[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 17, Chapters 34 - 40]
[Ch. 40. Adjournment]
[C. Adjournment Sine Die]
[Â§ 14. In General; Privilege; Inclusion of Other Matter]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[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.