a Congress.
On Nov. 13, 1997,(1) the Speaker pro
tempore(2) laid before the House a privileged Senate
concurrent resolution on the Speaker's table providing for an
adjournment sine die of the first session and an assertion that the
``pocket veto'' not be used during a first session sine die
adjournment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 143 Cong. Rec. 26538, 26539, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. See Ch. 24,
infra, for additional information on pocket vetoes.
2. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE OF FIRST SESSION OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTH
CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair lays before the
House a Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 68) to adjourn
sine die the First Session of the One Hundred Fifth Congress, as a
question of the privileges of the House.
The Clerk read the Senate Concurrent Resolution as follows:
S. Con. Res. 68
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Thursday, November 13, 1997, or Friday, November 14,
1997, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by the Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day after
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of
this concurrent resolution, and that when the Senate adjourns
on Thursday, November 13, 1997, or Friday, November 14, 1997,
on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by
the Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned sine
die, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified
to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House and the Minority of the Senate, shall
notify the Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to
reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest
shall warrant it.
Sec. 3. The Congress declares that clause 5 of rule III of
the Rules of the House of Representatives and the order of the
Senate of January 7, 1997, authorize for the duration of the
One Hundred Fifth Congress the Clerk of the House of
Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate, respectively:
To receive messages from the President during periods when the
House and Senate are not in session and thereby preserve until
adjournment sine die of the final regular session of the One
Hundred Fifth Congress the constitutional prerogative of the
House and Senate to reconsider vetoed measures in light of the
objections of the President, since the availability of the
Clerk and the Secretary during any earlier adjournment of
either House during the Congress does not
[[Page 921]]
prevent the return by the President of any bill presented to
him for approval.
Sec. 4. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall
inform the President of the United States of the adoption of
this concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the Senate
concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, on that,
I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
205, nays 193, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 638] . . .
So the Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 15.5 The Senate agreed to a motion that the Senate adjourn to meet
the following evening unless the House sooner adopted the
concurrent resolution of sine die adjournment (as amended by the
Senate), in which case the Senate would stand adjourned sine die
pursuant to that concurrent resolution.
On Oct. 3, 1996,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 142 Cong. Rec. 27335, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE
Mr. [Trent] LOTT [of Mississippi]. Mr. President, if there is
no further business to come before the Senate, I now move that the
Senate stand in adjournment sine die under the provisions of House
Concurrent Resolution 230, or until 6 p.m., Friday, October 4, if
the House fails to adopt House Concurrent Resolution 230. And God
be with you all.
The motion was agreed to, and at 6:54 p.m., the Senate
adjourned sine die, conditioned on the House concurrence in the
Senate amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 230.
Sec. 15.6 Second instance since the 93d Congress in which the House
included recall language in a concurrent resolution providing for
the adjournment of a second session sine die.
On Oct. 5, 1992,(1) the Majority Leader called up a
privileged concurrent resolution as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 138 Cong. Rec. 32340, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR THE SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT OF THE 2D SESSION, 102D
CONGRESS
[Mr. Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I send to
the
[[Page 922]]
desk a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 384) and ask
unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 384
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Thursday, October 8, 1992, or Friday, October 9, 1992,
pursuant to a motion by the Majority Leader, or his designee,
it stand adjourned sine die, and that when the Senate adjourns
on the calendar day of Thursday, October 8, 1992, or any day
thereafter, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader,
or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand
adjourned sine die or until noon on the second day after
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of
this resolution.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate,
shall notify the Members of the House and Senate, respectively,
to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest
shall warrant it.
The SPEAKER.(2) Without objection, the concurrent
resolution is agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas S. Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 15.7 For the first time since the 93d Congress, the House included
recall language in a concurrent resolution providing for the
adjournment of a second session sine die.
On Oct. 27, 1990,(1) the House, for the first time since
the 93d Congress, included recall language in a privileged concurrent
resolution providing for the adjournment of a second session sine die:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 136 Cong. Rec. 36850, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FROM SATURDAY, OCTOBER
27, 1990, SINE DIE, AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE FROM
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27, SUNDAY, OCTOBER 28, OR MONDAY, OCTOBER
29, 1990, SINE DIE
Mr. [Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 399) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 399
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of October 27, 1990, and the Senate adjourns on Saturday,
October 27, Sunday, October 28 or Monday, October 29, 1990,
they stand adjourned sine die or until noon on the second day
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2
of this concurrent resolution.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate,
shall notify the Members
[[Page 923]]
of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever,
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Is there objection to
agreeing to the resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Michael R. McNulty (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, I shall not object, but I just want
to inquire of the majority leader: there was some question on our
side about the recall provision of this that I have been asked
about. The minority leader is here now.
Mr. Leader, reserving the right to object, have we cleared that
language?
Mr. [Robert H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield
to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentleman, of
course, the administration would prefer that there be no reference
whatsoever, but, quite frankly, it is not a joint resolution and
does not require the President's signature.
There is ample precedent for it, I think, in 1974 when
President Ford, during one of those sessions, and also in 1943,
and, quite frankly, it says, in effect, that if the Speaker and the
majority leader of the Senate after consultation with the minority
leader of both the House and the Senate feel that there ought to be
a reconvening of the Members for whatever purpose that, from my
point of view, I think it is well in order, and that we ought to
approve it as it is written.
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, under that
provision, since we adjourn sine die, would that be a
reconstitution then of the 101st Congress at that point, or would
we have a new session if this Congress was adjourned sine die?
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I believe such recall would be a
reassembling of this session of the 101st Congress.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). Is there objection to
agreeing to the resolution?
There was no objection.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
On Dec. 20, 1974,(3) the House agreed to a privileged
concurrent resolution, offered by the Majority Leader, providing for
the sine die adjournment of the 93d Congress, second session, or for an
adjournment until reconvened by the leadership:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 120 Cong. Rec. 41815, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 697)
[[Page 924]]
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:
H. Con. Res. 697
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Friday,
December 20, 1974, they shall stand adjourned sine die or until
12:00 noon on the second day after their respective Members are
notified to reassemble in accordance with Section 2 of this
resolution, whichever event first occurs.
Sec. 2 The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate or the President pro tempore of the
Senate shall notify the Members of the House and the Senate,
respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it, or whenever the majority
leader of the Senate and the majority leader of the House,
acting jointly or the minority leader of the House, acting
jointly, file a written request with the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House that the Congress reassemble
for the consideration of legislation.
The SPEAKER.(4) The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [John] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
(Mr. ASHBROOK asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity of asking
the distinguished majority leader what all that means. It was read
rather rapidly. It seemed to have quite a few clauses. I did not
quite catch all of it.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I feel certain the gentleman from
Ohio is aware of the fact that this is a sine die resolution, which
gives the right to the Speaker of the House and the Presiding
Officer of the Senate, the majority leader of the House, and the
minority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the House,
and the President of the United States, would have the right, to
call the Members back into session before January 3 if they thought
there was an emergency, and the Congress should be called back.
After the date of January 3 we will extend it to January 14. .
. .
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 15.8 The House agreed to a privileged House concurrent resolution
providing for the adjournment sine die of the first session of a
Congress (subject to recall by the joint House-Senate majority
leadership) and declaring the position of the Congress with respect
to the assertion by the President of a pocket veto between sessions
of a Congress.
[[Page 925]]
On Nov. 21, 1989,(1) the Majority Leader offered a
privileged concurrent resolution as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 135 Cong. Rec. 31156, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE
101ST CONGRESS ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1989
Mr. [Richard A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 239) and ask for its
immediate consideration, and I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to address the House for 1 minute on the resolution.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 239
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House and Senate adjourn on
Wednesday, November 22, 1989, they stand adjourned sine die, or
until 12 o'clock meridian on the second day after Members are
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate,
shall notify the Members of the House and Senate, respectively,
to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest
shall warrant it.
Sec. 3. The Congress declares--
(1) that clause 5 of rule III of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, adopted for the One Hundred First Congress in
House Resolution 5 on January 3, 1989, authorizes the Clerk of
the House of Representatives to receive messages from the
President during periods when the House of Representatives is
not in session;
(2) that the House of Representatives intends by such rule
to preserve until its adjournment sine die from the final
session of the One Hundred First Congress the constitutional
prerogative of the House to reconsider vetoed measures in light
of the objections of the President;
(3) that the order of the Senate of January 3, 1989,
effective for the duration of the One Hundred First Congress,
authorizes the Secretary of the Senate to receive messages from
the President during periods when the Senate is not in session;
and
(4) that the Senate intends by such order to preserve until
its adjournment sine die from the final session of the One
Hundred First Congress the constitutional prerogatives of the
Senate to reconsider vetoed measures in light of the objections
of the President.
Sec. 4. The Congress reaffirms its intent that the
availability of the Clerk of the House of Representatives to
receive messages from the President during periods when the
House is not in session and the availability of the Secretary
of the Senate to receive messages from the President during
periods when the Senate is not in session ensure that the
adjournment of either House pursuant to this concurrent
resolution shall not prevent the return by the President of any
bill presented to him for approval.
Sec. 5. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall
inform the President of the United States of the adoption of
this resolution.
Mr. [Robert S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, there is a question on
[[Page 926]]
our side as to whether or not this would interfere with the
President's constitutional prerogatives to pocket-veto bills. As I
understand it, this is a concurrent resolution which would have no
impact on the President's constitutional prerogative to do that if
he so chose? Is that correct?
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, as I
understand it, this resolution would inform the President that the
Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate are available
under their rules to receive messages from the President during the
adjournment. It makes it clear that this adjournment will not
prevent the return of any bill and reserves the constitutional
prerogative to reconsider vetoed measures in light of the
President's objections.
Mr. WALKER. But if the President chooses to pocket-veto a bill
rather than send a veto message up even though we have clerks in
place, it is my understanding that the President would still be
permitted to do that under this resolution since it is a concurrent
resolution? Is that correct?
Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will yield further, the
President can exercise his constitutional prerogative. This
resolution simply expresses the sentiment of the House and Senate
as to the appropriate congressional prerogatives.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection, and I thank the majority leader.
{time} 1340
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli).(2) The
question is on the concurrent resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Romano L. Mazzoli (KY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 15.9 The Speaker laid before the House a privileged Senate
concurrent resolution providing for the sine die adjournment of
both Houses.
On Oct. 1, 1976,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 122 Cong. Rec. 35336, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVISION FOR SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER laid before the House the Senate concurrent
resolution (S. Con. Res. 211), providing for a sine die adjournment
of the Congress on Friday, October 1, 1976.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 211
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall adjourn on
Friday, October 1, 1976, and that when they adjourn on said
day, they stand adjourned sine die.
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 15.10 The House rejected a privileged concurrent resolution,
offered by the Majority
[[Page 927]]
Leader, providing for the sine die adjournment of the two Houses or
for adjournment until reconvened by the joint House-Senate majority
or minority leadership prior to Jan. 3, 1974.
On the legislative day of Dec. 21, 1973,(1) the House
rejected a privileged concurrent resolution providing for adjournment
sine die:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 43294, 43295, 43318, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'NEILL [Jr., of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 411) and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 411
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Saturday,
December 22, 1973, they shall stand adjourned sine die or until
12:00 noon on the second day after their respective Members are
notified to reassemble in accordance with Section 2 of this
resolution, whichever event first occurs.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate shall notify the Members of
the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever,
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it, or
whenever the majority leader of the Senate and the majority
leader of the House, acting jointly, or the minority leader of
the Senate and the minority leader of the House, acting
jointly, file a written request with the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House that the Congress reassemble
for the consideration of legislation.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
concurrent resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER.(2) The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. James V. STANTON [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 74, nays 171, not
voting 187, as follows:
[Roll No. 724] . . .
So the concurrent resolution was rejected. . .
. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT TO 12 O'CLOCK NOON TODAY
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the
House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12 o'clock noon today,
Dec. 22, 1973.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Massachusetts?
There was no objection. . .
. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [John B.] BREAUX [of Louisiana]. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
[[Page 928]]
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 32
minutes a.m.) the House adjourned until today, Saturday, December
22, 1973, at 12 o'clock noon.
Parliamentarian's Note: The next day, the House adopted House
Concurrent Resolution 412, adjourning the session sine die. The Senate
amended it to include joint majority or minority leadership recall
authority.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See also Sec. 15.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 15.11 The Speaker laid before the House a House concurrent
resolution providing for sine die adjournment of the two Houses
with a Senate amendment thereto permitting the joint House-Senate
leadership to reconvene Congress prior to Jan. 3, 1974.
On Dec. 22, 1973,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 43327, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A further message from the Senate by Mr. Arrington, one of its
clerks, announced that the Senate had passed a concurrent
resolution of the House (H. Con. Res. 412) entitled ``Concurrent
resolution providing for the sine die adjournment of the 1st
session of the 93d Congress,'' with amendments in which concurrence
is requested. -------------------
PROVIDING FOR THE SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT OF THE 1ST SESSION OF
THE 93D CONGRESS
The SPEAKER.(2) The Clerk will report the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 412) providing for the sine die
adjournment of the 1st session of the 93rd Congress, with a Senate
amendment thereto, and report the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Page 1, line 4, strike out ``die.'' and insert ``die or
until 12:00 noon on the second day after their respective
Members are notified to reassemble in accordance with section 2
of this resolution, whichever event first occurs.''.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate shall notify the Members of
the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever,
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it, or
whenever the majority leader of the Senate and the majority
leader of the House, acting jointly, or the minority leader of
the Senate and the minority leader of the House, acting
jointly, files a written request with the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House that the Congress reassemble
for the consideration of legislation.
The Senate amendment was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. -------------------
SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'NEILL [Jr., of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House do now adjourn.
[[Page 929]]
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. In accordance with the provisions of House
Concurrent Resolution 412, the Chair declares the 1st session of
the 93d Congress adjourned sine die.
Thereupon (at 2 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.), pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 412, the House adjourned sine die.
Speaker's Designees to Exercise Recall Authority
Sec. 15.12 A Speaker pro tempore, by unanimous consent, announced the
Speaker's designations of (1) the Majority Leader to exercise
recall authority under the concurrent resolution of adjournment in
the event of the death or inability of the Speaker, and (2) certain
alternates in a letter placed with the Clerk to, in turn, exercise
the same authority in the event of the death or inability of the
primary designee.
On Nov. 22, 2002,(1) the following occurred in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 148 Cong. Rec. 23517, 23518, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECALL DESIGNEE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kerns).(2) Without
objection, and pursuant to section 2 of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 160, the Chair announces the Speaker's designation of
Representative Richard K. Armey of Texas to act jointly with the
majority leader of the Senate or his designee, in the event of the
death or inability of the Speaker, to notify the Members of the
House and the Senate, respectively, of any reassembly under that
concurrent resolution, and further, in the event of the death or
inability of that designee, the alternate Members of the House
listed in the letter bearing this date that the Speaker has placed
with the Clerk are designed, in turn, for that same purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Brian Kerns (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: Beginning in the 108th Congress, clause
8(b)(3) of Rule I was added to confer this designation authority on the
Speaker.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 929-945]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
C. Adjournment Sine Die
Sec. 16. Where Required or Prohibited by Law
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 provides for a sine die
adjournment of ``not later than July 31 of each year; or (2) in case of
an odd-numbered year, provide, not later than July 31 of such year, by
concurrent resolution adopted in each House by roll call vote, for the
adjournment of the two Houses from that Friday in August which occurs
at least thirty days before the first Monday in
[[Page 930]]
September (Labor Day) of such year to the second day after Labor
Day.''(1) The section is not applicable if the Nation is in
a state of war declared by Congress.(2) In even-numbered
years and some odd-numbered years, the House has agreed to concurrent
resolutions waiving the provisions of this law to provide that the two
Houses shall not adjourn for more than three days or sine die until
they have adopted a concurrent resolution to that effect.(3)
To obviate the necessity of adoption of such a concurrent resolution
waiving Sec. 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the two
Houses have included language ``in consonance with section 132(a)'' in
its concurrent resolutions providing for adjournments from July until
September.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 1105, 1106 (2007); 2 USC
Sec. 198.
2. Ibid.
3. See Sec. 16.2, infra. See also 145 Cong. Rec. 18763, 106th Cong.
1st Sess., July 30, 1999 (H. Con. 266); 140 Cong. Rec. 18611-
15, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., July 29, 1994 (H. Con. Res. 275); 132
Cong. Rec. 18146, 18147, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., July 30, 1986 (H.
Con. Res. 374); 128 Cong. Rec. 18562, 18563, 97th Cong. 2d
Sess., July 29, 1982 (H. Con. Res. 386); and 120 Cong. Rec.
25008, 93th Cong. 2d Sess., July 24, 1974 (H. Con. Res. 568).
4. See Sec. 16.1, infra. See also Sec. 12.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1970 Act superseded the provisions of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 which required that Congress adjourn sine
die by the end of July each year unless there existed a state of war or
national emergency declared by the President. Presidentially declared
national emergencies of Sept. 8, 1939,(5) May 27,
1941,(6) and Dec 16, 1950,(7) made the July 31
adjournment provision moot.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Presidential Proclamation 2352 (54 Stat. 2643).
6. Presidential Proclamation 2487 (55 Stat. 1647).
7. Presidential Proclamation 2914 (64 Stat. A454).
8. See, e.g., Sec. 16.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement in former Sec. 310(f) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 that sine die adjournment resolutions cannot be considered
until Congress has completed action on the second concurrent resolution
on the budget and on any required reconciliation legislation was
repealed by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 1127 (2007); 2 USC Sec. Sec. 601 et
seq. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
Sec. 16.1 The House by unanimous consent considered a
[[Page 931]]
concurrent resolution of adjournment for its ``August'' recess
rendered unprivileged by Sec. 309 and Sec. 310 of the Budget Act.
On July 27, 2000,(1) the Speaker pro tempore laid before
the House a Senate concurrent resolution providing for adjournment (or
recess) of each House for more than three days, from separate alternate
departure dates, to separate dates certain, subject to joint leadership
recall. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 146 Cong. Rec. 16620, 16621, 106th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE SENATE
AND CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Without objection, the
Chair lays before the House the following Senate concurrent
resolution (S. Con. Res. 132), providing for a conditional
adjournment or recess of the Senate and conditional adjournment of
the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Edward A. Pease (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 132
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, when the Senate
recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, July
27, 2000, Friday, July 28, 2000, or on Saturday, July 29, 2000,
on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by
its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, September 5, 2000, or until
noon on Wednesday, September 6, 2000, or until such time on
either day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his
designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on
the second day after Members are notified to reassemble
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever
occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on the
legislative day of Thursday, July 27, 2000, or Friday, July 28,
2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 6, 2000, or
until noon on the second day after Members are notified to
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House, acting jointly after consultation with the
Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House,
respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.
{time} 1815
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the
concurrent resolution is agreed to.
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, House Resolution
567 is laid on the table.
There was no objection.
[[Page 932]]
Sec. 16.2 By unanimous consent, the House considered and then agreed to
a concurrent resolution providing that notwithstanding the
requirement of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (2 USC
Sec. 198) that the two Houses adjourn sine die by July 31 in an
even-numbered year, the House and Senate not adjourn for more than
three days or sine die until they had adopted a concurrent
resolution to that effect.
On July 25, 1972,(1) the House, by unanimous consent,
took up a concurrent resolution providing that the two Houses would
remain in session beyond the day specified by the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970. The relevant section of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (2 USC Sec. 198) to which the concurrent
resolution addressed itself states that unless otherwise provided by
Congress, the two Houses shall either (a) adjourn sine die by July 31
of each year; or (b) in odd-numbered years, adjourn from the first
Friday in August until the second day after Labor Day pursuant to a
concurrent resolution adopted by roll call vote in each House. The
following proceedings then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 118 Cong. Rec. 25145, 25146, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hale] BOGGS [of Louisiana]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 648) and ask unanimous consent
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as. follows:
H. Con. Res. 648
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 132(a)
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 USC 198), as
amended by Section 461 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970 [Pub. Law 91-510; 84 Stat. 1193], the House of
Representatives and the Senate shall not adjourn for a period
in excess of three days, or adjourn sine die, until both Houses
of Congress have adopted a concurrent resolution providing
either for an adjournment (in excess of three days) to a day
certain, or for adjournment sine die.
The SPEAKER.(2) Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Durward G.] HALL [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object--as I understand the Clerk's reading of this
resolution, and from contact with the distinguished majority leader
just prior to its presentation, this requested approval will for
all intents and purposes obviate the intent of the Joint Commission
on the Reorganization of Congress and indeed the statute evolving
from the Reorganization Act of 1970.
It was the hope of that Commission, which held 3 years of
hearings, and of
[[Page 933]]
the Committee on Rules, which later submitted the bill that became
the Reorganization Act of 1970, that the Congress could obviate the
impasse between the legislative and/or authorizing committees vis-
a-vis the operating or appropriations committees to the place where
we could accomplish our work in a so-called constitutionally
defined short session of any given Congress, and be out of here at
least by the end of July.
I understand the need and the necessity for the House-Senate
concurrent resolution as submitted by the gentleman from Louisiana.
I do not understand why it needs to be open ended as to date.
I wonder if the distinguished majority leader can explain, Mr.
Speaker, why it is until such time as subsequent concurrent action
or joint action sets a date certain, or adjourns for over 3 days.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. I am glad to yield to my friend from Louisiana.
Mr. BOGGS. The gentleman is, of course, correct in his
principal statement that under the terms of the so-called
Reorganization Act passed several years ago, unless some action is
taken, the Congress would be forced to adjourn by July 31. The
gentleman, of course, is well aware of the fact that there are a
number of very important authorization bills, and still a series of
appropriation bills that have not cleared one body or the other.
The idea at this time of attempting to set a date certain for
adjournment is something that is just without the knowledge either
of the Speaker or of the majority leader. We just do not know.
As the gentleman has been informed heretofore, we do not expect
to complete the work of this session prior to the Friday before the
Republican National Convention, which convenes, I believe, on
August 21.
So the best answer I can give the gentleman is we just do not
have a date certain. Until such time as we were in a position to
write a date certain, it would be a vain and useless thing to do so
now.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I
appreciate the gentleman's efforts, and those of the leadership[.]
. . .
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
Mr. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the
right to object, could the House have any assurance, the slightest
assurance, that having returned after Labor Day, following the
Republican Convention, there will be a sine die adjournment of
Congress sometime in September?
Mr. BOGGS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BOGGS. The gentleman knows that the leadership prepared a
schedule of days off for this session and, if the gentleman will
refer to this, he will note that we expressed the hope then that we
would have completed the business of this session by August 18,
which is the Friday before the Republican National Convention.
[[Page 934]]
Now, in truth and in fact, the House has done, in my judgment,
quite well. But we still have the foreign aid bills, the foreign
aid authorization and the foreign aid appropriation, the military
construction appropriation bill, and the defense appropriation.
These are very important matters, particularly the defense
appropriation bill. There is also the Water Quality Act which is
still in conference and there is the debt limit extension and a
housing bill.
I will not seek to enumerate all of them, but there are matters
of importance pending before this body. . . .
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Iowa?
Mr. [Joe D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of Louisiana]. Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, I want to ask my distinguished
colleague from Louisiana if he meant he was taking the position
that as majority leader he was not going to allow this House to
adjourn or this Congress to adjourn sine die until all of the
legislative proposals he recommended had been signed into law.
Mr. BOGGS. No. Not at all. . . .
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
Sec. 16.3 The Speaker responded to parliamentary inquiries as to
whether it was necessary for the Congress to provide for the
continuance of its session beyond July 1949, and whether committees
may sit and act in view of the provisions of Sec. 132 of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, requiring that adjournment
take place the last of July unless otherwise provided by the
Congress.
The Speaker stated that a concurrent resolution to continue the
session beyond July 1949 was not necessary inasmuch as the United
States was still at war and that the national emergencies proclaimed by
the President in 1939 and in 1941 were still in effect.
There was inserted in the Congressional Record opinion and
supporting evidence of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library
of Congress to the effect that a concurrent resolution to continue the
session beyond July 1949 was not necessary because of the current state
of war and the national emergencies proclaimed by the President in 1939
and in 1941.
On July 27, 1949,(1) the Minority Leader posed the
following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 95 Cong. Rec. 10290-93, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 935]]
continuation of sessions beyond july 31, 1949
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin, [Jr., of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER.(2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise to propound an
inquiry to the Speaker and the majority leader.
Three years ago in response to a wide public demand the then
Democratic Congress passed what was known as the reorganization
bill. The purpose of the legislation was to initiate legislative
reforms. The bill was warmly supported by the press, magazines,
labor leaders, business executives, eminent educators, and students
of public affairs. One of the reforms particularly stressed was the
establishment of a fixed date for the adjournment of Congress.
In that bill was a paragraph, which I read:
Sec. 132. Except in time of war in a national emergency
proclaimed by the President, the two Houses shall adjourn sine
die not later than the last day (Sundays excepted) in the month
of July in each year unless otherwise provided by the Congress.
You will note that this is mandatory language, subject only to
emergencies. Unless the House is ready to accept the flimsy excuse
that 4 years after the ending of a shooting war we are still at
war, there are only two other ways we can continue legally to
legislate after August 1. One is through the passage of a
concurrent resolution, and the other the proclaiming by the
President of an emergency. There may be emergencies at this time,
and if so, I would like to have them specified.
As I stated, there has been talk of keeping the Congress in
session on the pretext we are in war. Technically that, of course,
is true, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that will not ring true with
the American people. It is doubtful from the progress we are making
toward the ending of the war that we will ever reach the time when
the war shall be officially ended. Certainly there will never be
peace if we are obliged to get the consent of Russia.
I further submit that to continue without a resolution will
place in jeopardy legislation which we pass after August 1. The
Supreme Court only the other day in the Christoffel case said a
tribunal that is not competent is no tribunal. It might say in this
instance that a Congress sitting without a legal right to sit is
not qualified to enact legislation. Surely we are playing risky and
throwing a ``cloud'' over our work.
Now, as to the war-emergency excuse. The President and the
Congress have both given adequate evidence that they do not believe
there is now an emergency. This has been indicated through the
frequent relaxation of emergency controls.
President Truman, in his message to Congress on February 19,
1947, said:
To the Congress of the United States:
During the year and a half that have elapsed since the
defeat of our last enemy in battle we have progressively
eliminated the great majority of emergency controls over the
Nation's economy. The progress of reconversion now makes it
possible to take an additional step toward freeing our economy
of wartime controls.
[[Page 936]]
Accordingly I am recommending that the Congress repeal
certain temporary statutes still in effect by virtue of the
emergencies proclaimed by the President in 1939 and 1941, and I
have requested the executive departments and agencies to cease
operations under powers derived from certain permanent statutes
that are effective only during emergencies, to the extent that
such operations are related to the 1939 and 1941 emergencies.
Note that he ordered those powers should be suspended which
were effective only during emergencies.
The recommendations I have present for the consideration of
the Congress will, if accepted materially assist in further
freeing the country of war controls and will help make possible
an early ending of the emergencies. I have under continuing
study the question of terminating the emergencies proclaimed in
1939 and 1941, and intend to take action as soon as
circumstances permit.
In my recent message to the Congress on the state of the
Union I outlined the following program with respect to the
termination of emergency and wartime powers:
``Two groups of temporary laws still remain: The first are
those which by congressional mandate are to last during the
`emergency'; the second are those which are to continue until
the `termination of the war.'
``I shall submit to the Congress recommendations for the
repeal of certain of the statutes which by their terms continue
for the duration of the `emergency.' I shall at the same time
recommend that others within this classification be extended
until the state of war has been ended by treaty or by
legislative action. As to those statutes which continue until
the state of war has been terminated, I urge that the Congress
promptly consider each statute individually, and repeal such
emergency legislation where advisable.''
Accordingly, I now submit recommendations with respect to
more than 100 laws which are affected by the limited emergency
declared September 8, 1939, or the unlimited emergency declared
May 27, 1941.
In the case of those statutes that remain in force until
termination of the war, I have directed the executive
departments and agencies to assist the Congress in its
consideration of these statutes, individually, by making
available full information concerning them to the appropriate
congressional committees. The work done on this subject in the
Seventy-ninth Congress by the Committee on the Judiciary of
both Houses, with the assistance of the Office of War
Mobilization and Reconversion, the Department of Justice, and
other Government agencies, should offer valuable aid to the
Congress in accomplishing the task which remains. At a later
date it may prove desirable to send a further communication to
the Congress concerning these statutes.
Emergency laws dealt with in this message fall into five
broad classes: (a) Temporary statutes which are no longer
needed, and which consequently should be repealed forthwith;
(b) permanent statutes under which operations related to the
1939 or 1941 emergencies have been or are being discontinued,
but which should remain for possible use during future
emergencies; (c) statutes appropriating funds, which should,
when the funds are no longer required be handled by rescission
of funds rather than by repeal of the statutes; (d) statutes
which should be temporarily extended by the Congress pending
consideration of permanent legislation or other disposition as
indicated below; (e) statutes which should continue in force
for the period or purpose stipulated.
[[Page 937]]
In appendixes to this message the statutes under reference
are enumerated according to the above classifications.
It will be observed there is no mention of this particular
restriction in Congress adjournment. Furthermore, I am informed
that the committee which framed this resolution in 1946 came very
nearly omitting the reference to emergencies. It was only included
by the House as an extreme precautionary measure. At the time the
reorganization bill was adopted there was no emergency in their
minds, and we are now 3 years later.
On January 1, 1947, the President said:
Although a state of war still exists, it is at this time
possible to declare, and I find it to be in the public interest
to declare, that hostilities are terminated.
Then he went on to talk about the controls that should be
eliminated.
The President on February 19, 1947, sent another message to the
Congress, and he said:
During the year and a half that have elapsed since the
defeat of our last enemy in battle, we have progressively
eliminated the great majority of emergency controls over the
Nation's economy. The progress of reconversion now makes it
possible to take an additional step toward freeing our economy
of wartime controls.
Accordingly, I am recommending that the Congress repeal
certain temporary statutes still in effect by virtue of the
emergencies proclaimed by the President in 1939 and 1941, and I
have requested the executive departments and agencies to cease
operations under powers derived from certain permanent statutes
that are effective only during emergencies, to the extent that
such operations are related to the 1939 and 1941 emergencies.
The recommendations I here present for the consideration of
the Congress will, if accepted, materially assist in further
freeing the country of war controls and will help make possible
an early ending of the emergencies. I have under continuing
study the question of terminating the emergencies proclaimed in
1939 and 1941, and intend to take action as soon as
circumstances permit.
In my recent message to the Congress on the state of the
Union I outlined the following program with respect to the
termination of emergency and wartime powers:
``Two groups of temporary laws still remain: The first are
those which by Congressional mandate are to last during the
`emergency'; the second are those which are to continue until
the `termination of the war'.
``Accordingly, I now submit these recommendations.''
You will note from that the President had progressively ended
war controls because the emergencies were over.
Mr. Speaker, I bring this up, I assure you, not in any partisan
manner; not in any manner except to clarify the situation, that we
may know properly where we stand. I want to remove if possible the
cloud over our legislative acts. I believe that this can only
legally be assured through the adoption of a resolution by both
branches of the Congress. The fact it is so easy for Congress to
continue its session by resolution is sufficient reason that
emergency wartime proposals should not be utilized to keep Congress
in session. If the Congress by any chance was in such a position
that it could not help
[[Page 938]]
itself, there might be some reason to defend the restriction.
Congress is here. Congress could simply pass a resolution extending
it indefinitely or to a given date. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that
not only for today but for the years to come, unless we exercise
common sense and reason we will go on indefinitely being deprived
of one of the essential reforms of the reorganization act because
we are at war.
Mr. Speaker, I submit this question to you with confidence in
your integrity. I do it as a contribution to orderly procedure and
in an effort to clarify a grave doubt.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is prepared to answer the parliamentary
inquiry of the gentleman from Massachusetts. The gentleman from
Massachusetts was kind enough to advise the Chair on last Monday
that he intended to raise this question so that the House might
have an interpretation for its guidance.
Section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
provides:
Sec. 132. Except in time of war or during a national
emergency proclaimed by the President, the two Houses shall
adjourn sine die not later than the last day (Sundays excepted)
in the month of July in each year unless otherwise provided by
the Congress.
It is indisputable that we were on August 2, 1946, the time the
Legislative Reorganization Act was passed, in a state of war, and
that the national emergencies declared by the President on
September 8, 1939, and May 27, 1941, were still in effect. That
same state of affairs continues today. The state of war still
exists, and the national emergencies declared by the President
still exist.
That fact--that the state of war and national emergencies have
continued to exist--has been recognized on numerous occasions.
Following the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act the
President on December 31, 1946, issued his proclamation declaring
the cessation of hostilities of World War II. At that time the
President stated that his proclamation did not effect the
termination of the national emergencies or of the state of war.
The Supreme Court on at least two occasions since the passage
of the Legislative Reorganization Act, and as recently as February
1948, recognized the distinction between the termination of
hostilities and the termination of the war itself.
In Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co. (331 U. S. 111),
decided in 1947, the Supreme Court unanimously upholding the
exercise of authority by the President under title I of the First
War Powers Act of 1941, which the President was authorized to use
only in matters relating to the conduct of the present war, said:
The cessation of hostilities does not necessarily end the
war power.
In Woods v. Miller Co. (333 U. S. 138), decided in 1948, the
Supreme Court again, and once more unanimously, upheld the
constitutionality of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 as a valid
exercise by the Congress of its war powers, saying:
Whatever may be the consequences when war is officially
terminated, the war power does not necessarily end with the
cessation of hostilities.
The Congress itself in enacting Senate Joint Resolution 123,
Eightieth
[[Page 939]]
Congress, a year after the passage of the Legislative
Reorganization Act, recognized the continued existence of the state
of war and of the emergencies.
It will be recalled that Senate Joint Resolution 123, which
became Public Law 239 of the Eightieth Congress, provided that with
respect to a number of specified statutory provisions the war and
the emergencies should be considered terminated. But the central
principle--that the state of war and the national emergencies
continued to exist--was clearly recognized and reinforced.
The Chair is not aware that either the Congress or the
President has taken any step whatever which would have the effect
of terminating World War II as such or the national emergencies as
such. For the foregoing reasons it is clear that section 132 of the
Legislative Reorganization Act has no effect at this time because
in its own words it is not effective ``in time of war or during a
national emergency proclaimed by the President.''
Mr. [Charles A.] HALLECK [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HALLECK. I assume, of course, from the response of the
Speaker that we are to continue with the session after August 1,
with no further action in the way of a resolution by the Congress.
The SPEAKER. That would be the interpretation of the Chair,
that it would not be necessary to pass a concurrent resolution for
the continuance of the Congress beyond the 1st of August.
Mr. HALLECK. Then, Mr. Speaker, since it is apparent that we
are going to go beyond the 1st of August, I wonder if the Speaker
can give us any information as to when we may reasonably expect
that the work of the House of Representatives may be concluded in
order that we may be in a little better position to make our plans
for the rest of the year and, I believe, to make some
determinations as to the legislative program. I understand, that it
may well be that the Speaker is not in any position at this time to
say anything to us about this matter about which I am inquiring,
but I can see around me what I am sure is a lot of interest in the
matter about which I have inquired. I am quite sure that my
colleagues will join with me in expressing the hope that very
shortly we can come to the end of the labors of this session and
get back home.
The SPEAKER. The Chair may say, in response to the inquiry of
the gentleman from Indiana, that anything he may say about the
length of this session would be only the expression of a hope.
Mr. [John E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, if the Supreme Court should decide
that the war has terminated, would that not vitiate every law that
we would pass from now on without passing a resolution?
May I say to the Speaker that I am somewhat alarmed at a recent
decision of the Supreme Court setting aside the conviction of a man
for committing perjury before a committee of the House
[[Page 940]]
on the ground there was not a quorum present. Suppose the Supreme
Court should go off on a similar tangent and decide that the war
has been terminated, would that not vitiate any legislation we
might pass unless we passed a resolution to continue the session,
as the law provides, and would it not be a simple matter to bring
in a resolution extending the regular session as provided by law
and thus eliminate that danger?
The SPEAKER. Of course, the Chair is not in position or not of
a disposition to guess or prognosticate on what the Supreme Court
of the United States will do.
Mr. RANKIN. I would not impose that burden on the Chair, of
course.
The SPEAKER. But if and when that time comes the Congress could
by its own action clear up those things.
Mr. RANKIN. The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, that after we have
legislated for 6 weeks more, and I think we will be here until the
middle of September, if the Supreme Court were to hold that the war
had terminated and that we were sitting without authority, it might
affect every law that we would pass in the next 6 weeks.
The SPEAKER. The Chair would think that the Supreme Court of
the United States reads the Congressional Record.
Mr. [Earl C.] MICHENER [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, we all appreciate that this is a
very vital question, that it is a question of law and in the final
analysis has to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
The Chair has made his ruling and that ruling is binding upon
the House and can only be challenged in the courts.
This question gave me some concern and on yesterday I asked the
American Law Division of the Legislative Reference Service to
prepare a brief for me on the questions involved. That brief was
delivered to me a few minutes ago. I have not had time to
thoroughly digest it. Some of the brief is not in keeping with what
my views were; however, I may possibly be wrong.
Inasmuch as this is a legal proposition to be decided by the
law and the precedents, I think the entire membership of the House
is entitled to the conclusion of this agency which the Congress has
set up in the Library of Congress for the express purpose of
advising the Congress as to what the decisions indicate, as well as
its conclusions.
I therefore ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the
opinion rendered by Mr. Frank B. Horne, American Law Section, of
July 26, be included at this point in the Record.
The SPEAKER. Would the gentleman be willing to have that
inserted in the Appendix of the Record?
Mr. MICHENER. If the Speaker desires, I would be willing, but
inasmuch as this whole question is so vital and should all be
considered together, I believe it should be inserted at this point.
I may say to the Chair that the opinion is not at variance with the
ruling which the Speaker has made, even though it is not in keeping
with my preconceived views.
[[Page 941]]
The cases to which the Speaker has referred are cited as well
as many others. I think it would be for the benefit of all those
interested to have these views at one spot in the Congresssional
Record. Of course, I shall be pleased to abide by whatever the
Speaker says.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I
shall not object, I would like to say to the gentleman from
Michigan, and to the House, that it seems to me that the wise thing
to do is to pass a continuing resolution immediately. I do not
think there would be any particular objection to it, and it would
eliminate the danger of having the laws we pass during the rest of
the session set aside by the Supreme Court.
Mr. MICHENER. There is no question about that. I was on the
Reorganization Committee, and the intent and the purpose was to fix
a final and a definite date which would control the annual sine die
adjournment unless the Congress, in its wisdom, decided otherwise
before the date specified, on the 31st day of July in each year,
arrived. The Speakers ruling holds that we are still at war
technically, that an emergency declared by the President in 1937
and another one declared in 1941 still exists. Therefore, the only
solution, if we want to adjourn, is to pass a resolution of
adjournment, fixing the date. That will remove all doubt.
The SPEAKER. As to the request of the gentleman from Michigan,
of course, the gentleman from Michigan knows that the Chair has no
more respect for any other Member of the House than he has for him,
but the Chair would prefer, if the gentleman does not object, that
the matter he speaks of be extended in the Appendix of the Record.
Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, in view of what I
said, that if it is not objectionable, that the decision be
inserted immediately preceding the ruling of the Chair? It is not
at variance with the ruling; it is amplifying.
The SPEAKER. The Chair, of course, would not object to that
himself.
Mr. [Clare E.] HOFFMAN of Michigan. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. But the Chair thinks that that would hardly be the
place for it to go.
Mr. [John M.] VORYS [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VORYS. The Chair has given an expression of his views, but
is this not the case, that the only way in which the Chair could
rule on the point would be if a point of order were made after July
31 to some action of the House on the ground that the House is not
in session? The Chair cannot rule in advance.
The SPEAKER. The Chair assumes that the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Martin] made his parliamentary inquiry today in
order to obviate a thing like that.
The proceedings continued in the House on Aug. 1,
1949:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 95 Cong. Rec. 10486, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 12 o'clock noon.
The Acting Chaplain, Rev. James P. Wesberry, LL. D., offered
the . . . prayer[.]. . .
[[Page 942]]
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
House is not legally in session. I make it at this time because I
am quite sure that the point should be made before the Journal is
read.
I make the point of order for the reason that under the
Reorganization Act recently passed by the Congress which is now the
law of the land, it is provided that Congress shall adjourn on the
last day of July unless the Nation is at war, or there is a
national emergency proclaimed by the President, or unless the
Congress determines otherwise.
The Congress has not determined otherwise. No action has been
taken by the Congress in line with the provisions of the
Reorganization Act. I insist, Mr. Speaker, that there is no such
state of war existing, and there is no such national emergency
declared by the President existing as contemplated by the
Reorganization Act, which would avoid the necessity of the Congress
acting affirmatively as provided in the act if we are to be legally
in session.
Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, familiar with the Speaker's
response of last week to the inquiry addressed to the Chair by the
minority leader, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Martin].
Being so convinced, however, that there should be no cloud whatever
upon the legality of the action of the Congress that may hereafter
be taken, and because I am convinced that the only way to remove
any threat to such legality is for the Congress to act
affirmatively, I am constrained at this time to raise the point of
order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is prepared to rule.
In response to the parliamentary inquiry propounded by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Martin] on last July 27, the
Chair stated what the Chair thought and still thinks is the law:
that the Congress is legally in session. The Chair therefore
overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. [Ralph E.] CHURCH [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Speaker, I make a further point of order. This
goes beyond what the Speaker has ruled with reference to the point
of order just made by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Halleck].
First, let me say that there is nothing to prevent the President
from calling a special session today, or any day, to begin
immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the House is not
legally in session, that when the House adjourned last Thursday and
the Senate adjourned last Friday the adjournment constituted a sine
die adjournment pursuant to section 132 of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact, not merely that Congress has
not by concurrent resolution adjourned, but in addition thereto,
that the President has not yet called us today or on tomorrow into
special session, I raise this further point of order and insist on
my objection with respect to every measure before the Congress.
[[Page 943]]
While the Speaker has ruled that no formal action is necessary
to prevent a sine die adjournment as provided by section 132 of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, there is nonetheless some
doubt as to the validity of our proceedings. The ruling of the
Speaker can be challenged in the courts should occasion arise where
any of the measures we pass should be challenged.
In order to remove all possible doubt as to the validity of our
proceedings after the last day of July, I had hoped that the
leadership would bring in a formal resolution. Such action not
having been taken, I believe that the President should call a
special session. He should do this in order to give formal legal
status to our proceedings. He should do this in order that the
question may never arise at some future date as to the validity
under our Constitution of what we may attempt to do in the coming
days that it is proposed we continue in session.
I repeat that there is nothing to prevent the President from
calling a special session today to begin immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I do this with a view to certainty and for the
dignity of this Congress. The people who sent us here, expect the
Congress to legislate, and not a President and not a Speaker. I do
this in all seriousness in order that the President may, before the
day is over, instanter, now, call us in special session.
I make that point of order.
The SPEAKER. In response to the point of order, the Chair has
already held that the Congress is legally assembled and in session;
therefore, there is no reason for the President to call a special
session of the Congress at this time.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
On Aug. 2, 1949,(4) Rep. Church raised the following
point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Id. at p. 10591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
legality of session of congress
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
House is not legally in session, and again cite section 132 of the
Reorganization Act passed by the Congress. Today, Mr. Speaker, the
situation is different in one particular from the situation on
yesterday, when the two points of order were raised by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Halleck] and myself.
Mr. Speaker, section 132 reads as follows:
congressional adjournment
Sec. 132. Except in time of war or during a national
emergency proclaimed by the President, the two Houses shall
adjourn sine die not later than the last day (Sundays excepted)
in the month of July in each year unless otherwise provided by
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I emphasize the words in parenthesis ``Sundays
excepted.'' If through any interpretation the words ``Sundays
excepted'' give legality to the session of yesterday, then, Mr.
Speaker, that interpretation could not carry
[[Page 944]]
that legality to include today. Therefore, I renew my point of
order that the House is not legally in session, for the reasons
stated by the gentleman from Massachusetts last July 27 and by the
gentleman from Indiana and me on yesterday, and in addition for the
reason that I have just stated, namely, that the words ``Sundays
excepted'' cannot carry a legal session into today. Mr. Speaker,
the President can instanter call a ``special session'' to meet
immediately, and thereby remove the doubt as to the legality of the
future proceedings of the Congress.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair makes the statement again that on July 27, in
response to the parliamentary inquiry propounded by the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Martin], the Chair held, and he so holds
today, that the Congress is in session.
The point of order is overruled.
On Aug. 4, 1949,(5) Mr. John E. Lyle, Jr., of Texas,
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution
310, providing for the consideration of H. R. 1758, a bill to amend the
Natural Gas Act approved June 21, 1938, as amended, and asked for its
immediate consideration. The following point of order was then made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Id. at pp. 10777, 10778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] HESELTON [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, a point
of order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
House is not legally in session.
I recognize that this matter has been raised in a general sense
on at least two occasions. I do not wish to burden the Speaker, the
membership or the record with repetition. Therefore, I would like
to recognize and incorporate by references the parliamentary
inquiry of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Martin] on July
27, the further parliamentary inquiries of the gentlemen from
Indiana [Mr. Halleck], from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin], from Michigan
[Mr. Michener], and from Ohio [Mr. Vorys], as well as the several
rulings of the Speaker; also the points of order of August 1 by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Halleck], and the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Church], as well as the rulings of the Speaker on
those occasions.
My reason for making this point of order at this time is more
specific. I have been advised upon what I believe to be reliable
authority that if H. R. 1758, the resolution we will now consider,
is enacted into law, with or without the proposed amendments, its
legality will be challenged. Obviously, this might have a far-
reaching effect not only upon the industry concerned but upon the
entire problem of developing an effective fuel policy involving our
energy resources.
In view of this possibility, it would seem to me that I would
be derelict in my obligations as a Member of this body if I did not
raise the point of order in terms of the consideration of this
specific legislation.
Moreover, another problem is involved by reason of the recent
decision
[[Page 945]]
of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Christoffel case.
It seems to me that it is the primary responsibility of proponents
of H. R. 1758, particularly during the reading of the bill for
amendment, to establish affirmatively at all times that a quorum is
present and voting. However, I do not think that this is of major
importance in terms of the point of order which I have raised and
wish to submit to the Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will repeat, as he will repeatedly
repeat when questions of this kind are raised, that on July 27, in
answer to a parliamentary inquiry by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Martin] the Chair ruled that the House is
legally in session, committees may legally meet, and may legally
report bills.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
On Aug. 5, 1949,(6) Mr. Heselton was recognized for the
following parliamentary inquiry in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Id. at p. 10858.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, when the resolution
reporting the rule was before the House, I made the point of order
that the House was not legally in session, which point of order was
overruled. I have been advised that in order to properly present
the matter in terms of the consideration of this bill, now that we
have it at the point where it is being read for amendment, I should
renew the point of order.
I would like to inquire whether that is in order or whether it
should be submitted at the conclusion of the reading of the bill
and when it is reported back to the House?
The CHAIRMAN.(7) The point raised by the gentleman
from Massachusetts is not for the Committee of the Whole to pass
on. If he will reserve the point of order, it should be propounded
in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Brooks Hays (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 945-948]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
C. Adjournment Sine Die
Sec. 17. Procedure and Business at Adjournment
The House customarily authorizes the Speaker to appoint a committee
to notify the President of the completion of business and the intention
of the two Houses to adjourn sine die unless the President has some
further communication to make.(1) This authority is provided
by a simple resolution called up as privileged following adoption of
the concurrent resolution to adjourn sine die. The committee is usually
composed of the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House and joins a
similar committee from the Senate if appointed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 17.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between the adoption of a sine die concurrent resolution and the
actual sine die adjournment of the House by motion, the House
customarily gives permission to facilitate the conduct of some items of
[[Page 946]]
business during adjournment and, at the end of the second session, the
preparation of necessary documents for the next Congress. Once
customary concurrent resolutions or separate unanimous-consent requests
to permit the receipt of messages between the Houses and enrollments to
be signed after adjournment have been superseded by changes in the
standing rules at the beginning of the 97th Congress in 1981 which
permit the Speaker or the Speaker pro tempore and the Clerk to
accomplish these responsibilities.(2) Unanimous-consent
requests or resolutions for printing the House Rules and Manual for the
next Congress,(3) for the acceptance of resignations and for
appointments to commissions and committees,(4) and for
insertions in the Congressional Record by chairmen and ranking minority
Members of standing committees(5) and by Members on matters
occurring prior to sine die adjournment, are necessary prior to sine
die adjournment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Rule I clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 624-626 (2007);
and Rule II clause 2(h) House Rules and Manual Sec. 652 (2007).
See Sec. 18.1, infra.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to adjourn sine die is in order notwithstanding the
absence of a quorum if both Houses have adopted a concurrent resolution
providing sine die adjournment on the date.(6) The yeas and
nays may be ordered on this motion.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 14.2, supra.
7. See Sec. 6.2, supra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appointment of House Committee
Sec. 17.1 By privileged resolution the House authorized the Speaker to
appoint a committee to notify the President of the completion of
business and the intention of the two Houses to adjourn sine die
unless the President has some further communication to make.
On Sept. 1, 1960,(1) a committee was appointed to notify
the President of an impending adjournment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 106 Cong. Rec. 19128, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER.(2) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a preferential resolution (H. Res. 643).
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page 947]]
Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by the
House to join a similar committee appointed by the Senate, to wait
upon the President of the United States and inform him that the two
Houses have completed their business of the session and are ready
to adjourn, unless the President has some other communication to
make to them.
The resolution was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] and the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr.
Halleck] to wait on the President.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See also 118 Cong. Rec. 37051, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 18, 1972
(H. Res. 1169); 117 Cong. Rec. 47668, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec.
17, 1971 (H. Res. 756); and 112 Cong. Rec. 28881, 89th Cong. 2d
Sess., Oct. 22, 1966 (H. Res. 1074).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Such a resolution is privileged after a
sine die resolution has been adopted, since it is considered to be a
formality integral to concluding the business of the House.
Report of Committee to Notify the President
Sec. 17.2 The committee appointed by the Speaker to notify the
President of the impending adjournment of the two Houses reported
that it had so informed the President and that the President had no
further communication to make.
On Sept. 26, 1961,(1) the following report was made in
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 107 Cong. Rec. 21528, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. (S. Con. Res. 55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, your committee
appointed to join a committee of the Senate to inform the President
that the Congress is ready to adjourn, and to ask him if he has any
further communications to make to the Congress, has performed that
duty. The President has directed us to say that he has no further
communication to make to the Congress.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See also 118 Cong. Rec. 37065, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 18, 1972;
and 111 Cong. Rec. 28563, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 22, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In General
Sec. 17.3 On motion of the designee of the Majority Leader pursuant to
Sec. 3 of House Concurrent Resolution 353, the House (for the
second time) adjourned the second session of the 105th Congress.
On Dec. 19, 1998,(1) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 144 Cong. Rec. 28113, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [B. H.] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 3 of House Concurrent Resolution 353, and as the designee
for the Majority Leader, I move that the House do now adjourn.
[[Page 948]]
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) In accordance with the
provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 353, the Chair declares
the second session of the 105th Congress adjourned sine die.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ray H. LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thereupon (at 2 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.), pursuant to
section 3 of House Concurrent Resolution 353, the House adjourned.
Printing of House Rules and Manual
Sec. 17.4 The House by unanimous consent agreed to a resolution
providing for printing of revised House Rules and Manual for 108th
Congress (3000 additional copies, 900 leatherbound with thumb
index).
On Nov. 14, 2002,(1) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 148 Cong. Rec. 22599, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR PRINTING AND BINDING OF REVISED EDITION OF RULES
AND MANUAL OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. [Richard] ARMEY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 614) and ask unanimous consent for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 614
Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the
House of Representatives for the One Hundred Eighth Congress be
printed as a House document, and that three thousand additional
copies shall be printed and bound for the use of the House of
Representatives, of which nine hundred copies shall be bound in
leather with thumb index and delivered as may be directed by the
Parliamentarian of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Michael Simpson (ID).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[Page 948-954]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
C. Adjournment Sine Die
Sec. 18. Business Subsequent to
Certain administrative items of business are authorized to be
undertaken as described in Sec. 17, supra. Standing rules do not permit
committees to file legislative reports, other than oversight,
investigative, or biannual activities reports(1) following
sine die adjournment without specific permission of the House. Standing
rules do permit all committees to sit and act whether or not the House
has adjourned,(2) up to the
[[Page 949]]
constitutional end of term at noon on Jan. 3 of an odd-numbered year.
Proceedings of the House subsequent to sine die adjournment of a
Congress, including signing of enrollments and receipt of messages, are
printed in a separate portion of the Congressional Record during the
sine die period, or if there is no separate edition, in a separate
portion of the next printed Congressional Record.(3) Of
course, business conducted during adjournments to a day certain,
including the receipt of messages, signing of enrollments, and
appointments is shown in the Congressional Record of the day the House
reconvenes.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule XI clauses 1(b)(4) and 1(d)(4), House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 788, 790 (2007). See Sec. 18.7, infra.
2. Rule XI clause 2(m)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 805 (2007).
3. See, e.g., 148 Cong. Rec. 23555-59, 107th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 16,
2002.
4. For a discussion of the effect of a sine die adjournment or an
adjournment to a day certain on the authority of the President
to ``pocket veto'' a measure, see Ch. 24, Sec. 18,
supra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making Appointments and Accepting Resignations
Sec. 18.1 The House by unanimous consent authorized the Speaker and
Minority Leader to accept resignations and make appointments to
commissions, boards, and committees following adjournment sine die
as authorized by law or by the House.
On Nov. 14, 2002,(1) the House by unanimous consent also
provided that the chairman and ranking minority Member of each standing
committee and subcommittee may extend remarks in the Congressional
Record and include summary of work of committee or subcommittee. The
House by unanimous consent authorized all Members until the publication
of the last edition of the Congressional Record to revise and extend
their remarks and include brief extraneous material on any matter
occurring before adjournment sine die.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 148 Cong. Rec. 22600 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZING SPEAKER, MAJORITY LEADER, AND MINORITY LEADER TO
ACCEPT RESIGNATIONS AND TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS AUTHORIZED BY LAW
OR BY THE HOUSE NOT WITHSTANDING SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Richard] ARMEY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the second session
of the 107th Congress, the Speaker, the majority leader, and the
minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make
appointments authorized by law or by the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Michael Simpson (ID).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
[[Page 950]]
AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF EACH
STANDING COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE TO EXTEND REMARKS IN RECORD
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
chairman and ranking minority member of each standing committee and
each subcommittee be permitted to extend their remarks in the
Record, up to and including the Record's last publication, and to
include a summary of the work of that committee or subcommittee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Texas?
There was no
objection. -------------------
GRANTING MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE PRIVILEGE TO REVISE AND EXTEND
REMARKS IN CONGRESSIONAL RECORD UNTIL LAST EDITION IS PUBLISHED
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members
may have until publication of the last edition of the Congressional
Record authorized for the second session of the 107th Congress by
the Joint Committee on Printing to revise and extend their remarks
and to include brief, related extraneous material on any matter
occurring before the adjournment of the second session sine die.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Sec. 18.2 By unanimous consent, the Speaker was authorized to accept
resignations and to appoint commissions, boards, and committees
authorized by law, notwithstanding adjournment sine die.
On Dec. 17, 1971,(1) the following transpired in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 117 Cong. Rec. 47676, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hale] BOGGS [of Louisiana]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the first session
of the 92d Congress, the Speaker be authorized to accept
resignations, and to appoint commissions, boards, and committees
authorized by law or by the House.
The SPEAKER.(2) Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 43292, 43293, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 21,
1973; and 118 Cong. Rec. 37062, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 18,
1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signing Bills and Resolutions
Sec. 18.3 Prior to standing rules changes in 1981 authorizing such
procedure considered by unanimous consent, the Speaker of the House
and the President of the Senate were authorized by unanimous
consent to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions,
notwithstanding adjournment sine die.
[[Page 951]]
On Sept. 12, 1959,(1) preceding the sine die adjournment
of Congress, a concurrent resolution was worded so as to include both
the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate in the
authorization to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 105 Cong. Rec. 19365, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a House concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
House Concurrent Resolution 439
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That notwithstanding the sine die adjournment of the
two Houses, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate be, and they are hereby, authorized to sign
enrolled bills and joint resolutions duly passed by the two Houses
and found truly enrolled.
The SPEAKER.(2) Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The House concurrent resolution was agreed to, and a motion to
reconsider was laid on the table.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 19132, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1960
(calendar day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on Aug. 30, 1957,(4) the following transpired
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 103 Cong. Rec. 16759, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I offer a House concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 230) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That notwithstanding the sine die adjournment of
the two Houses, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the President of the Senate be, and they are hereby, authorized
to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions duly passed by the
two Houses and found truly enrolled.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: Standing rules were amended in the 97th
Congress to obviate the need for these unanimous-consent
requests.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Rule I clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 624 (2007); Rule II
clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 652 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 18.4 By unanimous consent, the Clerk may be authorized to receive
messages from the Senate, and the Speaker authorized to sign
enrollments notwithstanding an adjournment sine die.
On Dec. 17, 1971,(1) the following authorizations were
made in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 117 Cong. Rec. 47676, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hale] BOGGS [of Louisiana]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent
[[Page 952]]
that notwithstanding the sine die adjournment of the House, the
Clerk be authorized to receive messages from the Senate and that
the Speaker be authorized to sign any enrolled bills and joint
resolutions duly passed by the two Houses and found truly enrolled.
The SPEAKER.(2) Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Receiving Messages From the Senate
Sec. 18.5 The Clerk of the House may be authorized by unanimous consent
to receive messages from the Senate during an adjournment from
Friday to Monday, but such authorization does not mandate that the
House adjourn during that period.
On Dec. 13, 1963,(1) as the House prepared to adjourn
from Friday to Monday, unanimous consent was granted for the Clerk to
receive messages from the Senate and for the Speaker to sign enrolled
bills and joint resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 109 Cong. Rec. 24553, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. (Carl) ALBERT (of Oklahoma). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until
Monday next the Clerk may be authorized to receive messages from
the Senate and the Speaker may be authorized to sign any enrolled
bills and joint resolutions duly passed by the two Houses and found
truly enrolled.
The SPEAKER.(2) Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. (Durward G.) HALL (of Missouri). Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the distinguished majority leader if
this request implies that the House is going to adjourn over until
Monday next, thereby missing tomorrow, Saturday?
Mr. ALBERT. It implies that a request will be made later for
that purpose.
Mr. HALL. But it is not inherent in this request?
Mr. ALBERT. This does not bind the House not to meet tomorrow,
no.
Mr. HALL. Then I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Comptroller General Reports
Sec. 18.6 A resolution authorized the printing of reports of the
Comptroller General to be received following the adjournment sine
die as documents of the second session of the 90th Congress.
On Oct. 14, 1968,(1) the authorization for printing
Comptroller
[[Page 953]]
General reports during adjournment was provided by resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 114 Cong. Rec. 31313, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. (Carl) ALBERT (of Oklahoma). Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 1323) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1323
Resolved, That notwithstanding the sine die adjournment of the
House, reports of the Comptroller General of the United States made
to the Congress pursuant to the Government Corporation Control Act
(31 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) shall be printed during such adjournment as
House documents of the second session of the Ninetieth Congress.
The resolution was agreed.
The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
At the close of the second session of the 80th
Congress,(2) a resolution authorized the Comptroller General
reports to be printed during adjournment sine die, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 94 Cong. Rec. 9348, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 19, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. (Charles A.) HALLECK (of Indiana). Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 700) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That the reports (if the Comptroller General of
the United States made to Congress, pursuant to section 5 of
the act of February 24, 1945 (56 Stat. 6), and the Government
Corporation Control Act (59 Stat. 597), after the adjournment
of the House until December 31, 1948, shall be printed as House
documents of the second session of the Eightieth Congress.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: This permission for printing of Comptroller
General reports is no longer necessary, as such reports are processed
as executive communications.
Investigative Reports
Sec. 18.7 Committees authorized to conduct investigations were
permitted by unanimous consent to file investigative reports with
the Clerk and have them printed, notwithstanding adjournment sine
die.
On the legislative day of Aug. 31, 1960,(1) the
following took place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 106 Cong. Rec. 19132, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1960 (calendar
day). See also 88 Cong. Rec. 9602, 77th Cong. 24 Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCORMACK [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that reports filed with the Clerk following the
sine die adjournment by committees authorized by the House to
conduct investigations may be printed by the Clerk as reports of
the 86th Congress.
[[Page 954]]
The SPEAKER.(2) Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 25555, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 24, 1963;
and 107 Cong. Rec. 21529, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1961
(calendar day).
Parliamentarian's Note: Beginning with the 105th Congress,
the standing rules were amended to give all committees
authority to file investigative reports with the Clerk
following sine die adjournment. See Rule XI clause 1(b)(4),
House Rules and Manual Sec. 788 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 30, 1957,(4) permission was granted for certain
investigative reports to be filed during an adjournment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 103 Cong. Rec. 16759, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 104 Cong. Rec.
19699, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 23, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
reports filed with the Clerk following the sine die adjournment by
committees authorized by the House to conduct investigations, may
be printed by the Clerk as reports of the 85th Congress.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
DESCHLER-BROWN-JOHNSON PRECEDENTS
Ch. 40
[[Page 955]]
[Page 955-966]
CHAPTER 40
Adjournment
C. Adjournment Sine Die
Sec. INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
Amendment to concurrent resolution, see, e.g., Concurrent resolution
providing for adjournment for more than three days to date certain
Amendment to motion to adjourn, see Motion for adjournment of three
days or less
August recess, see Concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of
more than three days to date certain; see also Legislative
Reorganization Act, provisions of, relating to adjournment or
August recess
Budget Act, provisions of, as affecting consideration of concurrent
resolution, see, e.g., Concurrent resolution providing for
adjournment for more than three days to date certain
Business during adjournment, authorization to transact, under current
and former practice
appointment of commissions, boards, and committees, Sec. Sec. 18.1,
18.2
Comptroller General, printing of reports of, Sec. 18.6
House Rules and Manual, printing of, Sec. 17.4
investigative reports, filing and printing of, Sec. 18.7
mandate to adjourn, authorization was not, Sec. 18.4
messages from Senate, receipt of, Sec. Sec. 18.4, 18.5
Record, extension of remarks in, Sec. 18.1
Senate, receipt of messages from, Sec. Sec. 18.4, 18.5
signing enrolled bills and resolutions, Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.3, 18.4
Committee of the Whole, motion to adjourn not in order in, Sec. 4.1
Concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of more than three days
to date certain
agreed to by both Houses, concurrent resolution not operative
until, Sec. 11.13
alternative dates certain permitted by concurrent resolution,
Sec. Sec. 10.2, 10.3, 10.6
alternative departure dates, see, e.g., Sec. Sec. 10.5-10.7, 13.5
alternative to date certain, concurrent resolution permitted joint
leadership recall as, Sec. Sec. 10.2, 10.5, 10.6
amendment, concurrent resolution as subject to, if previous
question has not been ordered, Sec. 11.2
amendment in House to permit House to reconvene later than Senate,
Sec. 10.4
amendment, Senate, disposed of in House by privileged motion
requiring quorum for adoption, Sec. 11.13
amendment, Senate, provided that upon disposition by Senate of
designated bill it would stand in recess until date certain to
which House was to adjourn, Sec. 10.9
amendment, Senate, to House concurrent resolution added Senate
adjournment dates and provisions as to recall authority,
Sec. 13.7
amendment to concurrent resolution is not debatable, Sec. 11.11
amendment to concurrent resolution was proposed in motion to commit
with instructions, Sec. 11.2
amendment to Senate concurrent resolution to provide for
adjournment of House to same date, Sec. 11.6
amendments, privileged, by Senate provided for recess on motion of
majority leader made on one of four designated days, Sec. 10.7
[[Page 956]]
August recess adjournment of House and different period of
adjournment of Senate, concurrent resolution provided for,
Sec. 10.6
August recess, simple motion to adjourn from day to day in order in
absence of concurrent resolution providing for, Sec. 12.3
August recess subject to recall authority, concurrent resolution
providing for, as not debatable, Sec. 12.2
August recess subject to recall authority, Senate concurrent
resolution providing in odd-numbered year for, required yea and
nay vote, Sec. Sec. 12.1, 12.2, 12.5
Budget Act provisions requiring passage of general appropriations
bills prior to adjournment, concurrent resolution was
considered pursuant to special order where House had not
complied with, Sec. 13.5
Budget Act provisions requiring passage of general appropriations
bills prior to adjournment, effect of, on privilege of
concurrent resolution, Sec. Sec. 11.1, 11.7, 13.5
Budget Act provisions requiring passage of general appropriations
bills prior to adjournment, waiver of, by unanimous-consent
agreement to consider concurrent resolution, Sec. 11.1
condition was added by Senate amendment that designated legislative
action be completed prior to adjournment, Sec. 10.9
contingent adjournment for three days, unanimous-consent agreement
permitting, in event Senate failed to act on concurrent
resolution, Sec. 9.2
contingent upon Senate completion of designated legislative action,
adjournment was made, Sec. 10.9
debatable, amendment to concurrent resolution is not, Sec. 11.9
debatable, not, Sec. Sec. 11.3, 11.8, 11.9, 11.11
determined by House, effect of provision permitting House to
adjourn to day certain or to a prior day to be, Sec. 10.3
differing periods of adjournment for House and Senate,
Sec. Sec. 10.1-10.7, 13.1, 13.11, 13.13
House, Speaker was authorized to recall, Sec. 13.1
July adjournment, concurrent resolution provided for, Sec. 11.7
July 31, procedures under which Houses may remain in session
beyond, notwithstanding provisions of Legislative
Reorganization Act, Sec. Sec. 6.2, 12.1, 12.3, 12.4
Legislative Reorganization Act, applicable provisions of, see,
e.g., ``August recess'' topics above; and see Legislative
Reorganization Act, provisions of, relating to adjournment or
August recess
motion pursuant to, required quorum where concurrent resolution
permitted adjournment to date certain ``as determined by the
House,'' Sec. 10.3
motion setting different time of convening for House was permitted
by concurrent resolution, Sec. 10.3
nonprivileged, concurrent resolution containing provisions relating
to conduct of business upon reconvening was, Sec. 14.13
one-minute rule, debate under, was allowed to proceed by unanimous
consent during consideration of concurrent resolution,
Sec. Sec. 11.8, 11.9
[[Page 957]]
parliamentary inquiry may be entertained pending adoption of
concurrent resolution, Sec. 11.3
place of reassembly, alternate, authority given to leadership in
certain circumstances to designate, see Place of meeting,
different, adjournment to reassembly at
privileged, concurrent resolution offered as, may be withdrawn
prior to action thereon, Sec. 11.10
privileged, House concurrent resolution with Senate amendments is
laid before House by Speaker as, Sec. Sec. 11.4, 11.5
privileged, not, concurrent resolution containing nonprivileged
provisions relating to the conduct of business upon reconvening
as, Sec. 14.13
privilege of, see, e.g., Sec. Sec. 10.1 et seq., 13.1
privilege of, as affected by Budget Act provisions requiring
passage of general appropriations bills prior to adjournment,
Sec. Sec. 11.1, 11.7, 13.5
provides for a different time, Senate concurrent resolution was
amended to, Sec. 10.10
quorum required for adoption of motion to concur in Senate
amendment, Sec. 11.13
quorum requirements, Sec. 11.13
recall authority, designees authorized to exercise, in specified
circumstances, Sec. 13.5
recall authority, exercised by Senate Majority Leader, Sec. 13.12
recall authority, modification of role of minority in exercise of,
Sec. 12.5
recall authority, role of minority in exercise of, under former
practice, Sec. Sec. 12.5, 13.3, 13.4, 13.7
recall by joint leadership permitted as alternative to reconvening
on specified date, see, e.g., Sec. Sec. 10.2, 10.5, 10.6, 11.1,
13.2, 14.13
recall of House by Speaker, concurrent resolution provided for,
Sec. 13.1
recommit with instructions, concurrent resolution as subject to
motion to, Sec. 11.2
reconvening of Senate, at earlier date, Sec. 13.8
Senate agreeing to House concurrent resolution, enabling recall
authority, Sec. 13.9
Senate amendments, House concurrent resolution with, laid before
House by Speaker as privileged, Sec. Sec. 11.4, 11.5
Senate amendment, withdrawal of, where no action has been taken,
Sec. 11.14
Senate fixing time to which it would adjourn, Sec. 13.10
separate days certain, Senate and House permitted to adjourn from
and to, Sec. Sec. 10.2, 10.5, 10.6
sine die adjournment, pending, concurrent resolution permitting
Senate to adjourn for periods in excess of three days as it may
determine, Sec. 10.1
unanimous consent, concurrent resolution called up by, where
nonprivileged, Sec. 14.13
unanimous consent, consideration by, of concurrent resolution
providing that Houses not adjourn until adoption of subsequent
concurrent resolution notwithstanding requirements under
Legislative Reorganization Act, Sec. 12.4
withdrawal of concurrent resolution prior to action thereon,
Sec. 11.10
[[Page 958]]
yea and nay vote not required in even-numbered year for concurrent
resolution providing for August recess, Sec. 13.5
yea and nay vote required for concurrent resolution providing in
odd-numbered year for August recess, Sec. Sec. 12.2, 12.5, 12.6
Concurrent resolution providing for adjournment sine die
alternate departure dates for Houses, Sec. 15.1
amendment in form of concurrent resolution is not germane to simple
motion to adjourn, Sec. 3.1
Budget Act, noncompliance with terms of, as affecting privilege of
resolution, Sec. 13.5
Budget Act provisions, repeal of, that prohibited consideration of
sine die adjournment resolutions until Congress completed
action on second concurrent resolution on budget and
reconciliation legislation, Sec. 16 (introduction)
conditional motion to adjourn pending House adoption of concurrent
resolution, Sec. 15.5
consent of House for subsequent adjournment of Senate and for
Senate adjournments in excess of three days, House concurred in
Senate amendment to give, Sec. 14.8
Constitutional expiration of session, effect of, see Sine die
adjournment
date certain in next session, adjournment to, provision in
concurrent resolution for, Sec. 14.13
date of adjournment, House amendment changing, Sec. 14.10
date of adjournment, Senate amendment changing, Sec. Sec. 14.5,
14.6
date of adjournment set in earlier resolution was changed after
President called Congress back into session, Sec. 14.7
debatable, not, Sec. Sec. 14.9, 14.10
debatable, resolution appointing committee to notify President of
impending adjournment is, Sec. 14.10
debate on resolution has been permitted where no point of order was
raised, Sec. 14.10
declaration of position of Congress regarding exercise of pocket
veto was included in resolution, Sec. Sec. 15.4, 15.8
departure dates, different, for Houses, Sec. 15.1
designee of Majority Leader, motion to adjourn was made by,
Sec. 17.3
designees named to exercise recall authority in certain instances,
Sec. 15.12
place of reassembly, alternate, authority given to leadership in
certain circumstances to designate, see Place of meeting,
different, adjournment to or reassembly at
privileged, called up as, Sec. 14.1 et seq.
privileged concurrent resolution containing declaration of Congress
regarding assertion of pocket veto power, Sec. Sec. 15.4, 15.8
privileged, resolution was not, where terms of Budget Act not met,
Sec. 13.5
privileged Senate concurrent resolution providing for sine die
adjournment of both Houses on October 1 was laid before House,
Sec. 15.9
privilege, inclusion of nonprivileged matter concerning conduct of
business, as destroying Sec. Sec. 14.13, 14.14
quorum required for adoption, Sec. 14.2
recall authority, concurrent resolution provided, for joint
leadership, Sec. 15.1
[[Page 959]]
recall authority, continuation of session rather than new session
after exercise of, Sec. 15.2
recall authority, designees named to exercise, in certain
instances, Sec. 15.12
recall authority, form of concurrent resolution providing for,
Sec. 15.3
recall authority, notice issued by Speaker in exercise of,
Sec. 15.2
recall authority, reassembly of one House under, provision for,
Sec. 15.3
recall authority, Senate amendment conferring, on leadership,
Sec. Sec. 15.10, 15.11
recall authority was conferred in concurrent resolution adjourning
second session, Sec. Sec. 15.6, 15.7, 15.10
recognition of Member under reservation of objection to unanimous
consent request that resolution be agreed to, Sec. 14.9
rejection, identical resolution may be offered after, where there
has been intervening business, Sec. 14.4
rejection of, and subsequent adoption of another concurrent
resolution, Sec. 15.10
rejection of resolution, Sec. 14.3
Senate, conditional motion to adjourn, pending House adoption of
concurrent resolution, Sec. 15.5
separate alternate departure dates to separate dates certain,
resolution providing for, considered by unanimous consent where
terms of Budget Act not met, Sec. 16.1
televised Presidential debates, debate about failure to complete
action on bill permitting, Sec. 14.10
yeas and nays, demand for, allowed on motion to adjourn on day set
by concurrent resolution for sine die adjournment, Sec. 6.2
Constitutional requirement that regular session of Congress begin at
noon on January 3, Speaker declared House adjourned sine die
without motion due to, Sec. Sec. 14.11, 14.12
Contingent adjournment pending Senate action, see, e.g., Concurrent
resolution providing for adjournment for more than three days to
date certain
Day and time to which House shall adjourn, motion fixing
concurrent resolution, motion as permitted by, setting day and hour
different from that in standing order on time of convening,
Sec. 10.3
constitutional term of Congress, motion to adjourn to date beyond,
not in order, Sec. 3.27
legislative day, new, resulting from adjournment and reconvening at
time certain on same calendar day was for purpose of avoiding
two-thirds vote requirement for special rule, Sec. 9.3
precedence of, over pending question on which vote has been
objected to for lack of quorum, Sec. 5.2
privilege, equal in, to simple motion to adjourn, Sec. 5.3
quorum required for adoption, Sec. 9.5
same calendar day, motion may provide for adjournment to time
certain later on, Sec. Sec. 5.2, 9.3
same legislative day as that on which adjournment takes effect,
motion must be offered on, Sec. 9.4
Sunday, unanimous consent to allow session on, as permitting
subsequent motion to adjourn from Saturday to Sunday (see also
Sunday, session permitted on), Sec. 9.10
term of Congress, constitutional, motion not in order which sought
to adjourn to date beyond, Sec. 3.27
[[Page 960]]
Debate on motion to adjourn, see Motion for adjournment of three days
or less, infra
Dilatory, point of order that motion is
intervening business, held not dilatory after, Sec. 8.3
late, point of order came, after Speaker entertained motion,
Sec. 8.2
rejection, prior, not determinative, Sec. 8.2
Emergency, effect of state of, on application of Legislative
Reorganization Act, see Legislative Reorganization Act, provisions
of, relating to adjournment or August recess
Legislative Reorganization Act, provisions of, relating to adjournment
or August recess
constitutional considerations, discussion of, relating to
requirement of Act as to adjournment by July 31, Sec. 12.4
emergency, Chair cited state of, in overruling point of order under
Act, Sec. 6.2
emergency, effect of state of, on application of Act, Sec. 6.2
emergency, state of, obviated necessity of concurrent resolution
continuing session beyond July, Sec. 16.3
July 31, procedures under which Houses may remain in session
beyond, notwithstanding provisions of Act, Sec. Sec. 6.2, 12.1,
12.3, 12.4
point of order that House was not legally in session under, was
overruled, Sec. 16.3
privileged, concurrent resolution providing for August recess or
recall by joint leadership in odd-numbered year is called up
as, Sec. Sec. 12.1-12.3, 12.5
unanimous consent, consideration by, of concurrent resolution
providing that Houses would remain in session beyond day
specified in Act, Sec. 16.2
war, state of, obviated necessity of concurrent resolution
continuing session beyond July, Sec. 16.3
yea and nay vote on concurrent resolution, application of
requirements as to, Sec. Sec. 6.2, 12.1-12.6
Motion for adjournment of three days or less
amendment fixing time of adjournment, simple motion to adjourn not
subject to, Sec. 5.3
amendment in nature of substitute in form of concurrent resolution
is not germane to motion, Sec. 3.1
automatic roll call, not in order to demand on an affirmative vote
on motion to adjourn, Sec. 7.1
Calendar Wednesday rule, dilatory motions to delay business under,
Sec. 8.4
certain, day, motion to adjourn to, see Day and time to which House
shall adjourn, motion fixing,
day certain, motion to adjourn to, see Day and time to which House
shall adjourn, motion fixing
day to day, motion to adjourn from, agreed to, Sec. 7.1
day to day, simple motion to adjourn from, in order in absence of
concurrent resolution providing for August recess, Sec. 12.3
debatable, motion to adjourn to time certain is not, Sec. 5.2
debatable, simple motion is not, Sec. 5.1
debate, motion may not interrupt Member holding floor in,
Sec. Sec. 3.10, 3.15-3.18
[[Page 961]]
deceased Member, motion was made in memory of, without adoption of
resolution marking adjournment, Sec. 3.33
dilatory, motion held not to be, after intervening business,
Sec. 8.3
dilatory motions to delay business under Calendar Wednesday rule,
Sec. 8.4
dilatory, point of order that motion was, came too late after
Speaker entertained motion, Sec. 8.2
dilatory, prior rejection did not render motion, Sec. 8.2
floor, Member making motion as losing, upon withdrawal of motion,
Sec. 3.32
floor, motion may not interrupt Member holding, Sec. Sec. 3.10,
3.15-3.18, 8.4
intervening business permitting repetition of motion, unanimous-
consent request to delete Member's name as cosponsor of bill
constitutes, Sec. 8.1
lay on the table, motion to adjourn to time certain not subject to
motion to, Sec. 5.2
objection to request to adjourn to day certain after point of order
against motion, effect of, Sec. 3.2
parliamentary inquiry, question on motion precedes, Sec. 3.1
parliamentary inquiry, time yielded for, motion may not be made
during, Sec. 3.18
privilege and precedence of motion to adjourn, see Privilege and
precedence of motion to adjourn
quorum, effect of rejection of motion by less than a, where
objection is made to lack of a quorum, Sec. 7.2
quorum not required for agreement to, Sec. 7.2
quorum required for adoption of motion to adjourn to day and time
certain, Sec. Sec. 9.5, 10.3
recognition for simple motion offered by Member having floor, Chair
may not refuse, Sec. 3.3
recognition refused in absence of intervening business after
rejection of prior motion, Sec. 8.4
reconvening, motion to set time of, equal in privilege to simple
motion to adjourn, Sec. 5.3
regular order, demand for, effect on motion of, Sec. 3.2
rejection of motion by less than a quorum, effect of, where
objection is made to lack of quorum, Sec. 7.2
renewal following disposition of motions to compel attendance of
absentees, Sec. 3.8
renewal of motion where prior motion was withdrawn, Sec. 3.32
repetition of motion not permitted in absence of intervening
business, Sec. 8.4
repetition of motion permitted after intervening business,
Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.3
sine die, amendment in form of concurrent resolution to adjourn,
not germane to simple motion, Sec. 3.1
special rule ordering previous question on bill to final passage
without intervening motion, effect of, on motion to adjourn,
Sec. Sec. 3.4, 6.5
table, motion to, motion not debatable and not subject to,
Sec. Sec. 5.1, 5.2
time certain, motion to adjourn to, is not debatable and not
subject to motion to lay on table, Sec. 5.2
time to adjourn, motion to fix, not in order, Sec. 5.3
voting on motion, see Voting on motion to adjourn
withdrawal of motion, Sec. Sec. 3.31, 3.32
writing, demand that motion be in, Sec. 3.6
[[Page 962]]
yea and nay vote, motion pending result of, Sec. 6.5
yeas and nays, demand for, allowed on motion on day set by
concurrent resolution for sine die adjournment, Sec. 6.2
yielded to for purpose of making motion, Member may not offer
motion unless, where another Member holds floor,
Sec. Sec. 3.10, 3.15-3.18
Place of meeting, different, adjournment to or reassembly at
caucus room, House, adjournment to, Sec. 2.3
concurrent resolution allowing for two Houses to assemble outside
seat of government, Sec. 2.1
designation by leadership of place of reassembly after adjournment,
concurrent resolution as providing for, in certain
circumstances, Sec. 13.6
House, adjournment of, to caucus room, Sec. 2.3
recall provisions of concurrent resolution permitted joint recall
to another place, Sec. 13.6
Seat of government, location within, Sec. 2.3
September 11, 2001, provisions in concurrent resolutions of
adjournment have allowed designation by leadership of
alternative places of reassembly in certain circumstances
after, Sec. 2.2
sine die adjournment, concurrent resolution as providing in certain
circumstances for designation by leadership of place of
reassembly after, Sec. 2.2
three days, adjournment for more than, concurrent resolution as
providing in certain circumstances for designation by
leadership of place of reassembly after, Sec. 2.2
Pocket veto, see Veto, pocket
Privilege and precedence of motion to adjourn
call of the House, motion to adjourn is in order following,
Sec. 3.20
call of the House, motion to adjourn not entertained after ordering
of, Sec. Sec. 3.22, 3.23
call of the House, precedence of motion to adjourn over,
Sec. Sec. 3.21, 3.24
contested election, precedence of motion over filing of privileged
report on, Sec. 3.9
day and time certain, motion to adjourn to, equal in privilege to
simple motion to adjourn, Sec. 5.2
day and time certain, motion to adjourn to, takes precedence over
pending questions on which vote has been objected to for lack
of quorum, Sec. 5.2
debate, motion may not interrupt Member holding floor in,
Sec. Sec. 3.10, 3.15-3.18
election, contested, precedence of motion over filing of privileged
report on, Sec. 3.9
floor, motion may not interrupt Member holding, Sec. Sec. 3.10,
3.15-3.18
highest privilege, Sec. Sec. 3.7, 3.13
instruct conferees, motion to adjourn offered before vote on motion
to, following rejection of motion to lay motion to instruct on
table, Sec. 3.11
instruct conferees, motion to, motion to adjourn preferential even
after reading of, Sec. 3.5
intervening business, repetition of motion in absence of, not
permitted, Sec. 3.19
Journal, precedence of motion over Chair's putting question on
approval of, Sec. 3.8
memory of deceased Member, motion to adjourn in, Sec. 3.33
[[Page 963]]
minority Member, motion offered by, under current and former
practice, Sec. 3.30
parliamentary inquiry, time yielded for, motion may not be made
during, Sec. 3.18
passage, final, motion not available when previous question by
terms of special rule has been ordered to, Sec. 3.4
privilege, question of, not entertained pending vote on motion to
adjourn, Sec. 3.26
question of privilege not entertained pending vote on motion to
adjourn, Sec. 3.26
quorum, as related to point of order concerning absence of,
Sec. Sec. 3.20, 3.21, 3.24, 3.25
recognition of Majority Leader to announce legislative program by
unanimous consent before motion to adjourn, Sec. 3.10
recognition of Member having floor, Chair may not refuse, for
motion, Sec. 3.3
regular order, demand for, motion to adjourn to day certain not in
order against, Sec. 3.2
repetition of motion in absence of intervening business not
permitted, Sec. 3.19
report, privileged, precedence of motion over, Sec. 3.9
Rule XVI clause 4, precedence under, Sec. 3.9
Rules, consideration of rule reported from Committee on, motion
made during, Sec. 3.6
Senate action or inaction on collateral matter as not affecting
privilege of motion, Sec. 3.13
sine die adjournment, amendment in form of concurrent resolution
providing for, not germane to motion, Sec. 3.1
special rule, motion not available when question has been ordered
to final passage without intervening motion under, Sec. 3.4
suspend the rules, one motion to adjourn admissible during
consideration of motion to, Sec. 3.14
suspend the rules, precedence over motion to, Sec. 3.7
time of reconvening, motion to set, of equal privilege at Speaker's
discretion to simple motion to adjourn, Sec. 5.3
unanimous consent to recognize Majority Leader to announce
legislative program before recognizing Member for motion,
Sec. 3.10
vote on final passage, precedence of motion over, where House
reconsidered the first vote on final passage, Sec. 3.12
vote on motion to instruct conferees, motion to adjourn offered
before, following rejection of motion to lay motion to instruct
on table, Sec. 3.11
withdrawal of motion permitted, Sec. 3.31
withdrawal of motion, renewal of motion by another Member after,
Sec. 3.32
writing, demand that motion be in, recognition for further debate
after, Sec. 3.6
yielded to for purpose of making motion, Member may not offer
motion unless, where another Member holds floor,
Sec. Sec. 3.10, 3.1, 3.17, 3.18
President, appointment of committee to notify, of completion of
business and intention to adjourn sine die
House committee, Speaker's appointment of, authorized by privileged
resolution, Sec. 17.1
[[Page 964]]
privileged, resolution as, after adoption of sine die resolution,
Sec. 17.1
report by House committee that it had informed President, Sec. 17.2
Quorum, lack of, as affecting motion to adjourn
agreement to motion, quorum not required for, Sec. 7.2
attendance of absent Members, motions to compel, following
rejection of motion by less than a quorum, Sec. 3.8
automatic roll call, motion to adjourn following failure of quorum
to vote on, was held in order where majority of those present
voted to second motion and no special rule precluded motion,
Sec. 6.5
call of the House, motion to adjourn not entertained after ordering
of, Sec. Sec. 3.22, 3.23
certain, motion to adjourn to day and time, requires quorum for
adoption, Sec. Sec. 9.5, 10.3
day and time certain, adoption of motion to adjourn to, requires
quorum, Sec. Sec. 9.5, 10.3
debate, point of order of no quorum not permitted during, Sec. 3.4
hour of convening different from that designated in standing order,
motion setting, as requiring quorum, Sec. 10.3
motion for adjournment of three days or less, quorum not required
for agreement to
not required for agreement to motion, quorum as, Sec. 7.2
required, not, for agreement to, Sec. 7.2
table motion to compel attendance of absent Members, motion to, not
in order, Sec. 3.8
time of convening different from that designated in standing order,
motion setting, as requiring quorum, Sec. 10.3
unanimous-consent requests not entertained until quorum established
after motion rejected and vote objected to, Sec. 7.2
Quorum required for adoption of concurrent resolution providing for
sine die adjournment, see Concurrent resolution providing for
adjournment sine die
Recall authority of leadership after adjournment sine die
concurrent resolution, conferral of recall authority in, Sec. 15.1
concurrent resolution providing for, form of, Sec. 15.3
continuation of session rather than new session after exercise of,
Sec. 15.2
designees named to exercise, in certain instances, Sec. 15.12
form of concurrent resolution providing for, Sec. 15.3
notice issued by Speaker in exercise of, Sec. 15.2
reassembly of one House under, provision for, Sec. 15.3
second session, conferred in concurrent resolution adjourning,
Sec. Sec. 15.6, 15.7
Recommit with instructions, concurrent resolution as subject to, see,
e.g., Concurrent resolution providing for adjournment for more than
three days to date certain
Serial adjournment
rule from Committee on Rules, privileged, authorizing Speaker to
declare recesses for specified periods subject to call of the
Chair, Sec. 9.1
Speaker authorized under special rule to declare recesses for
specified periods subject to call of Chair, Sec. 9.1
[[Page 965]]
Tuesdays and Fridays, resolution providing that House meet only on,
for stipulated period, Sec. 9.6
Sine die adjournment (see also concurrent resolution providing for
adjournment sine die)
business, authorization to transact, following adjournment, see
Business during adjournment, authorization to transact, under
current and former practice
declaration by Speaker that House is adjourned sine die is made
upon constitutional expiration of session, Sec. Sec. 14.11,
14.12
expiration of session under constitutional provision, declaration
by Speaker upon, Sec. Sec. 14.11, 14.12
Legislative Reorganization Act, provisions of, see Legislative
Reorganization Act, provisions of, relating to adjournment or
August recess
Special rule, ordering previous question on bill to final passage
without intervening motion, effect of, on motion to adjourn, see
Motion for adjournment of three days or less
Sunday, session permitted on
``dies non,'' Sunday is normally considered, Sec. Sec. 9.8-9.10
midnight Saturday, House has continued in session beyond, Sec. 9.10
unanimous consent, by, Sec. Sec. 9.7-9.10
Televised Presidential debates, debate in House about failure to
complete action on bill permitting, Sec. 14.10
Unanimous consent
Budget Act provisions requiring passage of general appropriations
bills prior to adjournment, waiver of, by unanimous-consent
agreement to consider concurrent resolution, Sec. 11.1
Chair may declare House adjourned by, Sec. Sec. 3.28-3.29
concurrent resolution, quorum requirements affecting proceedings
relating to, see, e.g., Concurrent resolution providing for
adjournment for more than three days to date certain
concurrent resolution, where nonprivileged was called up by,
Sec. 14.13
conditional adjournment by, effective unless Senate adopted
concurrent resolution and a specified conference report,
Sec. 10.8
debate during consideration of concurrent resolution was allowed to
proceed under one-minute rule by, Sec. Sec. 11.8, 11.9
pro forma days, adjournment on, Sec. 3.28
Senate action on House concurrent resolution, contingent
adjournment to subsequent day by unanimous consent where House
is awaiting, Sec. 10.8
Veto, pocket
declaration of position of Congress regarding exercise of, was
included in concurrent resolution, Sec. Sec. 15.4, 15.8
intrasession assertion of, discussion of precedents relating to,
Sec. 14.16
laid before House, veto message was, accompanied by announcement as
to prior correspondence with President, Sec. 14.15
letters to President from Speaker and minority leader expressing
views on limits of pocket veto authority were inserted in
Record, Sec. 14.16
Voting on motion to adjourn
division vote in order, Sec. 6.3
quorum, rejection of motion by less than a, see Quorum, lack of, as
affecting motion to adjourn
record vote, motion as subject to, Sec. Sec. 6.1, 8.1
[[Page 966]]
regular order, Chair put question on motion after demand for,
Sec. 6.4
teller vote on motion demanded after insufficient, number seconded
demand for yeas and nays, Sec. 6.4
yeas and nays, demand for, allowed on motion on day set by
concurrent resolution for sine die adjournment, Sec. 6.2
yeas and nays, demand for, not seconded by sufficient number,
Sec. 6.4
yeas and nays, recount of those rising to second demand for,
declined where insufficient number had risen, Sec. 6.4
yeas and nays, teller vote was demanded on motion to adjourn after
insufficient number stood to second demand for, Sec. 6.2
Withdrawal of motion, see, e.g., Motion for adjournment of three days
or less
Yea and nay vote, motion pending result of, see Motion for adjournment
of three days or less