Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010
(74th-111th Congresses)
Richard S. Beth
Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process
Jessica Tollestrup
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
August 30, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33677
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Summary
A “lame duck” session of Congress occurs whenever one Congress meets after its successor is
elected, but before the term of the current Congress ends. Under present conditions, any meeting
of Congress after election day in November, but before the following January 3, is a lame duck
session. Prior to 1933, when the 20th Amendment changed the dates of the congressional term, the
last regular session of Congress was always a lame duck session. Today, however, the expression
is used not only for a separate session of Congress that convenes after a sine die adjournment, but
also for any portion of a regular session that falls after an election.
A lame duck session can occur in several ways. (1) Congress has usually provided for its existing
session to resume after a recess spanning the election. (In 1954, only the Senate returned in this
way, while the House adjourned sine die.) (2) In 1940, 1942, and 2002, at least one house
continued meeting in intermittent, or pro forma, sessions during the period spanning the election
(in 2008, the Senate used this means to forestall recess appointments). (3) Congress can
reconvene after an election pursuant to contingent authority granted to the leadership in a recess
or adjournment resolution (the House followed this course in 1998 and 2008). Two other
possibilities have not been realized: (4) Congress could set a statutory date for a new session to
convene after the election, then adjourn its existing session sine die. (5) While Congress is in
recess or sine die adjournment, the President could call it into extraordinary session at a date after
the election.
Congress has held 18 lame duck sessions from 1940 through 2010. In these years, election breaks
usually have begun by mid-October, and typically lasted between one and two months. Congress
has typically reconvened in mid-November and adjourned before Christmas, so that the lame
duck session lasted about a month. Yet election breaks have begun as early as August 7 or as late
as November 3, and ended as early as November 7 or as late as December 31. Lame duck
sessions have ended as early as November 22 and as late as January 3, and have extended over as
few as one, and as many as 145, calendar days. Usually, however, each house has actually met on
8-24 days during these lame duck sessions (including pro forma sessions), and from 1994 on,
each house has usually met for fewer than 12 days.
Some lame duck sessions were held largely for pro forma reasons (e.g., 1948), on a standby basis
(1940, 1942), or to deal with a single specific matter (1954, 1994, 1998, 2008). Some deferred
major matters to the next Congress (e.g., 1944, 1982, 2004), especially when the same party
would have an increased majority. The President has sometimes presented an extensive agenda to
a lame duck session, often with success when it was controlled by his own party (e.g., 1950,
2002, 2004), but less so under conditions of divided government, when he has often vetoed
measures (e.g., 1970, 1974, 1982). In recent years, as well, most lame duck sessions have had to
complete action on appropriations and the budget. In 1974, 1980, 1982, 2000, and 2004, this
effort was at least partially successful, but in 1970, 2002, 2006, and 2010 a final resolution was
largely left to the next Congress. This report will be updated after any additional lame duck
session occurs.

Congressional Research Service

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Contents
What Makes a Lame Duck Session ................................................................................................. 1
Meaning of “Lame Duck” ......................................................................................................... 1
Lame Duck Sessions in the Modern Congress .......................................................................... 1
Lame Duck Sessions Before the 20th Amendment .................................................................... 2
How Lame Duck Sessions May Occur ............................................................................................ 3
Sine Die Adjournment and its Effects........................................................................................ 3
Recess of the Session................................................................................................................. 4
Contingent Authority to Reconvene .......................................................................................... 4
Pro Forma Sessions................................................................................................................... 5
Sessions Called by the President ............................................................................................... 6
Characteristics of Lame Duck Sessions Since 1935........................................................................ 6
Dates and Lengths of Lame Duck Sessions and Election Breaks.............................................. 6
Defining “Pro Forma” Sessions................................................................................................ 7
When Lame Duck Sessions Have Occurred.............................................................................. 8
Form of Election Break ........................................................................................................... 10
Start of Election Breaks........................................................................................................... 11
Start of Lame Duck Sessions (End of Election Breaks) .......................................................... 12
Length of Election Breaks ....................................................................................................... 13
End of Lame Duck Sessions.................................................................................................... 13
Calendar Length of Lame Duck Sessions................................................................................ 15
Days of Session After Election................................................................................................ 16
Holidays During Lame Duck Sessions.................................................................................... 18
Lame Duck Sessions Since 1935 ................................................................................................... 18
76th Congress, 3rd Session (1940-1941) ................................................................................... 18
77th Congress, 2nd Session (1942)............................................................................................ 19
78th Congress, 2nd Session (1944)............................................................................................ 19
80th Congress, 2nd Session (1948)............................................................................................ 20
81st Congress, 2nd Session (1950-1951)................................................................................... 20
83rd Congress, 2nd Session (1954)............................................................................................ 21
91st Congress, 2nd Session (1970-1971)................................................................................... 21
93rd Congress, 2nd Session (1974)............................................................................................ 22
96th Congress, 2nd Session (1980)............................................................................................ 23
97th Congress, 2nd Session (1982)............................................................................................ 23
103rd Congress, 2nd Session (1994).......................................................................................... 24
105th Congress, 2nd Session (1998).......................................................................................... 24
106th Congress, 2nd Session (2000).......................................................................................... 25
107th Congress, 2nd Session (2002).......................................................................................... 25
108th Congress, 2nd Session (2004).......................................................................................... 25
109th Congress, 2nd Session (2006).......................................................................................... 26
110th Congress, 2nd Session (2008-2009)................................................................................. 27
111th Congress, 2nd Session (2010) .......................................................................................... 27

Tables
Table 1. Lame Duck Sessions of Congress,1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses).............................. 9
Congressional Research Service

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Table 2. Length of Election Breaks and of Lame Duck Sessions, 1935-2010 (74th-111th
Congresses)................................................................................................................................. 14
Table 3. Days of Session After Election and Holiday Breaks in Lame Duck Sessions,
1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses) ............................................................................................. 17

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 28
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ 28

Congressional Research Service

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

What Makes a Lame Duck Session
A “lame duck” session of Congress is one that takes place after the election for the next Congress
has been held, but before the current Congress has reached the end of its constitutional term.
Under contemporary conditions, the constitutional term of a Congress begins on January 3 of
each odd-numbered year and ends on January 3 of the next odd-numbered year. As a result, any
meeting of Congress that occurs between the congressional election in November of an even-
numbered year and the following January 3 is a lame duck session. The significant characteristic
of a lame duck session is that its participants are the sitting Members of the existing Congress, not
those who will be entitled to sit in the new Congress.
Meaning of “Lame Duck”
The expression “lame duck” was originally applied in 18th century Britain to bankrupt
businessmen, who were considered as “lame” in the sense that the impairment of their powers
rendered them vulnerable, like a game bird injured by shot. By the 1830s, the usage had been
extended to officeholders whose service already had a known termination date. In current
American usage, for instance, a President is considered a “lame duck” not only after his successor
has been elected, but also whenever he cannot be, or is known not to be, a candidate for
reelection.
Members of Congress in similar circumstances are also considered “lame ducks.” The expression
may accordingly be applied to Members who are known not to be seeking re-election as well as
to those who have been defeated. In particular, however, after an election of Congress, all the
Members who did not gain reelection can be described as lame ducks until the term of the new
Congress starts. When the previously sitting Congress, which includes these Members, meets in a
post-election session, this session is called a lame duck session as well.1
Lame Duck Sessions in the Modern Congress
The possibility of a lame duck session of Congress in the modern sense began in 1935, when the
20th Amendment to the Constitution took effect. Under this amendment, ratified in 1933, the
terms of Members begin and end on January 3 of odd-numbered years. Congress convenes in a
regular session on January 3 of each year, unless in the previous session it passes a law changing
the date. Under these arrangements, any meeting of Congress after election day (in November of
even-numbered years), but before the following January 3, is a lame duck session.
From 1935 through 2010, there were 18 lame duck sessions. The most recent one occurred at the
end of the 111th Congress in 2010. This report examines only the specific lame duck sessions that
have occurred since 1935, not those that, as explained in the following section, occurred routinely
before then.

1 See Raymond W. Smock, “Lame Duck Session,” in Donald C. Bacon, Roger H. Davidson, and Morton Keller, eds.,
The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), vol. 3, pp. 1244-1245.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Lame Duck Sessions Before the 20th Amendment
The Constitution originally provided that the regular sessions of Congress begin annually on the
first Monday in December. In the process of initiating the government under the Constitution, it
was established that the term of Congress would begin and end of March 4 of odd-numbered
years.2 As today, however, congressional elections were generally held in November of even-
numbered years.
The result was that after being elected in (an even-numbered) November, a new Congress did not
begin its term until the following (odd-numbered) March, and normally did not even convene its
first session until the following December, 13 months after it was first elected. This session of
Congress typically continued until sometime in the summer of the following (even-numbered)
year. Congress would then adjourn until the time for the next regular session prescribed by the
Constitution, the following (even-numbered) December.
When this session convened, however, the next Congress would already have been elected, in the
intervening (even-numbered) November. Yet the term of this newly elected Congress would not
begin until the following March. The Congress that convened in an even-numbered December,
accordingly, could not be the newly elected one, but could only be the one already sitting. Under
these arrangements, as a result, the last session of every Congress was always a lame duck
session.3 One purpose of the 20th Amendment was to change these arrangements that routinely
required every Congress to hold its last session as a lame duck session.4
Sometimes a Congress would convene its first session earlier, even as early as the March
commencement of its constitutional term, especially when a new President was concurrently
entering office. As described in following sections, this extra session could occur pursuant either
to a presidential call or a law passed by the previous Congress. This extra session would normally
adjourn some time before the following (odd-numbered) December, and in that case Congress
would normally reconvene, in a new session, pursuant to the Constitutional mandate, when
December arrived. Under these conditions the extra session became the first session of a
Congress, and the first regular (December) session became its second session. The final session of
the Congress, beginning in the following December, then became the third session. This final
session, however, would still be a lame duck session of the old Congress, for it would convene at
a time when the new Congress had already been elected in November, but had not yet begun its
term of office.

2 See Johnny H. Killian, George A. Costello, and Kenneth R. Thomas, eds., The Constitution of the United States of
America: Analysis and Interpretation, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress
(Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 2089 [commentary on the 20th Amendment].
3 This session, beginning in the even-numbered December, could last only last until the term of the sitting Congress
expired early in the following March, when the new Congress came into office. For this reason, it was colloquially
known as the “short session.”
4 See P. Orman Ray, “Lame-Duck Amendment,” in Stanley I. Kutler, ed., Dictionary of American History, 3d ed. (New
York: Scribner, 2003), vol. 5, p. 24. For more information on the adoption of the 20th Amendment, see Alan P. Grimes,
Democracy and the Amendments to the Constitution (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath, (c) 1978), pp.
104-108.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

How Lame Duck Sessions May Occur
Under the 20th Amendment, lame duck sessions can still occur, but only as a result of specific
actions undertaken either by the Congress already sitting or by the President. The possible means
by which a lame duck session may occur are (1) pursuant to a previously enacted law prescribing
an additional session of Congress; (2) following a recess within a session, but spanning the
election; (3) under authority granted to the leadership at the time of a contingent adjournment or
recess of the session; (4) by continuing to meet, perhaps in pro forma sessions, throughout the
period spanning the election; and (5) in response to a presidential proclamation calling an
extraordinary session.
Although some of these methods have been used rarely and others not at all, each helps to
illuminate the constitutional arrangements that make lame duck sessions possible and the
conditions in which they may operate. The following sections describe each method and indicate
its implications.
Sine Die Adjournment and its Effects
Although the “lame duck sessions” that have occurred before and after 1935 are both “lame
duck” in the same sense, they are not “sessions” in the same sense. Formally, a session of
Congress ends when Congress adjourns sine die.5 The Latin phrase, literally translated as
“without day,” is used to mean that Congress has adjourned without setting a day for its next
meeting. An adjournment sine die, therefore, means that Congress is not scheduled to meet again
until the day set by the Constitution (or by law) for its next session to convene. When Congress
adjourns sine die in an election year, it is not scheduled to meet again before the term of the new
Congress begins. The next meeting, instead, will be that of the new Congress, convening pursuant
to the Constitution (or to a law altering the constitutional date, if the previous Congress passed
one). This meeting will therefore begin the first session of the new Congress.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to set its own adjournment date without the involvement of
the President, unless the two houses cannot agree.6 Congress therefore authorizes a sine die
adjournment by concurrent resolution. Inasmuch as this form of measure requires adoption by
both houses, but no action by the President, it permits Congress to act without involving the
executive branch in the prerogatives of the legislative.
Previous to 1935, Congress would normally adjourn its previous session sine die sometime in
advance of the November elections. When it returned for its prescribed meeting in December,
accordingly, a new session began. Under these conditions, the “lame duck session” of each
Congress was actually a session in its own right, numerically distinct from the previous session
(or sessions) of the same Congress. Accordingly, each of the lame duck sessions that occurred
routinely before 1935 was convened as a separate session of the Congress already sitting.
Congress today could achieve an equivalent result by adjourning its session sine die before an
election, after first providing by law that an additional session of the old Congress convene on a
date after the election. This additional, post-election session (probably the third session of the old

5 In congressional usage, the phrase is generally pronounced “sign a dye.”
6 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Congress) would be a lame duck session in same sense as those that occurred routinely before
1935. It would be a new, separately numbered session of the old Congress. Subsequent to the
implementation of the 20th Amendment in 1935, however, Congress has never made use of this
means of bringing about a lame duck session.
Recess of the Session
Instead, when a Congress has decided to continue meeting after an election, its usual practice has
been not to adjourn sine die, but simply to recess its existing session for a period spanning the
election, and then to reconvene at a date still within the constitutional term of the sitting
Congress. Since 1935, this second means of bringing about a lame duck session has been used on
12 occasions, as detailed in Table 1 and the section on “Means of Calling Sessions.”
Congress authorizes a session recess in the same way it authorizes a sine die adjournment, by
adopting a concurrent resolution. This form of authorization is appropriate for the purpose
because the Constitution provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall,
without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days....”7 Inasmuch as the
concurrent resolution requires action by both houses, it permits each to consent to the
adjournment of the other.
Unlike a sine die adjournment, however, a recess of the session does not terminate the existing
session of Congress; it is, instead, technically an adjournment within a session. When Congress
reconvenes at the conclusion of a session recess, no new session begins; instead, the previously
existing session resumes. Under these conditions, the post-election meeting of Congress is not a
separate, new session of the old Congress, but a continuation of its existing session (probably its
second session). Nevertheless, the phrase “lame duck session” has persisted as a way of referring
to any post-election meeting of the old Congress, even though it now normally does not designate
a separate session of Congress, but rather refers simply to the post-election portion of an ongoing
existing session.
Contingent Authority to Reconvene
The two sequences of events just discussed (a recess of an existing session and an adjournment
sine die after providing for a new session) are not the only ones that can lead to a lame duck
session. A third such course of events becomes possible if, when Congress recesses before an
election, it grants contingent authority to its leadership to reconvene it, or either house, “if the
public interest shall require.” In the period since ratification of the 20th Amendment, it has
become common for Congress to include this contingent authority, in some form, in concurrent
resolutions providing for either a session recess or a sine die adjournment.
If Congress included this contingent authority in a resolution providing for a recess spanning an
election, the leadership might use the authority to reconvene Congress before the scheduled
expiration of the recess. It might do so either before or after the election itself, but in either case,
any portion of the reconvened session that occurred after the election would be considered a lame
duck session. During the time since the 20th Amendment took effect, however, this course of
action has not been taken.

7 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

If Congress adjourns sine die with contingent reconvening authority, on the other hand, the sine
die character of the adjournment becomes final only if the leadership does not exercise this
authority by the time the next session of Congress is slated to convene, pursuant to either the
Constitution or law. If the authority is exercised, the existing session of the old Congress resumes,
and the previous adjournment turns out not to have been sine die. Any post-election portion of
this continuation of the previous session of Congress would be considered a lame duck session.
The Speaker of the House has twice used authority of this kind to reconvene the chamber in a
post-election continuation of a session that had previously been terminated by a conditional sine
die adjournment. These lame duck sessions of the House occurred in 1998 (105th Congress) and
2008 (110th Congress).8 No lame duck session of the Senate has been reconvened pursuant to
authority of this kind. In 2008, the Senate implemented its lame duck session through pro forma
sessions, as described in the following section.
Pro Forma Sessions
A fourth way in which a lame duck session can occur arises if Congress chooses not to authorize
a recess spanning an election, but simply continues to meet throughout the pre-election period
and afterwards. Any portion of the continuing session of Congress that takes place after the
election would be considered a lame duck session.
When Congress takes this course of action, each house typically convenes only on two or three
days per week during the period spanning the election, and schedules little or no business to occur
during these intermittent meetings. In the absence of a formal recess, each house must convene at
least intermittently in order to satisfy the constitutional requirement that neither house adjourn for
more than three consecutive days without the consent of the other.9 Inasmuch as it is known that
little business will occur during these intermittent sessions, however, this arrangement permits
most Members to remain in their constituencies during the campaign period preceding the
election.
Sessions held under these conditions are often called pro forma sessions, meaning that they are
held only “for the sake of formality.” In this case, the formality being satisfied is the
constitutional prohibition on adjourning for more than three days without consent. The question is
sometimes raised whether pro forma sessions during which no business occurs count as meeting
this constitutional requirement. The answer is that they do; the Constitution sets no conditions
about the occurrence of business, but only about the occurrence of the session itself. Indeed, the
reason for holding pro forma sessions at all is precisely that they do satisfy the formal
requirement.
As Table 1 and the accompanying discussion show, there have been five occasions since 1935 on
which at least one house of Congress has implemented a break spanning the election by meeting
in pro forma sessions rather than taking a recess. On four other occasions, at least one house

8 “Notification of Reassembling of Congress,” proceedings in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 144, December
17, 1998, p. 27770. See H.Con.Res. 353, 105th Cong., 112 Stat. 3699 at 3700. “Notification of Reassembly,”
proceedings in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 154, December 9, 2008, p. H10859. See H.Con.Res. 440, 110th
Cong., agreed to October 3, 2008.
9 See Walter Kravitz, Congressional Quarterly’s American Congressional Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Washington: CQ Press,
2001), p. 192.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

recessed for a period spanning the election, but also used pro forma sessions to extend the
effective length of the election break.
Sessions Called by the President
A final means by which a lame duck session could occur arises from the constitutional
authorization for the President to convene Congress, “on extraordinary occasions,” by calling a
special session.10 If Congress convenes, pursuant to this call, after a sine die adjournment and
before the next session is scheduled to begin, a new session of the existing Congress begins. This
course of events has not occurred since 1935.11 On the other hand, if the President calls Congress
back during a recess of an existing session, the existing session resumes. This course of events
occurred in both 1947 and 1948, when President Harry Truman called Congress back for an
extraordinary session in the middle of a recess, in the latter case a recess for the national political
conventions.
These extraordinary sessions called by President Truman did not constitute lame duck sessions,
because they both convened and recessed before the election for the following Congress. By the
same means, however, a President might call an extraordinary session to convene at a date after
the election and before the term of the sitting Congress ends. He could do so whether Congress
had only recessed its previous session or had adjourned it sine die. In either case, the post-election
meeting of Congress would be considered a lame duck session.12 No lame duck session since
1935 has occurred through this means.
In the past few years, as noted in the following sections, Congress has sometimes provided for
breaks in its session by using pro forma sessions rather than recesses. It appears to be an unsettled
question whether the President could use his power to call extraordinary sessions to call Congress
back during a period when it was recessing only for three or fewer days at a time between pro
forma sessions. It does not appear that any President has attempted such action.
Characteristics of Lame Duck Sessions Since 1935
Dates and Lengths of Lame Duck Sessions and Election Breaks
Since the 20th Amendment became effective in 1935, there have been 18 lame duck sessions. For
each of them, Table 1 provides information on
• when the pre-election portion of the session ended;
• when the post-election, or “lame duck,” portion of the session began; and
• when Congress adjourned the post-election session sine die.

10 U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3.
11 In 1937 and 1939, however, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called Congress into special second sessions after sine
die adjournment of the first session. U.S. Congress, House, Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House of
Representatives, H. Doc. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 1, by Lewis Deschler, Parliamentarian of the House 1928-
1974 (Washington: GPO, 1977), chapter 1, secs. 2 and 3.
12 Ibid., chapter 1, sec. 2.1.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

It also shows whether, during the period spanning the election, Congress
• recessed,
• met in a series of pro forma sessions,
• adjourned sine die (and then reconvened subject to authority granted to the
leadership); or
• used some combination of these procedures.
In cases when the two houses took differing actions, or took the same action on different dates,
Table 1 provides separate data for each house. Also, if the last session preceding an election
break, or the session during which a sine die adjournment occurred, extended past midnight, the
table reports not the calendar day on which the session convened, but that on which the
adjournment actually occurred.
On the basis of these data, the following sections present some generalizations about the
occurrence, form, timing, and length of the 18 lame duck sessions that have occurred since 1935,
including especially mean and median starting dates, ending dates, and lengths of election breaks
and lame duck sessions.13 In these discussions, all averages for a chamber exclude from
consideration the year in which the respective chamber did not return after the election (1954 for
the House; 1998 for the Senate).
Defining “Pro Forma” Sessions
In years when Congress either (1) takes an election recess or (2) reconvenes subject to call after a
conditional sine die adjournment, the dates on which each house begins its recess or adjournment,
and the dates on which each reconvenes, are explicitly specified. Under these conditions,
consequently, the beginning, end, and length of both the election recess (or conditional
adjournment) and the lame duck session can be readily and unambiguously determined. When
either house implements a break spanning the election by holding pro forma sessions, on the
other hand, it is not always clear which sessions should be counted as occurring pro forma rather
than as part of the regular session, especially because business is sometimes transacted in the
course of the intermittent sessions that span the period of the election. The same ambiguity arises
even more acutely when either house extends the effective length of an election break by holding
one or more pro forma sessions, either leading up to a recess or adjournment or at the end of it.
To make meaningful comparisons among election breaks implemented in whole or part through
pro forma sessions and those implemented solely through a recess or adjournment, some
appropriate way must be found of distinguishing between sessions held for the purpose of
conducting business and those held with the intent of providing an equivalent of a recess. Absent
such a distinction, for example, the longest possible election break in a year with pro forma
sessions would be given as three days, even if the pro forma sessions were evidently being held in
order to permit Members to return to their constituencies for the same length of time as a recess
would have allowed. Under these conditions, also, the time between the start of the lame duck

13 The mean, or average, is the sum of the lengths of the recesses divided by the number of recesses. The median is the
midpoint, from which half the recesses were longer and half shorter.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

session and the sine die adjournment would appear comparably longer than in years with the
same adjournment date, but in which a recess was taken.
Resolving these difficulties of comparison requires adopting some means for identifying pro
forma sessions that permits specifying the beginning and end of election-spanning break (and
therefore also the beginning of the lame duck session) in a way best comparable with the figures
given for recesses and conditional sine die adjournments. For this purpose, the most
straightforward approach seems to be to count any session of a chamber as pro forma if there is
no session of that chamber on either the preceding or following day. Conversely, under this
criterion, all daily sessions are counted as part of the regular schedule of a chamber if another
session of the same chamber occurs on the day either immediately preceding or following it. It
proved necessary to modify this criterion only when the day of a sine die adjournment is
consecutive with no other sessions, in which case it is counted as a day of regular session.
This approach provides a simple way of bringing a common perspective to the wide variety of
schedules Congress has followed. It may be supported by the presumption that even if substantial
business occurs during a daily session, under normal circumstances it may be difficult to ascertain
why it should be isolated by at least a day from every other daily session, unless its purpose is at
least in part to meet constitutional restrictions on recesses. Except as otherwise noted,
accordingly, all dates and figures provided in this report use this way of specifying lame duck
sessions and election breaks.
When Lame Duck Sessions Have Occurred
Lame duck sessions were frequent in the years surrounding World War II, occurring in six of
eight Congresses (76th through 83rd) between 1940 and 1954. Thereafter, none occurred from
1956 through 1968. There were two in each of the next three decades, but there was also another
relatively long gap from 1984 through 1992. Beginning with 1994, however, lame duck sessions
have occurred in eight of the last nine Congresses (103rd through 111th), including the last seven
Congresses in a row.
On one occasion, in 1954, only the Senate returned, and only to consider the censure of Senator
Joseph McCarthy; and once, in 1998, only the House returned, principally to consider the
impeachment of President William J. Clinton.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Table 1. Lame Duck Sessions of Congress,1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)
Last Day of
First Day of
Year of
Consecutive
Congress
Form of Break
Consecutive
Sine Die
a
Election
Sessions Before
Spanning Election
Sessions After
Adjournmentc
Electionb,c
Electionb,d
House:
Oct. 10
House: Nov. 18
House: Jan. 2, 1941
1940 76th

Pro forma
Senate: Oct.
15
sessions
Senate: Nov. 7
Senate: Jan. 3, 1941
House:
Oct. 27
House: Nov. 9
1942 77th

Pro forma
Dec.
16
Senate: Oct.
24
sessions
Senate: Nov.
12
Recess and
1944 78th
Sept.
21

pro forma

Nov. 20

Dec. 19
sessions
1948 80th

Aug. 7

Recess

Dec. 31

Dec. 31
Recess and
House: pro forma
House: Nov.
30
1950 81st
Sept.
23
sessions

Jan. 2, 1951
Senate: Recess
Senate: Nov.
27
House: Adjourned




sine die
1954 83rd
Aug.
20
Senate: Recess
Senate: Nov. 8
Senate: Dec. 2
1970 91st

Oct. 14

Recess

Nov. 16

Jan. 2, 1971
1974 93rd

Oct. 17

Recess

Nov. 18

Dec. 20
House: Oct.
2
House:
Dec. 16
1980 96th

Recess

Nov. 12
Senate:
Oct. 2
Senate: Dec. 16
House: Dec. 21
1982 97th

Oct. 2

Recess

Nov. 29
Senate: Dec. 23
House: Nov. 29
House: Nov. 29
1994 103rd

Oct. 8
Recess Senate: Nov. 30 Senate: Dec. 1
House: Dec.
17e
House: Dec. 19
1998 105th
Oct.
21
Adjourned
sine die




House:
Nov. 3
House: Recess
House: Nov. 13
2000 106th
Recess and
Dec.
15
Senate: Nov.
2 Senate:
pro forma
Senate: Dec.
5
sessions
House: Nov. 22
2002 107th

Oct. 17

Pro forma
Nov.
7
sessions
Senate: Nov. 20
House:
Oct. 9
House: Dec. 7
2004 108th
Recess Nov.
16
Senate: Oct.
11
Senate: Dec. 8

Recess and
House: Dec. 9
2006 109th
Sept. 30
pro forma
Nov.
13
sessions
Senate: Dec. 9
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Last Day of
First Day of
Year of
Consecutive
Congress
Form of Break
Consecutive
Sine Die
a
Election
Sessions Before
Spanning Election
Sessions After
Adjournmentc
Electionb,c
Electionb,d
House: Oct.
3 House:
Adjourned
House: Nov.
19e
House: Jan. 3, 2009
sine die
2008 110th
Senate: Oct.
7 Senate:
Pro forma
sessions
Senate: Nov. 19
Senate: Jan. 2, 2009
House:
Sept. 30 House: Recess
House:
Nov. 15
House: Dec. 22
2010 111th
Senate: Sept.
29 Senate:
Pro forma
Senate: Nov. 15
Senate: Dec. 22
sessions
Sources: Journals of the House and Senate; Daily Digest of the Congressional Record; and Final Calendars of the
House and Senate.
a. Second session, except 3rd session of the 76th Congress (1940).
b. For explanation of this criterion for the start and end of the break spanning the election and of the lame
duck session, see “Definition of “Pro Forma” Sessions” in the text.
c. The date given is the calendar day on which the specified daily session ended. Bold face entries indicate
that this calendar day was later than that on which this daily session began.
d. If no consecutive days of session occurred during the lame duck session, the date displayed in this column is
that of the sine die adjournment.
e. Reconvened pursuant to contingent authority granted to leadership in the adjournment resolution.
Form of Election Break
Between 1935 and 2010, the two chambers have used three means of providing for a break before
a lame duck session: recesses spanning the election, pro forma sessions, and contingent
adjournments sine die. While in most instances, the form of the election break was the same for
both chambers, the House and Senate used different forms on four occasions. In addition, one or
both chambers have used a combination of recesses spanning the election and pro forma sessions
in four instances.14
After a Congress adjourns sine die, no lame duck session can occur unless the adjournment
resolution makes the adjournment conditional by authorizing the leadership to call Congress back
(or unless the President were to proclaim an extraordinary session). If Congress only recesses for
the election, on the other hand, a lame duck session is certain to take place even if the recess
resolution provides no authority to reconvene. In five of the 13 years in which election recesses
occurred (1950, 1954, 1970, 1980, and 1982), Congress authorized the recess without providing
authority for the leadership to reconvene before the recess was to end. In the remaining eight
recess years (1944, 1948, 1974, 1994, 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2010), the recess resolution
provided this authority, but it was not exercised.
Since 1935, recesses of both chambers spanning the election have preceded lame duck sessions in
eleven instances (1944, 1948, 1950, 1970, 1974, 1980, 1982, 1994, 2000, 2004, and 2006). In one
additional instance (2010), although both the House and Senate participated in a lame duck

14 Although a lame duck session could be carried out as a separate session of Congress, each of 18 of the lame duck
sessions since 1935 has instead occurred as the post-election portion of a regular session.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

session, only the House opted to recess before the election while the Senate engaged in pro forma
sessions until the post election session began. Another election-spanning recesses, as well,
involved a lame duck session of only one chamber. In 1954, the House adjourned sine die, and
only the Senate recessed (with no contingent reconvening authority), allowing it alone to return to
deal with the censure of Senator McCarthy.
A schedule in which both houses continued to meet in pro forma sessions throughout the election
period was used for the first two lame duck sessions after adoption of the 20th Amendment, which
occurred in 1940 and 1942, shortly before and during World War II. Both chambers’ simultaneous
use of this arrangement again appeared only in 2002. In addition, the House alone engaged in pro
forma sessions during the election break preceding the lame duck session on one occasion shortly
after World War II (1950). In contrast, the use of pro forma sessions prior to lame duck sessions
by the Senate alone has been a more recent development, occurring in 2000, 2008, and 2010.
Pro forma sessions have also been used in conjunction with recesses spanning the election,
effectively extending the election break before the lame duck session began, on a total of four
occasions. In 1944 and 2006, both chambers used a combination of pro forma sessions and
recesses for this purpose; the House alone did so in 1950, and the Senate alone in 2000.
The Senate has never convened in a lame duck session after a contingent adjournment sine die;
both instances of this procedure have involved only the House, and in both instances the call to
reconvene was expected in advance. In 1998, both chambers adjourned sine die with contingent
reconvening authority, but only the House returned, chiefly to address the impeachment of
President Clinton. In 2008, when the House was called back principally to address dislocations in
the financial system, the Senate had not adjourned sine die, but continued to meet in pro forma
sessions.
In addition to this 2008 instance, the House and Senate have observed different forms of election
break preceding a lame duck session on three other occasions. In 1950, the House used a
combination of a recess spanning the election and pro forma sessions prior to the start of the lame
duck session while the Senate only recessed. The reverse occurred in 2000, with the Senate using
pro forma sessions and a recess while the House only recessed. Finally, in 2010, the House
recessed before the lame duck session while the Senate engaged exclusively in pro forma sessions
during the break spanning the election.
Start of Election Breaks
Election breaks preceding lame duck sessions have most commonly begun in early to mid-
October; 10 of the 18 began between September 30 and October 17. This schedule, which affords
Members at least a few weeks to return to their constituencies during the campaign period, has
been especially common in years when the election break occurs in the form of a recess. It was
used in seven of the 13 years when an election-spanning recess occurred, none of which,
however, occurred before 1970.
In relation to this pattern, the last three election breaks have begun relatively early. The last
consecutive sessions of both houses before their recess in 2006 (109th Congress) was on
September 30, and in 2008 (110th Congress), the House adjourned sine die on October 3 and the
last consecutive sessions of the Senate ended on October 7. In 2010 (111th Congress), the last
consecutive sessions of the Senate ended on September 29 and the House recessed for the
election early in the morning the following day. Before 2006, however, election breaks that began
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

earlier than September 30 occurred only preceding the four lame duck sessions held from 1944
through 1954. The break in all four years, which was either constituted by or included a recess,
began either earlier in September or even in August. The earliest start of any break spanning an
election was August 7, 1948 (80th Congress). In this case, Congress recessed its regular session on
June 20, scheduling itself to reconvene on December 31. President Truman called Congress back
into extraordinary session on July 26, but Congress soon put itself back into recess.
On the other hand, some election breaks during the period since 1998, when lame duck sessions
have been universal, have begun significantly later than mid-October. In 1998 (105th Congress),
both chambers adjourned sine die on October 21 before the House was called back to consider the
Clinton impeachment. Two years later (106th Congress), the election recess (extended in the
Senate by pro forma sessions) did not begin until November 2 for the Senate and November 3 for
the House. The only other election break ever to begin so late occurred in 1942, when consecutive
sessions continued in the Senate until October 24 and in the House until October 27.
Start of Lame Duck Sessions (End of Election Breaks)
A recess or other form of break in session spanning the election is terminated by the reconvening
of Congress for a lame duck session after the election. Lame duck sessions have most commonly
convened in mid- to late November; of the 18 sessions, 11 began between November 12 and 30.
This pattern has been most common in years when the lame duck session followed a recess,
occurring in 9 of the 13 such years. In four other years, at least one house resumed its session
earlier in November, and three of these years were ones in which the election was spanned by pro
forma sessions in both chambers. In three years, at least one house did not reconvene until
December, in two cases after a recess.
The latest date for both houses to reconvene after an election occurred in the 80th Congress on
December 31, 1948 (which was also the day of sine die adjournment). The only other lame duck
session to begin in December occurred when the House alone was called back after the sine die
adjournment of Congress on December 17, 1998 (105th Congress). In 2000 (106th Congress), the
Senate did not return from its recess until December 5, but the House had already done so on
November 13.
Lame duck sessions have tended to begin earlier in years when Congress used pro forma sessions,
rather than a recess, to span the election. The earliest reconvening of both houses occurred in
2002, when the 97th Congress resumed consecutive sessions on November 7, but the other
examples of early starts occurred near the beginning of the historical period under discussion. In
1954 (83rd Congress), when the Senate alone returned, it did so on November 8. The Senate also
resumed consecutive sessions after the election break on November 7, 1940 (76th Congress),
although the House did not do so until the 18th. Conversely, the House resumed consecutive
sessions on November 9, 1942 (77th Congress), although the Senate did not do so until the 12th.
The earliest reconvening after an election recess was 1980, when the 97th Congress returned on
November 12. Congress also reconvened after a recess on relatively early dates in 2000 (106th
Congress), when the House returned on November 13 and the Senate on November 14, and in
1944 (78th Congress), when both houses returned on November 14.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Length of Election Breaks
The first two data columns of Table 2 display the length of election breaks for each chamber,
measured in calendar days between the last day of consecutive sessions before the election and
the first day of consecutive sessions thereafter. These breaks have typically lasted between one
and two months. In only four years did longer intervals between the pre- and post-election session
occur, and in only four years did shorter ones take place. This degree of consistency in the length
of election breaks indicates that normally, when Congress left later for the break, it also tended to
return later after the election, and conversely, when it left earlier it typically returned earlier.
In most years, in addition, the two chambers followed generally similar schedules. Only in the
three years in which both houses spanned the election with pro forma sessions did the length of
the break differ between the two houses by more than four days, and the differences occurred
largely because of the points at which consecutive sessions occurred in the two chambers. In 1940
the break for the House was 16 days longer, in 1942 the Senate break was six days longer, and in
2000 the Senate break was 23 days longer.
For similar reasons, the years in which only pro forma sessions spanned the election are also
those in which most of the shortest breaks occurred. For these years, the mean interval between
periods of consecutive sessions was 23 days in the House and 25 days in the Senate. For years
with recesses or conditional sine die adjournments, by contrast, the mean was 49 days in the
House and 59 in the Senate. Specifically, the interval between periods of consecutive sessions in
1940 (76th Congress) was 22 days in the Senate (but 38 in the House); in 1942 (77th Congress), it
was 12 days in the House and 18 in the Senate; and in 2002 (107th Congress), it was 20 days in
both chambers. In 2008, only the Senate made use of pro forma sessions to span its break of 42
days, while the House reconvened 46 days after a contingent sine die adjournment. The only
other notably short break occurred in 2000 (106th Congress), in this case apparently because
Congress did not recess for the election until early November, so that the House could return after
nine days, although the Senate did not come back until after 32 days, in early December.
For the House, the median length of the election break has been 43 days; for the Senate, it has
been 42 days. The mean length is greater for both chambers (House: 46 days; Senate: 48 days),
because it is affected by the unusually long recess of 145 days between August 7 and the sine die
adjournment on December 31 in 1948 (80th Congress).15 Excluding this instance, nearly twice as
long as any other, the mean length of election breaks is 40 days for the House and 42 for the
Senate. The only two other election breaks longer than 60 days also occurred in earlier years. The
recess before the Senate alone returned in 1948 (83rd Congress) lasted 79 days, and in 1950 (81st
Congress), the House recessed for 67 days and the Senate for 64.
End of Lame Duck Sessions
Lame duck sessions have most often finally adjourned sine die in about mid-December, or at least
before Christmas. The average date has been December 19 for the House, December 18 for the
Senate. The Senate of the 76th Congress, however, did not adjourn sine die until January 3, 1941,
when the 77th Congress was to convene (the House having adjourned on January 2). The 110th

15 The mean, or average, is the sum of the lengths of the recesses divided by the number of recesses. The median is the
midpoint, from which half the recesses were longer and half shorter.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Congress displayed the converse pattern: the Senate adjourned sine die on January 2, 2009, and
the House on January 3. These represent the latest sine die adjournments among the 18 lame duck
sessions. Other late terminations occurred in the 81st and 91st Congresses, both of which
adjourned sine die on January 2 (1951 and 1971, respectively), and, as already noted, in the 80th
Congress, when both houses adjourned sine die on December 31, 1948, after a one-day lame duck
session.
Table 2. Length of Election Breaks and of Lame Duck Sessions,
1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)
Length in Calendar Days
Length in Calendar Days
of Break Spanning Electiona
of Lame Duck Sessionb
Year of Election
Congress
House
Senate
House
Senate
1940 76th 38
22 46 58
1942 77th 12
18 38 35
1944 78th 59
59 30 30
1948 80th 145 145 1
1
1950 81st 67
64 34 37
1954 83rd —
79 — 25
1970 91st 32
32 48 48
1974 93rd 31
31 33 33
1980 96th 40
40 35 35
1982 97th 57
57 23 25
1994 103rd 51
52
1
2
1998 105th 56
—
2 —
2000 106th 9
32 37 11
2002 107th 20
20 16 14
2004 108th 37
35 22 23
2006 109th 43
43 27 27
2008 110th 46
42 46 45
2010 111th 45
46 38 38
Source: Table 1.
a. Includes all calendar days between the last day of consecutive sessions before the election and the first day
of consecutive sessions after the election.
b. Includes all calendar days from the first day of consecutive sessions after the election through final sine die
adjournment.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

The earliest end of a lame duck session occurred in 2002 (107th Congress), when the House
adjourned sine die on November 22, the Senate having done so two days earlier. Other relatively
early conclusions occurred in 1994 (103rd Congress), when the House adjourned on November 29
and the Senate on December 1, and in 1954 (83rd Congress), when the Senate (being the only
chamber that had reconvened) adjourned on December 2. In recent years, the 109th Congress
adjourned sine die on December 9, 2004.
Calendar Length of Lame Duck Sessions
From the beginning of consecutive sessions after an election to a final sine die adjournment of
Congress, lame duck sessions have typically lasted about a month, as shown by the last two
columns of Table 2. The mean length of the 17 lame duck sessions of the House since 1935 has
been 28 calendar days and the median 33 calendar days; the mean length of the 17 lame duck
sessions of the Senate has been 29 calendar days and the median 30 calendar days.16 In 12 of the
18 total lame duck sessions, at least one chamber has remained in session for between 16 and 38
days.
As has been the case with election breaks, the two houses have almost always followed similar
schedules for the lame duck session itself. Among the 16 lame duck sessions in which both
houses returned, only two exhibit a difference in length between the two houses of more than
three days. In the two exceptional cases, however, the difference between the houses was marked.
In 1940 (76th Congress), the Senate remained in session for 58 days, but the House adjourned sine
die after 46 days. In this instance, however, both houses remained in pro forma sessions
throughout much of the post-election period, so that the difference in length depends largely on
when each house held its first consecutive sessions after the election. In 2000 (106th Congress),
the House returned earlier than the Senate from its election recess and remained in session for 37
days, whereas the Senate adjourned sine die after but 11 days. In this case the major task of the
session was the completion of action on appropriations bills, and the House was the focus of the
major conflicts over the matter.
Lame duck sessions in more recent times have generally tended to be shorter than earlier ones.
Among the nine lame duck sessions from 1940 through 1980, only two were shorter than 30 days:
the one-day session of the 80th Congress (1948) and the session of the Senate alone to address the
censure of Senator McCarthy in the 83rd Congress (1948), which lasted 25 days. Among the seven
lame duck sessions from 1982 through 2006, by contrast, only one exceeded 27 days in length.
The most recent two lame duck sessions, however, may indicate an emerging trend toward longer
lame duck sessions. In 2008 (110th Congress), the House remained in session for 46 calendar days
and the Senate for 45; in 2010 (111th Congress), both the House and Senate remained in session
for 38 days.
The longest of all lame duck sessions since the 20th Amendment took effect has been the first (76th
Congress), when both houses remained in session between November 7, 1940, and January 3,
1941, although they each met usually only every third day. Inasmuch as this session included
essentially the entire time between election day and the expiration of the constitutional term of
the Congress, it approaches the theoretical maximum length. A longer lame duck session could
occur only in a year when election day was earlier.

16 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Only two other lame duck sessions have lasted more than 38 days. One was that, just mentioned,
which occurred in the 110th Congress (2008), when economic recovery was the principal object of
attention. The other occurred in the 91st Congress (1970), when the lame duck session continued
for 48 calendar days, working not only on appropriations but also on major elements of President
Nixon’s legislative program.
The shortest lame duck sessions have, in general, been those held for special or limited purposes,
including the two occasions on which only one house returned. The shortest of all, of course, was
that of the 80th Congress (1948), when both houses returned solely to close the session on
December 31, 1948. In 1994, when the 103rd Congress implemented the new General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Senate met for just two days and the House for but one. In the
105th Congress (1998), the House alone returned for only two days to address the impeachment of
President Clinton. Except for these three instances, no lame duck session of either chamber has
lasted for fewer than 11 days. The fourth lame duck session with a limited agenda lasted
somewhat longer, as the Senate alone considered the McCarthy censure for 25 days in 1954 (83rd
Congress). Omitting all four of these “special purpose” sessions from consideration reveals that,
among the 13 lame duck sessions that addressed a broader agenda, the mean length was 33 days
in the House and 32 in the Senate; the median was 34 days in the House and 33 in the Senate.
Days of Session After Election
Using periods of consecutive session to identify the beginnings of lame duck sessions has the
advantage of affording some uniform basis for comparison between years in which pro forma
sessions were used and other years. In some respects, however, comparisons in terms of calendar
days counted in this way may be misleading. Part of the reason is that some Congresses have used
pro forma sessions not only to effect the break spanning the election, but also in the course of the
lame duck session itself. In addition, some lame duck sessions have contained internal recesses,
authorized by concurrent resolution. The two houses have used both these means, for example, to
create breaks in session for the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.
In some respects, as a result, the extent of activity of a lame duck session may be better stated in
terms of the number of actual daily sessions held after the election, rather than in calendar days
between convening and adjourning. This way of counting includes not only those pro forma
sessions that occurred after each chamber resumed consecutive sessions after the election, but all
sessions held between the election day and the sine die adjournment, whether consecutive or not.
Table 3 presents these figures, together with an identification of the holiday arrangements made
in each lame duck session.
The pattern of lame duck sessions revealed by this approach does not differ radically from that in
terms of calendar days, but shows less variation among years. In years with lame duck sessions,
the House held a mean of 14 sessions after the election; the Senate a mean of 17. In all but five of
the 18 lame duck sessions, each chamber convened on at least 5 and no more than 24 days. The
shorter sessions include three with limited agendas (1948, 1994, and 1998). The first longer
session was that of 1970, when much of President Nixon’s initial legislative agenda remained at
issue. The other longer session occurred in 2010, when appropriations for the current fiscal year
and the pending expiration of certain revenue provisions needed to be addressed.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Table 3. Days of Session After Election and Holiday Breaks in Lame Duck Sessions,
1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)
Days of Sessiona
Form of Breakb
Year of
Election
Congress House
Senate
Thanksgiving
Christmas
1940 76th 20 21
Pro forma sessions
Pro forma sessions
1942 77th 20 21
Pro forma sessions
[After adjournment]
1944 78th 24 24
Pro forma sessions
[After adjournment]
1948 80th
1
1
[Before convening]
[Before convening]
1950 81st
22
24
[Before convening]
Pro forma sessions
1954 83rd
—
13
Recess (Senate)
[After adjournment (Senate)]
1970 91st 28 31
Recess
Recess
1974 93rd 18 22
Recess
[After
adjournment]
1980 96th 20 23
Recess
[After
adjournment]
1982 97th
19
20
[Before convening]
[After adjournment]
1994 103rd
1
2
[Before convening]
[After adjournment]
1998 105th
3
—
[Before convening (House)] [After adjournment (House)]
2000 106th 11 8 Recess
[After
adjournment]
2002 107th
8
9
[After adjournment]
[After adjournment]
2004 108th 8 9
Recess
[After
adjournment]
2006 109th 9 11
Recess
[After
adjournment]
2008 110th
5
22
Recess (House)
Recess (House)
Pro forma sessions (Senate)
Pro forma sessions (Senate)
2010 111th 19 29
Recess
[After
adjournment]
Sources: Journals of the House and Senate; Daily Digest of the Congressional Record; and Final Calendars of the
House and Senate.
a. Includes all days on which the chamber was actually in session, including pro forma sessions, between
election day and the expiration of the term of the Congress.
b. Entries for holidays that fel before a lame duck session convened (or resumed consecutive sessions) or
after it reached a final sine die adjournment are shown in [brackets].
Measured by days of session as well as by calendar days, lame duck sessions have tended to
become briefer in more recent years. In the 10 lame duck sessions before 1990, the House
convened on a mean of 19 days and the Senate on a mean of 20 days. In the seven lame duck
sessions since that year, by contrast, the House convened on a mean of six days and the Senate on
a mean of 10 days. Leaving out of account the three brief sessions and the single unusually long
one mentioned in the previous paragraph reveals regularities even more striking. In the remaining
eight lame duck sessions before 1990, each chamber convened for between 18 and 24 days, with
the single exception of 1954, when the Senate returned with a limited agenda for 13 days. In the
four lame duck sessions between 2000 and 2006, on the other hand, each chamber convened for
between eight and 11 days.
The two most recent lame duck sessions, in 2008 and 2010, are an exception to the recent pattern.
In the 2008 session, the House convened on five days and the Senate on 22. The unusual
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

frequency of the Senate’s post-election sessions is accounted for by its use of pro forma sessions
as a means of avoiding recesses or adjournments, so as to limit the opportunity for President Bush
to make recess appointments. The Senate actually transacted business only on approximately as
many days as did the House. From this perspective the 2008 lame duck session might be viewed
as another example of a lame duck session with a limited agenda (of addressing dislocations in
the financial system) that was consequently unusually brief.
During the 2010 lame duck session, the House convened on 19 days and the Senate on 29. In
contrast to the 2008 session, however, the Senate transacted business on all but four days of
session. The high number of days in session for both the House and the Senate was due in part to
the prolonged negotiations over appropriations and extending certain revenue provisions that
occurred at that time.
Holidays During Lame Duck Sessions
The information in Table 3 on the forms taken by breaks for holidays within lame duck sessions
shows that in all but five instances, Congress has reached a final adjournment sine die before
Christmas. In all but five years of lame duck session, on the other hand, Congress has reconvened
(or resumed consecutive sessions) before Thanksgiving. On none of the 16 occasions on which a
lame duck session has been in progress at the time of either holiday did Congress meet on the
holiday. Through 1950, it was the practice of both houses to schedule one or more pro forma
sessions in the period spanning the holiday; thereafter, both houses almost always have recessed
over the holiday. Only in 2008 did each house adopt a different practice, when the House recessed
over Thanksgiving and again over Christmas, while the Senate remained in pro forma sessions, in
order, as explained in the previous section, to forestall presidential recess appointments.
Lame Duck Sessions Since 1935
Following are summaries of the 18 lame duck sessions held since 1935. Primary sources,
including the Congressional Record and Congressional Directory, and secondary sources,
including the Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, CQ Almanac, and, for the earlier years, the
New York Times, constituted the basis for these descriptions. Internet-based sources were also
used.
76th Congress, 3rd Session (1940-1941)
After the first session of the 76th Congress adjourned in August 1939, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt called Congress into extraordinary session in September to deal with the threat of war
in Europe, and this session lasted into November. Thus, the annual session that began on January
3, 1940, was the third session of the 76th Congress. It, too, was dominated by the international
situation. The President requested the largest peacetime defense program to that point in
American history, and, by the end of the summer, Congress had enacted $13 billion in defense
authorizations and appropriations, a military draft, income tax revisions, an excess profits tax, and
related measures.
In June, July, and again in September 1940, the President offered the view that Congress need not
remain in session any longer. Some congressional leaders, however, held that Congress should
“stand by” in session, in case of emergency. Congress met regularly through mid-October, then
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

limited itself to two or three meetings per week until January 3, 1941; there was no extended
recess for the November 1940 elections. The session thus became the longest in history to that
point.
During the lame duck period following the election, little was undertaken; the Congressional
Record from November 4, 1940 through January 3, 1941 covers fewer than 500 pages, and
quorums were often hard to raise. The administration declined to send major new proposals (such
as a defense production board, aid to Britain, new taxes, and an increase in the debt limit) to
Capitol Hill until the 77th Congress would convene in January. Work also was impeded because
both the House and Senate had to meet in substitute quarters while their chambers in the Capitol
underwent repairs. Among the more notable actions of this lame duck period were the decision to
sustain the veto of a measure to limit regulatory agency powers, and the publication of a
committee report on sabotage of the defense effort.
77th Congress, 2nd Session (1942)
In the wartime year of 1942, Congress again remained in session continuously through the
election, adjourning sine die on December 16. Congress generally followed a regular schedule of
daily meetings throughout the period, except near the election, when it met every third day.
Activities in the lame duck portion of the 77th Congress were affected by the knowledge that the
78th Congress, to begin in January, would contain a much narrowed Democratic majority.
Congress declined to take final action to approve the Third War Powers Bill17 or a bill to expand
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, including an agricultural parity rider attached to the
latter. Other questions left to the next Congress included comprehensive national service
legislation, placing a ceiling on net personal income through the tax code, curbing the powers of
regulatory agencies, and planning for censorship of communications with U.S. territories. A
measure to abolish poll taxes passed the House, but came to no resolution because of a filibuster
in the Senate.
Congress did pass legislation to adjust overtime pay for government workers, and to provide for
the military draft of 18- and 19-year-old men (although Congress deferred deciding whether to
require a full year’s training before sending them into combat).
By mid-December, quorums became difficult to obtain and leaders of both parties agreed that
nothing further could be brought up before the start of the 78th Congress in January 1943.
78th Congress, 2nd Session (1944)
Two years later, with World War II still in progress, Congress recessed for the national party
conventions and recessed again for the elections. The latter recess began on September 21, 1944.
Congress returned on November 14 and remained in session until December 19. Accordingly,
1944 marks the first instance after ratification of the 20th Amendment of a separate and distinct
meeting of Congress during its lame duck period.

17 This legislation related to the conduct of World War II, and has no connection with the War Powers Resolution (P.L.
93-148, 87 Stat. 555, 50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) enacted in 1973 to regulate commitments of U.S. armed forces abroad.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Among the issues facing the post-election session were questions of peacetime universal military
training; extension of the War Powers Act18 and the reciprocal trade system; a scheduled increase
in Social Security taxes; and a rivers and harbors appropriations bill. Congress also debated
congressional reform issues, including restructuring the committee system and increasing
congressional pay. Postwar reconstruction and a renewal of domestic programs were also
mentioned as possible subjects for action.
Ultimately, Congress deferred several issues until the start of the 79th Congress, including
universal military training, the Bretton Woods monetary agreements, the Reciprocal Trade Act,
and changes to the Social Security system. Several other measures could not be completed,
including a rivers and harbors bill, a Senate-passed bill making major changes in congressional
procedures; and a pay increase for postal workers. A bill delaying the Social Security tax increase
was enacted, however, as were a renewal of the War Powers Act and a bill increasing the
congressional clerk-hire allowance. In addition, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Edward
R. Stettinius as Secretary of State.
80th Congress, 2nd Session (1948)
Congress recessed in August 1948, before the national party conventions, with the intention of
returning only on December 31 to bring the 80th Congress to a formal conclusion, unless earlier
called back by congressional leaders. During the convention recess, however, President Harry S
Truman called Congress back in extraordinary session to deal with a series of legislative priorities
he considered urgent. This occurrence represents the only time since the adoption of the 20th
Amendment that the President has convened Congress in an extraordinary session.
Congress met pursuant to this call from July 27 to August 7, but then recessed again under the
same terms as before. The leadership did not exercise its option to reconvene Congress during
this new recess, and Congress met again only on December 31. This session, the shortest lame
duck session under the 20th Amendment, met for just under an hour and a half, then adjourned
sine die.
During the brief session, both chambers approved a measure extending for 60 days the life of the
Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of Government (Hoover Commission).
The Senate also extended for 30 days the life of the Special Small Business Committee, and both
houses swore in new Members elected or appointed to full unexpired terms.
81st Congress, 2nd Session (1950-1951)
With the Korean War at a critical juncture in the fall of 1950, congressional leaders announced in
late September that after the election Congress would reconvene in late November. Until
November, Congress would be available to meet should the President call an emergency session.
Congress recessed on September 23 and convened for the lame duck session on November 27.
As the lame duck session met, Chinese troops crossed into Korea, and General Douglas A.
MacArthur warned Congress that the United Nations faced “an entirely new” war in the region.

18 Like the measure referred to in the previous note, this legislation related to the conduct of World War II, and has no
connection with the contemporary War Powers Resolution.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

The Korean War and the possible use of atomic weapons dominated congressional attention
through the session. Nevertheless, President Truman presented congressional leaders with a list of
18 proposals, including five he described as of “greatest urgency.” The five included several
measures favored by congressional leaders: aid to Yugoslavia and supplemental appropriations for
defense and atomic energy. The President also asked Congress to act on an excess profits tax, an
extension of federal rent controls, and statehood for Hawaii and Alaska.19
Congress stayed in session through the New Year. It approved the rent control extension and a
$38 million famine relief bill for Yugoslavia. In the week before the Christmas holidays, it
completed work on an $18 billion defense supplemental appropriations bill, the excess profits tax,
and a civil defense program.
Efforts to obtain a vote on statehood for Alaska were abandoned after a week of intermittent
Senate debate on a motion to take up the measure. The 81st Congress adjourned sine die on
January 2, 1951, and the 82nd Congress convened the next day.
83rd Congress, 2nd Session (1954)
Prior to the 1954 congressional election, the House adjourned sine die on August 20, but the
Senate recessed on that date and then reconvened on November 8. The Senate met for the sole
purpose of considering the recommendation of a select committee to censure Senator Joseph R.
McCarthy for improprieties committed in the course of his investigations into allegations of
communist influence in the federal government. Made over a period of more than five years,
Senator McCarthy’s allegations had eventually led to investigations of McCarthy himself, and the
Senate had assigned the issue to a select committee chaired by Senator Arthur V. Watkins. This
lame duck session was the first time since passage of the 20th Amendment that only one chamber
returned to session after an election.
The Senate select committee submitted its censure resolution on November 9, 1954. The first
count of the two-count resolution was approved on December 1, and final action was completed
the following day. Press reports speculated that the Senate might consider matters other than the
McCarthy censure resolution, including a number of pending treaties and nominations, but the
Senate took action only on the McCarthy censure resolution and adjourned finally on December
2.
91st Congress, 2nd Session (1970-1971)
Congressional leaders called a post-election session in 1970 for the first time in more than 16
years to complete action on a list of pending legislation, including electoral reform, the Family
Assistance Plan (the Nixon Administration’s principal welfare reform proposal), occupational
safety and health, equal rights for women, manpower training, and funds for the supersonic
transport plane (SST). Seven regular appropriations bills also remained to be enacted. Congress
convened the lame duck session on November 16, 1970.

19 See “Congress Returns, Faces ‘New War,’” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 8, week ending December
1, 1950, p. 1305.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Congress stayed in session until January 2, 1971, less than 24 hours before the constitutional
deadline of noon on January 3, when the 92nd Congress convened. It kept largely to the agenda
the congressional leadership had set before the recess in October,20 but failed to approve many
administration proposals, including the Family Assistance Plan. That bill, with other controversial
measures, had been attached to a Social Security bill in the Senate. The SST received only interim
funding. President Richard M. Nixon strongly criticized what he termed “major failures” of the
lame duck session.
Congress did complete work on two of the seven regular appropriations bills and a measure
dealing with foreign aid and foreign military sales. It also passed the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1970, which established deadlines for the reduction of certain pollutants from new
automobiles, and a major housing bill, which included a new program of federal crime insurance
and created the Community Development Corporation.
President Nixon vetoed four measures during the lame duck session, including a $9.5 billion
federal manpower training and public service employment bill. Congress did not override any of
these vetoes.
93rd Congress, 2nd Session (1974)
Delayed in the consideration of major legislation by the extraordinary events of 1973 and 1974—
the Watergate investigations, the resignation of Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, the nomination
and confirmation of Gerald R. Ford to be Vice President, and the resignation of President Nixon
and succession of President Ford—Congress reconvened on November 18, 1974, in an effort to
clear a long list of important items.
Although congressional leaders had indicated that only the most critical bills would be
considered, including approval of the nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller to be Vice President,
President Ford greeted the returning Congress with a 10-page list of legislation he wanted passed
before the session expired.21 In the end, Congress did consider a wide range of issues before it
adjourned on December 20, 1974, but its actions were not always to President Ford’s liking.
The Rockefeller nomination was approved by mid-December, but Congress overrode presidential
vetoes of both a vocational rehabilitation bill and a measure amending the Freedom of
Information Act. Congress also approved, and the President signed, a bill that nullified a prior
agreement giving former President Nixon control over the tapes and papers of his administration.
In other actions, Congress
• approved a long-delayed trade reform bill giving the President broad authority to
negotiate trade agreements, act on trade barriers, and provide import relief to
workers, industries, and communities;

20 “Much Unfinished Business Faces ‘Lame Duck’ Session,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 28, October
23, 1970, pp. 2638-2639; “Nixon Support to be Targeted in Lame Duck Session,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly
Report, vol. 28, November 13, 1970, pp. 2783-2785.
21 U.S. President (Ford), “Repeating Desire of the President of the United States for Partnership with the Congress—
Message from the President of the United States (H.Doc. No. 93-334),” Congressional Record, vol. 120, November 18,
1974, pp. 36274-36278. See “Congress Gets Ford Request, Overrides Vetoes,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly
Report, vol. 32, November 23, 1974, pp. 3151-3152.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

• established a federal policy for research on development of non-nuclear sources
of energy; and
• cleared legislation making continuing appropriations for federal agencies whose
regular appropriations had not been enacted.
96th Congress, 2nd Session (1980)
In 1980, some observers contended that postponing final congressional action on a lengthy
agenda of major issues until a post-election session would accomplish two goals: first, it would
delay potentially difficult pre-election votes on budget matters, and second, it would allow
incumbents extra time to campaign. The large Republican gains on election day were thought to
complicate the prospects for a productive lame duck program, however, especially with such
important issues as budget reconciliation, several major appropriations bills, and landmark
environmental legislation still left for consideration.
In fact, during the lame duck session, from November 12 to December 16, 1980, Congress
completed action on many of the issues that had been left unfinished in the regular session,
including the following:
• a budget resolution and a budget reconciliation measure;
• five regular appropriations bills, although one was subsequently vetoed; a second
continuing resolution was approved to continue funding for other parts of the
government;
• an Alaska lands bill and a “superfund” bill to help clean up chemical
contamination;
• a measure extending general revenue sharing for three years;
• a measure that made disposal of low-level nuclear waste a state responsibility;
and
• changes to military pay and benefits, and authority for the President to call
100,000 military reservists to active duty without declaring a national emergency.
97th Congress, 2nd Session (1982)
In 1982, with urging from President Ronald W. Reagan, congressional leaders called for the
second session of the 97th Congress to reconvene after the congressional election.22 The Senate
met from November 30 to December 23, 1982, and the House from November 30 to December
21. Congress recessed for the election on October 1.
In calling for Congress to return, President Reagan expressed concern that only three of 13
appropriations bills had been cleared for his signature at the time Congress recessed. Dominated
by economic concerns—particularly those related to budget and deficit issues—the second

22 Dale Tate, “Reagan Requests Lame-Duck Session on ‘83 Spending Bills,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report,
vol. 40, September 18, 1982, p. 2337.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

session of the 97th Congress was notable for the political tension between the Republican
President and Senate, on the one hand, and the Democratic House, on the other.
Congressional leaders indicated they would finish nine of 10 outstanding money bills. But by the
end of December, Congress had completed only four, and needed to enact a large continuing
resolution to fund remaining government operations for FY1983. Concerned about recession and
rising unemployment, House Democrats added a $5.4 billion jobs program to the continuing
resolution, but agreed to remove it when the President threatened a veto.
The lame duck session was acrimonious in both chambers, but especially in the Senate, where
frequent filibusters caused some all night sessions. The Senate voted on eight cloture motions in
December. The most contentious filibuster came late in the month over a measure to increase the
gasoline tax. The measure was approved just two days before Christmas.
In addition to completing work on some appropriations bills and the continuing resolution, the
House approved a controversial 15% pay raise for itself. An immigration reform bill, favored by
the White House and the congressional leadership, stalled when opponents filed hundreds of
amendments designed to slow chamber action. The leadership was eventually forced to pull the
bill from the floor.
In other decisions, Congress refused to fund production and procurement of the first five MX
intercontinental missiles, the first time in recent history that either house of Congress had denied
a President’s request to fund production of a strategic weapon. Congress also passed a long-
sought nuclear waste disposal bill.
103rd Congress, 2nd Session (1994)
In 1994, Congress recessed on October 8 and then reconvened on November 28 for the sole
purpose of passing a bill implementing a new General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Although the bill received strong support in both chambers during the regular session, opponents
in the Senate had kept the measure from reaching a vote on the floor. In the short lame duck
session, the House passed the bill on November 29 and the Senate on December 1. Both
chambers then adjourned sine die.
105th Congress, 2nd Session (1998)
In 1998, both the House and Senate adjourned sine die on October 21, 1998. The adjournment
resolution (H.Con.Res. 353) gave contingent authority not only to the bicameral leadership to
reconvene Congress, but also to the Speaker to reconvene the House alone. This last authority
was granted in anticipation of action to impeach President William J. Clinton. Pursuant to this
authority, the House convened on December 17, 1998, to consider a resolution of impeachment
(H.Res. 611). On December 19, the House adopted Articles I and III of the resolution by votes of
228-206 and 221-212. It then, by a vote of 228-190, adopted a resolution appointing and
authorizing House managers for the Senate impeachment trial. The House then adjourned sine
die.
On December 17, 1998, the House agreed, as well, to a resolution expressing support for the men
and women engaged in a military action in the Persian Gulf.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

106th Congress, 2nd Session (2000)
Because final action on several appropriations bills had not been completed, Congress remained
in session into the first days of November, the closest to an election that it had worked since
1942. On November 3, Congress adopted S.Con.Res. 160, authorizing recesses of the House until
November 13 and the Senate until November 14. When the two houses returned, with the
presidential election undecided, they approved a short-term continuing resolution and the District
of Columbia Appropriations Act, and then agreed to a further recess until December 5.
After reconvening on December 5, Congress agreed to a series of five short-term continuing
resolutions while final decisions on the remaining appropriations were being negotiated. During
this sequence of events, the Senate recessed on December 11 after providing, by unanimous
consent, that when the fourth in this series of continuing resolutions was received from the
House, it would automatically be deemed passed in the Senate. Finally, on December 15, both
chambers completed action on FY2001 appropriations measures by agreeing to the conference
report on the omnibus appropriations bill. Congress then adjourned sine die pursuant to
H.Con.Res. 446.
During the lame duck session, Congress also cleared the Presidential Threat Protection Act, the
Striped Bass Conservation Act, and the Intelligence Authorization Act. It also sent President
Clinton a bankruptcy reform measure, which the President subsequently pocket vetoed.
107th Congress, 2nd Session (2002)
Congress met intermittently in pro forma sessions during the pre-election period in 2002, but
returned to a full schedule of business on November 12 with two priorities: finish work on 11
appropriations bills and consider creation of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the
latter being a measure at the top of President George W. Bush’s legislative agenda. A bill to create
the DHS had passed the House in late July 2002, but the Senate did not act until after the election.
The Senate passed a similar version of the measure on November 19, and the House agreed to the
Senate amendment on November 22. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on
November 25.
Congress, however, was unable to resolve its appropriations differences. The House passed the
fifth in a series of continuing resolutions on November 13, and the Senate agreed to the measure
on November 19. This measure funded the government at FY2002 levels through January 11,
2003. The Defense Appropriations bill and Military Construction Appropriations bill were the
only appropriations measures completed by Congress in 2002.
In addition to the DHS, Congress completed action on, and the President signed into law, several
other significant measures, including the Defense Authorization Act, the Intelligence
Authorization Act, and measures regulating terrorism insurance and seaport security. The Senate
adjourned sine die on November 20 and the House on November 22, 2002.
108th Congress, 2nd Session (2004)
A lame duck session was considered necessary in 2004 because many appropriation bills had not
yet even received Senate action and Congress had not cleared an increase in the debt limit.
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Conferees also had reached no agreement over legislation to consolidate intelligence activities
under a new national director, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
The post-election environment was viewed as favorable to action on an omnibus appropriations
measure, inasmuch as it would facilitate adherence to caps on domestic discretionary spending,
on which the administration insisted. The administration also sought the elimination of many
authorizing provisions. Congress initially cleared the omnibus measure on November 20, but,
because it subsequently had to direct corrections in the enrollment of the bill, President Bush was
able to sign it only on December 8, the day of the sine die adjournment. Similarly, although
Congress could reach no final agreement on a congressional budget resolution, which would have
advanced action to increase the debt limit, post-election conditions enabled the increase to be
enacted as a freestanding measure.
During the lame duck period, the administration intensified efforts to persuade House conferees
on the intelligence bill to accept modifications in provisions to (1) maintain military control over
its own intelligence, (2) keep intelligence funding confidential, and (3) control immigration. The
conference report cleared Congress on December 8 and was signed into law on December 17.
Post-election conditions also permitted the resolution of conference deadlocks over several other
reauthorizations, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a moratorium on
Internet taxation, and authority for satellite television systems to carry network programming.
The last of these was enacted as one of the few legislative riders to be included in the omnibus
appropriation bill. Failure to resolve policy disagreements, however, doomed several other
reauthorizations, including the 1996 welfare reform and a highway bill, although the latter had
been delayed also by demands in the Senate for assurances about the role to be played by
minority conferees. Finally, a ban on assault weapons expired when the House declined to act on
a measure renewing it.
109th Congress, 2nd Session (2006)
The 109th Congress reconvened on November 13, 2006, largely because it had only cleared two
FY2007 appropriations bills prior to the election, funding the Department of Defense and the
Department of Homeland Security. A continuing resolution funding the rest of the government
was set to expire on November 17. Another top priority for the session was addressing a number
of expiring tax benefits. Democrats had gained control of both houses in the November election,
and the President and Democratic party leaders expressed hopes of cooperation and bi-
partisanship leading into the lame duck session.23
Despite this optimism and several instances of cooperation, the Congress ultimately did not
achieve its primary goal of passing further appropriations measures. Congress opted to fund the
government through two successive extensions of the continuing resolution, with H.J.Res. 100
continuing funding through December 8th and H.J.Res. 102 continuing funding through February
15, 2007. Congress also cleared a package of tax benefit extensions, including those for research
and development and for education, which was paired with a trade package that included benefits
for undeveloped countries and agreements with Vietnam.

23 Steven T. Dennis and John M. Donnelly, “A Few Miles to Go Before the 109th Sleeps,” Congressional Quarterly
Weekly Report, vol. 64, November 13, 2006, p. 2984.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Other notable legislation included a bill that allowed President George W. Bush to negotiate an
agreement with India permitting cooperation on its development of nuclear power for the first
time in thirty years. In addition, Congress passed a bill to overhaul the United States Postal
Service and a Veterans’ Affairs package authorizing funds for major medical projects and
information technology upgrades. Finally, the Senate confirmed Robert M. Gates as Secretary of
Defense to replace Donald Rumsfeld, who stepped down the day following the elections.
110th Congress, 2nd Session (2008-2009)
The 110th Congress reconvened on November 6, 2008, just two days after the election that gave
Democrats wider majorities in both the House and Senate, and ushered in a new Democratic
President. The November 6 session, however, along with 14 other sessions from then through
January 2, 2009, continued a series of pro forma sessions of the Senate that began in October and
were intended to foreclose opportunities for outgoing President George W. Bush to make recess
appointments to Federal offices.24 The Senate met for substantive business on only seven days
during the post-election period. The House, which had adjourned sine die, reconvened on
November 19, pursuant to authority granted to its leadership in the adjournment resolution, but
met on only five days during the post-election period.
The main legislative business of the lame duck session involved further responses to spreading
disruptions of the financial system that had become evident during the campaign period. Before
the election, Congress had enacted P.L. 110-343, establishing a $700 billion package of aid to the
financial services industry. In the lame duck session, Congress considered legislation to assist
America’s three largest auto-making companies which were in danger of bankruptcy.
On December 10, the House passed H.R. 7321, which provided $14 billion in loans to
automakers by using funds from an existing program. However, opposition in the Senate
effectively prevented a vote on the measure. The President subsequently provided $13.4 billion in
loans to the automakers out of funds from the financial industry aid package.
Among the few other major measures that came up for a vote was a pension bill that postponed
employee pension funding rules for companies and granted a moratorium on the annual
distributions for retirement accounts as part of an effort to stave off lay-offs and assist retirees.
111th Congress, 2nd Session (2010)
Prior to November 15, 2010, which was the first day of the 2010 lame duck session on which
business was transacted, the House recessed for a total of 45 days beginning on September 30.
During this same period, the Senate engaged in a total of 14 pro forma sessions, both to prevent
President Obama from making recess appointments and to prevent pending nominations from
being returned to the White House.25 Between November 15 and December 22, the House and
Senate met for a total of 19 and 15 days of session, respectively. On all of those days of session,
the House and Senate transacted business.

24 Kathleen Hunter, “Senators Maintain Vigil Against Recess Appointments,” CQ Today, December 12, 2008, p. 1.
25 Brian Friel, “Senate to Block Recess Appointments,” CQ Today Online News, September 29, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Relative to the lame duck session for the 110th Congress, there was a much larger agenda for the
lame duck session for the 111th Congress that resulted in the enactment of a number of pieces of
significant legislation, such as the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (H.R. 6523), the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (H.R. 2751), and the Don't Ask, Don't
Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (H.R. 2965). Also during the lame duck session, the Senate confirmed a
total of 19 federal judges.
Perhaps the most significant issue that was negotiated throughout the lame duck session was the
extension of certain revenue provisions, including the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts (P.L. 107-
16 and P.L. 108-27), that were set to expire at the end of 2010. In the final week of the session, a
compromise was enacted (H.R. 4853) that extended these revenue provisions for two years,
instituted a temporary payroll tax reduction, and provided jobless benefits for 13 additional
months. A related issue, the completion of FY2011 appropriations, was not resolved during the
lame duck session. Instead, a series of three continuing resolutions (P.L. 111-290, P.L. 111-317,
and P.L. 111-322) was enacted to provide funding through March 4, 2011.26
On December 22, 2010, the final day of the lame duck session, the Senate and House passed H.R.
847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, to provide health benefits to
certain first responders who were exposed to toxic materials as a result of the September 11, 2011
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.27 In addition, the Senate voted 71-26 to approve
ratification of New START (H.R. 4853), an arms control treaty with Russia.28

Author Contact Information

Richard S. Beth
Jessica Tollestrup
Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
rbeth@crs.loc.gov, 7-8667
jtollestrup@crs.loc.gov, 7-0941


Acknowledgments
Earlier versions of this report were prepared by Richard S. Beth in collaboration with Richard C.
Sachs, then-specialist in American National Government in CRS, and Momoko Soltis, then-
analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process in CRS. In particular, Mr. Sachs and Ms. Soltis
were responsible for much of the text describing individual lame duck sessions.


26 For further information on continuing resolutions and FY2011, see CRS Report RL32614, Duration of Continuing
Resolutions in Recent Years, by Jessica Tollestrup.
27 For further information on this bill, see CRS Report R41292, Comparison of the World Trade Center Medical
Monitoring and Treatment Program and the World Trade Center Health Program Created by Title I of P.L. 111-347,
the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, by Scott Szymendera and Sarah A. Lister.
28 For further information on this treaty, see CRS Report R41219, The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key
Provisions, by Amy F. Woolf.
Congressional Research Service
28

---