[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 17, Chapters 34 - 40]
[Ch. 40. Adjournment]
[B. Adjournments for More Than Three Days to Date Certain]
[Â§ 12. August Recess]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[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.