House Schedule: Recent Practices and Proposed Options

Congressional research reportFeb 2, 2001

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL30825

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

House Schedule: Recent Practices

and Proposed Options

February 2, 2001

name redacted

Specialist in the Legislative Process

Government and Finance Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

House Schedule: Recently Proposed Options

Summary

House scheduling practices have been criticized frequently in recent years for

bringing about compressed workweeks, protracted daily sessions, conflicts between

floor and committee work, pressure on family life, and inefficient use of time

generally. Especially in the context of reform efforts in the 103rd and 104th

Congresses (1993-1996), several alternatives have drawn support and objection.

These discussions indicate that current practices are strongly related to Members’

weekend commutes to their home districts. Members generally arrange their

schedules so as to devote to these trips as much as possible of the time when no

recorded floor votes are expected.

These practices tend to result in a “Tuesday-to-Thursday” week, with three

afternoons generally available for floor business and only two mornings for committee

work. As a consequence, committee meetings extend into afternoons and floor

sessions into the morning, creating scheduling conflicts for Members. Floor sessions

also extend into the evenings, taking time from personal life for Members with

families in the Washington area. To address these conditions, some Members have

suggested that convening the House earlier in the day, making the floor schedule more

predictable, and similar practices, could reduce the need for evening sessions, and

thereby make it more feasible to continue to schedule extended weekends for travel

to the district.

A different approach to these problems proposes to adopt a full five-day

workweek. The first session of the 104th Congress attempted such a schedule. Even

then, however, Members’ travel schedules made it generally impracticable to conduct

floor votes before the end of Monday afternoon or after the middle of Friday

afternoon. Also, under the rigorous conditions of that session, even this schedule did

not eliminate frequent resort to evening sessions.

A third alternative proposed has been to provide a week of recess after each third

workweek of five full days. In a four-week period, this schedule would afford more

working days, and more available mornings, than would continual three-day

workweeks. The intent of this plan is that Members concentrate their trips home in

the recesses, rather than between consecutive weeks in which the House meets.

However, Senate experience with a similar plan suggests that Members are likely to

continue commuting on short weekends even when longer recesses are also provided.

A fourth alternative, proposed as a middle course among the preceding, has been

to establish a four-day workweek. This plan would afford more time for floor and

committee sessions than currently, without making weekend commutes impracticable.

In one version, the workweeks would be staggered so as to provide a four-day

weekend every other week. Although this plan could still increase the time available

for Washington work, it might yet fail to reduce Member commuting on the short

weekends.

Contents

Commuting, Compression, and Committee Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Tuesday-to-Thursday Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Five-Day Workweek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

“Three Weeks On, One Week Off” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Four-Day Workweek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Daily Schedules and Predictability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Comparison and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

List of Tables

Legislative Work Days and District Travel Opportunities Available

in Each Four-Week Period Under Selected Scheduling Arrangements . . . 11

House Schedule: Recently Proposed

Options

Commuting, Compression, and Committee Work

Many Members have in recent years expressed dissatisfaction with the way the

House arranges its work schedule. The chief complaints appear to be that existing

practices make inefficient use of time and do not allow predictability, generating

persistent scheduling conflicts and other time pressures. These issues gained in

prominence especially through the work of the 1993 Joint Committee on the

Operations of Congress (“JCOC,” often known as the “Hamilton-Boren reform

committee”), during 1994 hearings by the House Committee on Rules on the JCOC’s

recommendations, and in the 104th Congress (1995-1996) after the new Republican

majority adopted reforms based in part on these deliberations.

This report discusses how four types of House schedule that have been practiced

or proposed during the past decade address these areas of dissatisfaction. The four

types of schedule are:

! the “Tuesday-to-Thursday” schedule;

! the five-day workweek;

! the “three weeks on, one week off” plan; and

! the four-day workweek.

These four scheduling arrangements are distinguished primarily by the length of the

workweek. Each has different implications for (1) weekend and recess commuting,

(2) compression of the legislative workweek, (3) the length of daily floor sessions, (4)

the timing of committee meetings, and (5) conflicts among floor work, committee

work, and personal life.

Observers agree that Members generally strive to return to their home districts

whenever they can accomplish the round trip in the time available. At least those

representing the most distant districts obtain very little actual time at home on a twoday weekend round trip. Most Members appear willing to extend their weekly trips

home into the workweek as long as they do not miss recorded votes.1 As a result, the

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Background Materials:

Supplemental Information Provided to Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization

of Congress, S.Prt. 103-55, 103rd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 19, 1005;

U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Rules, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, hearing

on H.R. 3801, vol. I., 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 9, 1994 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 29;

and Timothy P. Nokken and Brian R. Sala, “Institutional Evolution and the Rise of the

(continued...)

CRS-2

workweek for scheduling purposes effectively comes to be defined, not by whether

the House is in session, but by whether recorded votes will occur.

Because votes must be scheduled for times when most Members will be present,

these patterns of weekend commuting tend to compress floor business into the

midweek days. This compression, in turn, tends to require floor sessions to extend

beyond the customary afternoon period into the evening or forenoon, or both. When

floor sessions extend into the evenings, especially on an unscheduled basis, they tend

to interfere with Members’ family lives. This circumstance appears to be a chief

source of the demand that scheduling be made more “family friendly.”

When floor sessions extend into the forenoon, on the other hand, they tend to

conflict with committee meetings. At the same time, low attendance on days without

floor votes tends to require committees to meet chiefly on the midweek days as well.

In addition, because the House normally meets in the afternoons, Members can take

the morning of the first day of each week on which floor votes occur as travel time,

and that morning becomes unavailable for committee work. For these reasons,

committee meetings tend to extend into the afternoons. The overlapping of

committee and floor work that results from all these considerations is a chief source

of scheduling conflicts.

Tuesday-to-Thursday Schedule

In recent years, the House has frequently tended to confine recorded votes to the

middle three days of the week.2 It does so either by meeting in pro forma session on

Mondays and Fridays, or by “rolling” until the next business day any recorded votes

that may be ordered on those days.3 Alternatively, on a Monday, the House may

“roll” recorded votes only until after 5 p.m., when most Members using the day for

travel will have arrived in Washington.

(...continued)

Tuesday-Thursday Club in the House of Representatives,” paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Political Science Association (Washington, Sept. 2000).

JCOC, Background Materials, pp. 1088-1104; U.S. Congress, Committee on Rules,

Subcommittee on Rules of the House, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, hearings on

H.R. 3801, vol. III, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., March 6, 10, 16, 24, and April 13, 1994

(Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 157; Nokken and Sala, “Institutional Evolution and the

Tuesday-Thursday Club”; Kenneth J. Cooper, “‘Family Friendly’ Work Schedule Will Come

Later,” Washington Post, Dec. 16, 1994, p. A21; and Janet Hook, “House Republicans

Rehearse Taking Reins of Power,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 52, Dec.

17, 1994, p. 3547.

The House may stand in adjournment from Friday through Monday, inclusive, only by

authority of a concurrent resolution, because “neither House ... shall, without the consent of

the other, adjourn for more than three days ....” Constitution, Article I, sec. 5, in U.S.

Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of

Representatives, 106th Congress, H.Doc. 105-358, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., compiled by

Charles W. Johnson, Parliamentarian (Washington: GPO, 1999), sec. 82-84.

CRS-3

The core objection raised against schedules of this kind has been that they afford

too little time for the legislative work of the House. Critics assert that when only

three weekdays are available for floor business, “late nights and missed family

dinners” become frequent, especially during busy legislative periods or when the

House does not convene until noon.4 Alternatively, the House may find it necessary

to convene in the forenoon, which tends to create conflicts with committee meetings.

At the same time, as one Member noted, this schedule permits committees to

“meet only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, [and] most ... meet at Tuesday,

1 o’clock, Wednesday at maybe 9 o’clock in the morning, and Thursday at 9

o’clock.”5 Given this limited range of options, committee meetings must frequently

conflict with each other. Under this schedule, as well, committees often find it

necessary to continue meeting into the afternoon, when their activity tends to conflict

with floor sessions.

Together, these practices exacerbate scheduling conflicts for Members. Many

have accordingly criticized these arrangements for fostering “fractured attention” and

undermining the quality of deliberation, both in committee and on the floor.6

Additionally, when few floor votes occur on Monday and Friday, many Members

may lengthen their weekends further, arriving on Tuesday and departing on Thursday.

Under these conditions, one Member has argued, a Tuesday-to-Thursday schedule

does not afford even a true three-day workweek for legislative business, but instead

“two half days and a full day on Wednesday.”7

Nevertheless, substantial groups of Members have recurrently supported this

arrangement over other alternatives. In 1993, more than 100 Members endorsed its

retention against the four-day workweek recommended by the JCOC,8 and during the

transition to the 105th Congress in 1996, more than 65 Members signed a letter to the

Subcommittee on Rules of the House, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. III, p.

199; and Alice A. Love, “Members, Families to Meet on Friendly Schedule,” Roll Call, Nov.

28, 1994, pp. 3, 23.

Subcommittee on Rules of the House, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. III, pp.

197-199; and U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization

of the Congress: Final Report, H.Rept. 103-413, vol. II [and] S.Rept. 103-215, vol. II, 103rd

Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 211.

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Business Meetings on

Congressional Reform Legislation, S.Hrg. 103-320, 103rd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington:

GPO, 1993), pp. 438, 675; U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress,

Organization of the Congress: Final Report of the House Members, H.Rept. 103-413, vol.

I, 103rd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 34, 52; Committee on Rules,

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. I, pp. 112-114; U.S. Congress, Committee on

Rules, Subcommittee on Rules of the House, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994,

hearings on H.R. 3801, vol. II, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 14 and March 2, 1994

(Washington: GPO, 1994), pp. 3, 9-10; and Ibid., vol. III, pp. 125, 159.

Committee on Rules, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. I, p. 114.

“Family Values” [editorial], Roll Call, Nov. 17, 1994, p. 4.

CRS-4

leadership favoring it over a proposed five-day workweek.9 The Family Friendly

Advisory Committee, an informal group appointed by the leadership during the

transition to the 104th Congress, also endorsed a Tuesday-to-Thursday schedule10 and,

after the “hundred days,” conducted a survey whose response strongly supported it.11

Five-Day Workweek

During the deliberations of the JCOC, several Members recommended expanding

the legislative workweek to five days.12 The leadership of the 104th Congress pursued

this schedule through May 1994,13 and before the 105th Congress one leadership

candidate strongly advocated instituting a similar plan.14 Advocates of this approach

have argued that it would aid in reducing (1) schedule conflicts among committee

meetings, by expanding the number of mornings on which committees can meet;15 (2)

evening sessions, by permitting earlier daily adjournments;16 and (3) conflicts between

committee and floor sessions, by permitting the House to convene later.17

At least under the exceptional circumstances of the “hundred days” in the 104th

Congress, however, these expectations were not fully realized. The agenda scheduled

Al Kamen, “Noes to the Grindstone,” Washington Post, Dec. 4, 1998, p. A27; and Jim

VandeHei, “Livingston Criticized on Three Fronts,” Roll Call, Nov. 30, 1998, p. 15.

Cooper, “‘Family Friendly’ Work Schedule Will Come Later,” p. A21; Hook, “House

Republicans Rehearse Taking Reins of Power,” p. 3547; Major Garrett, The House Is Not

a Home; Lawmakers Hope New Efficiency Means More Family Time,” Washington Times,

Dec. 16, 1994, p. A12; Alice A. Love, “A Family Room for New House,” Roll Call, Dec. 19,

1994, p. 16; Michael Crowley, “It Gets Easier Later, They Say,” National Journal, vol. 27,

Jan. 28, 1995, p. 238; and Alice A. Love, “Five-Day Weeks Ahead in House,” Roll Call,

April 24, 1995, p. 22.

Alice A. Love, “In Search of ‘Family Friendly’ Schedule,” Roll Call, July 13, 1995, p. 26.

JCOC, Background Materials, pp. 45, 177, 406, 408, 1005.

Alice A. Love, “Five Days a Week for House to Apr. 14,” Roll Call, Dec. 15, 1994, pp. 1,

16; Garrett, “The House is not a Home,” p. A12; Hook, “House Republicans Rehearse Taking

Reins of Power,” p. 3547; Crowley, “It Gets Easier,” p. 238; and Love, “Five-Day Weeks

Ahead in House,” p. 22.

“Rep. Bob Livingston’s Letter to Speaker Newt Gingrich,” Roll Call, Nov. 9, 1998, p. 22;

and Kamen, “Noes to the Grindstone,” p. A27.

JCOC, Background Materials, p. 78.

Rep. Frank Wolf, “Improving the House Schedule,” remarks in the House, Congressional

Record, vol. 141, Feb. 22, 1995, p. 5426; and Phil Duncan, “Routines in the House and

Family Values,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 53, Oct. 21, 1995, p. 3238.

JCOC, Background Materials, pp. 45, 56, 78, 1178; JCOC, Business Meetings, p. 246;

JCOC, Final Report, vol. II, p. 37; JCOC, Final Report, vol. I, p. 6; Committee on Rules,

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. I, pp. 60, 438, 675; and Subcommittee on Rules

of the House, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. III, pp. 123-125, 138-139, 157,

163.

CRS-5

during that period often required the House to convene in the forenoon and continue

in evening session even when floor business was conducted five days per week.18

The experience of the 104th Congress also highlighted the importance many

Members place on preserving opportunities for extended weekend commuting. In

February 1995, for example, the leadership announced its intention to start taking up

business on the floor by 2 p.m. on Mondays. Some Members from the Far West

protested that even a 5 p.m. arrival on Capitol Hill required them to leave their

districts on the earliest flight of the morning. The leadership ultimately adopted a

suggestion that recorded votes ordered on Mondays be stacked until 5 p.m. 19

Responding to preferences of this kind, most of the plans for a five-day

legislative workweek discussed by the JCOC had proposed to retain restrictions on

recorded votes on the first and last business days of the week. The leadership in the

104th Congress also attempted to avoid recorded votes before 5 p.m. on Mondays and

after 3 p.m. on Fridays.20 Under the plan offered before the 105th Congress, too, floor

sessions were to begin at noon on Monday, and no recorded votes were to occur

before 5 p.m. on that day or after noon on Friday.21 The more a five-day schedule

observes such restrictions, the less it differs from a Tuesday-to-Thursday schedule.

“Three Weeks On, One Week Off”

A proposal that attracted substantial favorable interest during the deliberations

of the JCOC involved instituting a regular week-long recess after each third week of

floor sessions. This proposal became known as the “three on, one off” plan. Such a

schedule, it was argued, would facilitate scheduling five full days of legislative

business during each of the other three weeks.22

Under this plan, only two of every four weekends would be restricted to two

days. The other two weekends would be absorbed into the recurring recesses, which

would afford Members the opportunity for a nine-day trip to their districts once every

four weeks.23 As one Member argued, this schedule would permit especially those

Love, “In Search of ‘Family Friendly’ Schedule,” pp. 1, 26; and “... And Less Work,”

[editorial], Roll Call, July 13, 1995, p. 4.

“Line-Item Veto Act,” debate in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 141, Feb. 3, 1995,

pp. 1187-1188, 1190; and Deborah Kalb and Jennifer Senior, “Family Life Suffers During

First 100 Days,” The Hill, March 22, 1995, p. 14.

“Line-Item Veto Act,” pp. 1187-1188, 1190; and Kalb and Senior, “Family Life Suffers

During First 100 Days,” p. 14.

“Rep. Livingston’s Letter to Speaker Gingrich,” p. 22; and Kamen, “Noes to the

Grindstone,” p. A27.

JCOC, Background Materials, pp. 223, 1031; and Alice A. Love, “‘Family Friendly’

Survey Hits Hill,” Roll Call, Nov. 17, 1994, p. 42.

JCOC, Background Materials, pp. 237, 442, 1177; JCOC, Business Meetings, p. 247;

JCOC, Final Report, vol. II, p. 37; Committee on Rules, Legislative Reorganization Act of

(continued...)

CRS-6

from the West Coast to “spend less time sitting on planes.”24 Such considerations

suggest that Members from distant districts would tend to gain the most from this

schedule, inasmuch as commuting on short weekends is least efficient for them.

Under a “three on, one off” arrangement, each four-week cycle would contain

15 business days, rather than 12 under a Tuesday-to-Thursday schedule.25 This gain

would presumably reduce the need for convening the House before noon and

continuing in evening sessions, and some have suggested that it could foster earlier

annual adjournments as well.26 The plan would also reduce (from four in 12 to three

in 15) the proportion of legislative working days falling on the first day after a break,

thereby increasing (from eight to 12) the number of mornings in each four-week

period on which it would be practicab le to schedule committee meetings.27

Substantial majorities of House Members responding to the JCOC survey

supported the “three on, one off” concept, and over 100 later signed a letter to the

leadership in its support.28 Another group of similar size, however, signed a petition

in opposition to this schedule, and the Family Friendly Advisory Committee

recommended against it.29 The House contingent of the JCOC declined to endorse

the plan, on the ground that it could work effectively only if the leadership ensured

that recorded votes would occur on all five workdays.30

Objections raised against the “three on, one off” plan again reflect the strong

preference of Members to continue commuting even on two-day weekends. Members

of the Advisory Committee objected to the proposal specifically on the ground of the

difficulty of such travel, especially to distant districts.31 One Member contended that

under this schedule, Members might feel compelled to bring their families to the

(...continued)

1994, vol. I, pp. 112, 118-119; Subcommittee on Rules of the House, Legislative

Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. III, p. 199; and “Family Values” [editorial], p. 4.

Committee on Rules, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. I, p. 116.

Ibid.

JCOC, Background Materials, p. 1008; and Love, “‘Family Friendly’ Survey Hits Hill,”

p. 42.

Subcommittee on Rules of the House, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. III, p.

197.

JCOC, Business Meetings, p. 246; Committee on Rules, Legislative Reorganization Act of

1994, vol. I, p. 113; Subcommittee on Rules of the House, Legislative Reorganization Act

of 1994, vol. III, pp. 199-200; and JCOC, Final Report, vol. II, pp. 226, 259.

Alice A. Love, “Keep Current Tuesday to Thursday Schedule but Gavel in Earlier,

‘Friendly’ Panel Agrees,” Roll Call, Dec. 1, 1994, p. 11.

JCOC, Final Report, vol. II, pp. 37, 52.

Love, “Keep Current Tuesday to Thursday Schedule,” p. 11.

CRS-7

Washington area, and might then “visit ... their districts only once a month,” which

could “diminish ... our ability to remain in touch with the country.”32

A chief reason for House interest in a “three on, one off” schedule was that

Senate leadership had instituted a similar arrangement in 1988.33 During hearings of

the JCOC, however, Senate leaders remarked that colleagues had continued to

request that recorded votes not be scheduled on Mondays, and still strove to begin

their weekend travel on Thursday night. By 1993, the Senate was continuing to

schedule recesses of a week in each month, but had increasingly reverted to three-day

weeks for legislative business, and especially for recorded votes.34 One House

Member concluded that the Senate’s “three on, one off” schedule “does not work, and

arguably they spend less time here than they did in the old days, because what they

have now is their one week off plus the Tuesday through Thursday club going the

other three weeks.”35

Four-Day Workweek

In its report, the House contingent of the JCOC declined to recommend a

schedule involving business weeks of five days.36 Instead, it concluded that a four-day

workweek would be sufficient to reduce the need for evening sessions,37 and to permit

restoring a separation of times for committee and floor business.38 Under this

proposal, the existing schedule of recesses within the session would be maintained.

Legislative workweeks of four days would still afford Members weekends of

three full days for commuting to their districts. (A variant proposed by one Member

would yield similar weekends by alternating three- and five-day business weeks.39)

Some Members nevertheless opposed the JCOC plan on the ground that four-day

weeks would still make it “very difficult to travel to the district for the weekend.”40

JCOC, Business Meetings, p. 249; and JCOC, Background Materials, p. 442.

JCOC, Background Materials, pp. 1050-1051; and Subcommittee on Rules of the House,

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. III, pp. 196, 198.

JCOC, Background Materials, pp. 1050-1051; and Subcommittee on Rules of the House,

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. III, p. 203.

Committee on Rules, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. I, p. 60. See JCOC,

Business Meetings, p. 249.

Subcommittee on Rules of the House, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. III, p.

203.

Ibid., p. 194.

Ibid., p. 170; JCOC, Final Report, vol. II, p. 37; JCOC, Final Report, vol. I, pp. 6, 36, 135;

and Love, “‘Family Friendly’ Survey Hits Hill,” p. 42.

JCOC, Background Materials, p. 43.

Subcommittee on Rules of the House, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, vol. III, p.

164.

CRS-8

Responding to this objection, the Democratic Study Group task force later

proposed an alternative form of four-day workweek. Under this variant, the four-day

weeks would be staggered, “with alternating Mondays and Fridays off to provide for

a four-day weekend every two weeks.”41 Like the “three on, one off” plan, this

variant would require two two-day weekends in every four-week period. It would

use the days saved, however, not to provide a single more extended travel

opportunity, but to preserve the remaining two four-day weekends.

To make the full four-day week available for legislative business, the task force

proposed to require that the first floor session of each week open with a recorded

vote on approving the Journal, and that the last one close with a recorded vote on the

motion to adjourn.42 By this means, one proponent contended, a four-day workweek

would permit the House to “schedule committees for four days instead of a day and

a half or two days,” as allowed by a Tuesday-to-Thursday schedule.43

These requirements would still not increase the practicability of committee

meetings on the first morning of the business week. Accordingly, another proposal

for a four-day week called for floor “votes on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, and

[for reserving] Wednesday for a committee day.” The feasibility of this plan would

depend on most Members remaining available in Washington during the “committee

day” because a round trip home in a single day would not be feasible. The day of

floor session lost on Wednesdays could conceivably be made up by convening the

House in the forenoon on Monday for a full day of session, enforced with an initial

roll call vote.

Daily Schedules and Predictability

To the extent that any schedule preserves opportunities for weekend commuting,

it must presumably also retain some compression of the legislative workweek. A

compressed workweek, in turn, will entail longer daily floor sessions. Members

favorable to preserving opportunities for weekend commuting have generally argued

that the House can adequately perform its legislative work in a compressed

workweek. Their proposals have focused on ways of managing the extended floor

sessions, and the conflicts between floor and committee meetings, that compressed

workweeks tend to foster.

During the 104th Congress, when the leadership contemplated from the outset

that evening floor sessions would be required even with five-day workweeks, several

Members protested that these arrangements would “undermine ... attempts to give

Members more time with their families.”44 Some urged that floor action and family

Ibid., pp. 170-171, 177-178.

Ibid., pp. 170-172, 176-177.

Ibid., pp. 194, 203.

Eliza Newline Carey, “Clean Sweep?” National Journal, vol. 27, Jan. 21, 1995, pp. 156,

158.

CRS-9

life could be better balanced if the House both convened and adjourned earlier.45

Proposals advanced during this period included (1) limiting late sessions to one night

weekly46; (2) ensuring one adjournment by 6 p.m. each week, and compensating by

convening as early as 8 a.m.47; and (3) balancing Wednesday and Thursday sessions

more nearly equally, rather than using late Wednesdays to compensate for earlier

Thursday adjournments.48

During this same period, the Family Friendly Advisory Committee took the view

that if the House met at 9 a.m. or 10 a.m. on the three midweek days, and planned for

late evening sessions on Wednesdays, it could normally adjourn on Tuesdays by 6

p.m. for family dinners and on Thursdays by 4 p.m. for trips home.49 Another

Member, less optimistically, argued that legislative business could successfully be

conducted in three days per week if the House continued in session from 9 a.m. to 9

p.m. on those days.50

Neither of these proposals explicitly addressed how continual forenoon floor

sessions might affect committee work. Some Members suggested that scheduling

pressures in floor sessions could be eased, while still minimizing conflicts with

committee work and personal life, by using the forenoon and evening portions of floor

sessions as much as possible for non-legislative forms of action. For example, oneminute speeches could be postponed until the end of the day, entertained before 9

a.m., or omitted on days when adjournment was scheduled for later than 9 p.m.

Another suggestion would save time for legislative business by suspending “morning

hour” debates. A third proposal would “roll” until the next day all votes ordered after

8 p.m.51

Comments by many Members indicate that the frequent need for evening sessions

is a principal source of the unpredictability to which they object. This

Rep. Wolf, “Improving the House Schedule,” p. 5426; Duncan, “Routines in the House and

Family Values,” p. 3238; Love, “Five-Day Weeks Ahead in House,” p. 22; and Ed Henry,

“The House is Now ‘Family-Friendly’ Says GOP, but Some Dems Disagree,” Roll Call, May

23, 1996, pp. 1, 25.

Rep. Frank Wolf, “Family Quality of Life Advisory Committee – Assessment of Efforts in

the 104th Congress,” remarks in the House and material inserted, Congressional Record, vol.

142, Sept. 24, 1996, pp. 10770-10771.

Rep. Tim Roemer, “Congress Should Be More Family Friendly,” remarks in the House,

Congressional Record, vol. 141, July 21, 1995, p. 19911; and Love, “Five-Day Weeks Ahead

in House,” p. 22.

Henry, “The House is Now ‘Family-Friendly,’” pp. 1, 25. See “Family-Unfriendly”

[editorial], Roll Call, May 23, 1996, p. 4.

Rep. Wolf, “Improving the House Schedule,” p. 5426; Love, “Keep Current Tuesday to

Thursday Schedule,” p. 11; and Love, “Five-Day Weeks Ahead in House,” p. 22.

“Legislative Program,” debate in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 141, July 21, 1995,

p. 19978.

Rep. Wolf, “Family Quality of Life Advisory Committee,” pp. 10770-10771; Rep. Wolf,

“Improving the House Schedule,” p. 5426; and “Legislative Program,” p. 19978.

CRS-10

unpredictability, as much as extended floor sessions themselves, is cited as one of the

chief ways in which the House schedule fails to be “family friendly.”52 Unpredictable

requirements for extended sessions, in turn, presumably grow more intense as the

compression of the workweek increases.

Improving predictability, however, faces an additional difficulty that has been

little remarked in this context. The leadership cannot easily regulate, or even predict,

the hundreds of decisions by individual Members on which the flow of legislative

action depends. It can announce a schedule, but ultimately lacks much capacity to

ensure its realization. Even rules designed to enforce a schedule would have to be

modified continually to respond to the flow of daily legislative events. Only by

organizing the House more on hierarchical and managerial principles, rather than

collective and deliberative ones, might the leadership obtain means for fulfilling

Members’ demands for predictability.

Comparison and Conclusion

In contemporary circumstances, any scheduling arrangement seems unlikely to

win acceptance unless it either accommodates, or brings about alterations in, certain

established patterns of behavior, specifically that Members generally:

! strive to travel to their districts during any break of at least two days in the

legislative schedule;

! strive to extend the duration of any trip home as much as possible;

! regard floor sessions as insufficient reason to remain in Washington unless

recorded votes are in prospect; and

! regard committee meetings alone as insufficient reason to remain in

Washington.

The central objective of each proposed change discussed above is to permit

spreading floor and committee work over a greater number of days, so as to reduce

schedule conflicts and extended sessions. The chief objection to each concerns the

difficulties that a more extended workweek creates for weekend commuting. Both

the “three on, one off” plan and the staggered four-day week are explicitly designed

to meet these objections by finding more efficient combinations of legislative time

with commuting time. The following table accordingly summarizes the four

alternatives discussed here by comparing the time each makes available for floor,

committee, and district work.

JCOC, Final Report, vol. II, p. 34; Love, “Members, Families to Meet on Friendly

Schedule,”pp. 3, 23; Love, “Five Days a Week for House to Apr. 14,” p. 16; Love, “Five-Day

Weeks Ahead in House,” p. 22; Crowley, “It Gets Easier Later,” p. 238; “Legislative

Program,” p. 19978; Rep. Roemer, “Congress Should be More Family Friendly,” p. 19911;

Henry, “The House is Now ‘Family-Friendly,’” pp. 1, 25; “Family-Unfriendly” [editorial],

p. 4; Alice A. Love, “A Family Room for New House,” Roll Call, Dec. 19, 1994, p. 16; Louis

Jacobson, “Working Hard and Not So Hard,” National Journal, Jan. 14, 1995, p. 118; and

Betsy Rothstein, “Family-Friendly Congress Remains an Elusive Goal,” The Hill, March 24,

1999, pp. 1, 20.

CRS-11

Legislative Work Days and District Travel Opportunities

Available

in Each Four-Week Period Under Selected Scheduling

Arrangements

Legislative work days A

District travel

opportunities B

Scheduling Arrangement

Total

Committees

(Mornings)

Evenings

Twoday

Tuesday-to-Thursday

Five-day weeks

“Three on, one off”

Staggered four-day

weeks

Fourday

Nineday

Figures for “Committees” and “Evenings” assume that no recorded votes would occur before late

afternoon on the first legislative work day of each week or after mid-afternoon on the last.

Figures are for full days only. In addition to these, under the assumptions stated in the previous

note, the morning of the first legislative work day in each week, and the evening of the last,

would be regarded as available for travel time.

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.