[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 17, Chapters 34 - 40]
[Ch. 40. Adjournment]
[A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less]
[Â§ 9. To a Day Certain; Three-day Limit]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[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]]