Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
This resolution allows the leaders of both the House and the Senate to call Members to assemble at a place outside Washington, D.C., during the 110th Congress if they jointly decide the public interest warrants it, after consulting the minority leaders. It invokes the constitutional provision that gives each chamber the ability to consent to meet away from the seat of government. It governs internal congressional procedure about where and when the two chambers can assemble, not public law.
Concurrent resolutions must be approved by both the House and the Senate but are not sent to the President and do not become law; this resolution was passed by the House and received in the Senate. It is an internal, nonbinding agreement between the two chambers about meeting locations.
Concurrent Resolution (H.
Con.
Res. 1, 110th Congress) authorizes, under Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, acting jointly after consultation with their respective Minority Leaders, to notify Members to assemble at a place outside the District of Columbia during the 110th Congress when they judge the public interest warrants it.
Even if both chambers agree, a concurrent resolution is not a statute and does not become law; passage is likely but it will not create binding law.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise procedural authorization that appropriately cites constitutional authority and identifies the officials empowered to act. It provides a basic joint-action mechanism with a requirement to consult minority leaders but leaves many operational specifics, fiscal considerations, and accountability measures unspecified.
Libs emphasize transparency and minority protections; conservatives emphasize strict limits and cost control.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Libs emphasize transparency and minority protections; conservatives emphasize strict limits and cost control.
Viewed as a narrow, procedural authorization that preserves Congressional flexibility during emergencies.
Supportive if paired with transparency and protections for minority participation and public access.
Caution about potential for majority abuse or reduced oversight.
A pragmatic, limited procedural measure giving Congress a contingency option.
Generally helpful for continuity but needs clear triggers, cost accounting, and procedural safeguards to avoid politicization.
Sees the resolution as a practical, constitutionally grounded tool for continuity and national security.
Supports flexibility but urges strict limits to prevent misuse or unnecessary cost increases.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Even if both chambers agree, a concurrent resolution is not a statute and does not become law; passage is likely but it will not create binding law.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Libs emphasize transparency and minority protections; conservatives emphasize strict limits and cost control.
Even if both chambers agree, a concurrent resolution is not a statute and does not become law; passage is likely but it will not create bin…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise procedural authorization that appropriately cites constitutional authority and identifies the officials empowered to act. It provides a basic joint-actio…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.