Message on Senate action sent to the House.
This resolution sets the House's adjournment and reconvening schedule for two specific dates in late January and early February 2007. It says that if the House adjourns on January 24, 2007, it will remain adjourned until 2 p.m. on January 29, 2007, and if it adjourns on January 31, 2007, it will remain adjourned until 2 p.m. on February 5, 2007. The Speaker, after consulting the Minority Leader, may call members back earlier if the public interest requires. It is an internal scheduling measure for Congress, not a general law affecting the public.
Concurrent resolutions are agreed to by both the House and the Senate but are not sent to the President and do not have the force of law; this one governs congressional scheduling and the authority to recall members. The resolution also directs the Speaker to notify Members to reassemble if needed after consulting the Minority Leader.
This concurrent resolution authorizes the House to adjourn on specified legislative days (Jan 24 and Jan 31, 2007) until set reconvening times unless earlier recalled.
It gives the Speaker, after consulting the Minority Leader, authority to notify Members to reassemble if the Speaker determines the public interest warrants it.
Very narrow, noncontroversial procedural resolution with minimal costs; historically such scheduling measures clear both chambers routinely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution is a well-constructed administrative/operational instrument: it clearly states its purpose, specifies mechanisms and responsible actors, and provides explicit dates and times for adjournment and conditional reconvening. It omits fiscal discussion (not reasonably expected) and leaves some edge conditions and notification mechanics unspecified.
Concern over vague "public interest" standard and potential misuse
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Concern over vague "public interest" standard and potential misuse
Likely views this as a routine, limited procedural measure that preserves the House's ability to respond to urgent public needs.
The Minority Leader consultation is positive, but the vague "public interest" standard may merit clarification.
Seen as a pragmatic, low-stakes housekeeping resolution that balances efficiency with minority consultation.
Supportive overall, though prefers clearer standards and notice procedures to avoid misuse or confusion.
Generally uncontroversial and acceptable as routine congressional scheduling authority.
Some caution about concentrated discretion in the Speaker but supportive if recall is reserved for genuine emergencies.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow, noncontroversial procedural resolution with minimal costs; historically such scheduling measures clear both chambers routinely.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Concern over vague "public interest" standard and potential misuse
Very narrow, noncontroversial procedural resolution with minimal costs; historically such scheduling measures clear both chambers routinely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution is a well-constructed administrative/operational instrument: it clearly states its purpose, specifies mechanisms and responsible actors, and provides…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.