Interim Continuing Resolutions (CRs): Potential Impacts on Agency Operations

Interim Continuing Resolutions (CRs): Potential
Impacts on Agency Operations
October 6, 2008
Clinton T. Brass
Analyst in Government Organization and Management
Government and Finance Division

Interim Continuing Resolutions (CRs): Potential Impacts
on Agency Operations
Summary
Continuing appropriations acts, often known as continuing resolutions (CRs),
have been a component of the annual appropriations process for decades. When
Congress and the President do not reach final decisions about one or more regular
appropriations acts by the beginning of the federal fiscal year, October 1, they often
enact a CR. Two general types of CRs are used. An “interim” CR provides agencies
with stopgap funding for a period of time until final appropriations decisions are
made, or until enactment of another interim CR. A “full-year” CR provides final
funding amounts for the remainder of a fiscal year in lieu of one or more regular
appropriations acts. “Anomalies” may be included in an interim CR to prevent what
parties to CR negotiations perceive as major problems that would be caused if an
otherwise uniform approach were used to provide funding and impose related
restrictions. The President, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and agencies
often are involved with Congress in the process of formulating, negotiating, and
implementing interim CRs. An implication of their involvement is that they may
influence the potential impacts of interim CRs.
Interim CRs typically are intended to both (1) preserve congressional
prerogatives to make final decisions on full-year funding levels and (2) prevent a
funding gap and corresponding government shutdown. Consequently, interim CRs
provide relatively restrictive funding levels for agencies and usually prohibit projects
or activities that were not funded in the previous year (sometimes called “new
starts”). Interim CRs also impose some paperwork burden on federal agencies. Two
other potential impacts might be identified. First, the restrictive funding level of an
interim CR may impact upon an agency’s activities, compared to the situation of
receiving full-year appropriations. For example, agency personnel may reduce or
delay a variety of actions, including hiring, award of contracts, and travel. Second,
an agency funded by an interim CR may experience some uncertainty about what its
final funding level will be. Uncertainty may cause an agency to alter its operations,
rates of spending, and spending patterns over time, with potential ripple effects for
internal management of the agency and its programmatic activities. Whether any
potential impacts manifest themselves in actual cases would depend on specific
circumstances, including how the interim CR is crafted, the time of year, and an
agency’s or program’s particular operations. OMB and agency documents, as well
as Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, provide additional perspectives
on potential impacts of interim CRs.
Related issues for Congress may include use of anomalies to manage impacts,
congressional access to information and views from agencies and their employees,
and the assumptions that are used when assessing potential impacts.
More extensive analysis on this subject is available in CRS Congressional
Distribution Memorandum, Potential Impacts of Interim Continuing Resolutions
(CRs) on Agency Operations and the Functioning of the Federal Government,
coordinated by Clinton T. Brass (available on request). This report will be updated
annually or more frequently as events warrant.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Interim CRs and Their Requirements..................................3
Contexts and Purposes of Stopgap Funding.........................3
Provisions and Agency Requirements..............................4
“Rate for Operations” Formula...............................4
Apportionment ............................................5
Restrictions on “New Starts” and Other Activities................5
Anomalies ...............................................6
Substantive Legislative Provisions................................6
“Clean” CRs..................................................6
Types of Potential Impacts...........................................6
Avoidance of Government Shutdowns.............................7
Compliance with Administrative Requirements......................7
Funding Level................................................7
Restrictions on New Projects and Activities.........................8
Funding Uncertainty............................................8
Additional Perspectives on Potential Impacts............................8
OMB and Agency Documents....................................8
OMB Documents..........................................9
Agency Documents.......................................10
GAO Reports................................................11
Funding Levels...........................................11
Funding Uncertainty......................................12
Potential Issues for Congress........................................13
Managing Potential Impacts of CRs with Anomalies.................13
Access to Agency Information and Employee Views.................14
Role of Assumptions in Assessing Potential Impacts.................15

Interim Continuing Resolutions (CRs):
Potential Impacts on Agency Operations
Introduction
Continuing appropriations acts, commonly known as continuing resolutions
(CRs), have been an integral component of the annual appropriations process for¹
decades. When Congress and the President do not reach final decisions about one
or more regular appropriations acts, they often negotiate and enact a CR. Two
general types of CRs are used. An “interim” CR provides agencies with stopgap
funding for a period of time until final appropriations decisions are made, or until
enactment of another interim CR. A “full-year” CR, by contrast, provides final
funding amounts for the remainder of a fiscal year in lieu of one or more regular
appropriations acts. If interim or full-year appropriations are not enacted, a funding
gap and government shutdown occur for affected agencies and programs.²
This report analyzes potential impacts that interim CRs might have on agency³
operations. CRs have become commonplace in the federal budget process, with CRs
occurring in some form in all but 3 years out of a 57-year period from⁴
FY1952-FY2008. However, studies of the impacts of interim CRs are quite limited
aside from anecdotal accounts. Furthermore, interim CRs are formulated differently
from time to time, and may affect highly diverse agencies and programs in varying
ways. Without in-depth analysis of specific circumstances, therefore, it may be
difficult, or in many cases impossible, to make generalizable statements about the
impacts of interim CRs on particular agencies at particular times.

¹ CRS Report RL32614, Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years, by Robert
Keith. See also CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: FY2008 Action and Brief
Overview of Recent Practices, by Sandy Streeter. These measures have been called CRs,
because they usually provide continuing appropriations in a joint resolution rather than a
bill. Occasionally, continuing appropriations are provided in bill form. Therefore,
“continuing appropriations act” may be the more general term compared to “CR.”
² Funding gaps usually require that affected federal agencies cease some operations and
furlough many of their employees. For discussion, see CRS Report RS20348, Federal
Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith; and CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown
of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects, by Clinton T. Brass.
³ For a more extensive analysis, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum,
Potential Impacts of Interim Continuing Resolutions (CRs) on Agency Operations and the
Functioning of the Federal Government, July 8, 2008, coordinated by Clinton T. Brass.
⁴ It may be no coincidence that CRs have been pursued with such frequency. In high-stakes
negotiations on matters of strong underlying disagreement, a frequently employed technique
is to use time as a source of leverage. See, e.g., G. Richard Shell, Bargaining for Advantage:
Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People (New York: Penguin, 1999), pp. 89-114.

It is possible, however, to identify some potential impacts of interim CRs
prospectively, utilizing several approaches.⁵ This report uses three. First, the report
discusses how an interim CR’s provisions and requirements may impact directly
upon an agency, based on what an interim CR explicitly is formulated to do. Second,
the report analyzes Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agency documents
that have provided guidance or requirements for how an agency should navigate
through periods of interim CRs. The existence and emphases of such documents may
suggest the occurrence, or at least the risk of occurrence, of interim CR-related
impacts on the operations of agencies. Third, the report analyzes brief mentions of
claims of impact contained in Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports
from the last 20 years, typically made by agency officials without independent GAO
validation.⁶
The possibility of interim CR-related impacts may raise issues for Congress. It
should be noted, for example, that the President, OMB, and agencies may play roles
in the formulation, negotiation, and implementation of interim CRs. An implication
of executive branch involvement is that the President, OMB, and agencies may
influence the potential impacts of interim CRs. In addition, a claim about the impact
of an interim CR may rest on implicit assumptions. Viewing interim CRs as a
product of negotiation helps explain why differing assumptions sometimes may be
plausible. Such assumptions may be important, because claims of impacts may
generate arguments that changes in CRs, budget priorities, or the budget process are
necessary to avoid some purported impacts. Given the high-stakes nature of budget
deliberations and the potential for changes in the budget process to change power
relationships among its participants, claims of impact might be viewed as similarly
significant in nature. The report’s final section discusses these and other topics.
Full-year CRs occur less frequently than interim CRs. Historically, the term
“CR” has been used in different ways in the context of providing full-year
appropriations amounts.⁷ In any case, full-year CRs effectively become regular

⁵ In this report, the impacts of interim CRs are addressed as perspectives on potential,
though not necessarily actual or representative, impacts. Close study of specific
circumstances is typically necessary to have confidence in a claim of impact. This report
does not verify or validate specific claims of actual impacts, nor does it assess whether
claims of impact in some agencies were representative of other agencies’ experiences.
⁶ For more extensive discussion of potential impacts of interim CRs, including potential
impacts on the federal budget process and a handful of specific agencies and programs, see
CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Potential Impacts of Interim Continuing
Resolutions (CRs) on Agency Operations and the Functioning of the Federal Government,
July 8, 2008, coordinated by Clinton T. Brass.
⁷ Some observers might argue that the category of full-year CRs is limited to those measures
that include formulaic provisions that provide for a “rate for operations” through the end of
a fiscal year. Others sometimes have referred to measures as full-year CRs when they
include or refer to full text in a regular appropriations act. For example, see Neal E. Devins,
“Appropriations Redux: A Critical Look at the Fiscal Year 1988 Continuing Resolution,”
Duke Law Journal, vol. 1988 (April/June 1998), pp. 389-421. According to such a
perspective, full-year CRs have included four types of funding provisions: (1) full text of
regular appropriations act; (2) language that incorporates regular acts by reference to the
(continued...)

appropriations acts for the fiscal year, complete with the certainty of final funding
decisions. For this reason, full-year CRs generally are not discussed in this report.
Interim CRs and Their Requirements
Usage of the term “continuing resolution,” like other budget terms, has varied
sometimes to reflect evolving budget practices. This section of the report discusses
several aspects of how interim CRs typically have been formulated and implemented,⁸
in order to identify how interim CRs may impact upon the operations of agencies.
Some related terms also are highlighted, in order to distinguish between interim CR-
related provisions and other provisions that sometimes appear in the context of CRs.
Contexts and Purposes of Stopgap Funding
The federal fiscal year begins October 1. For agencies and programs that are
funded through annual appropriations acts, appropriations must be enacted by this
date if many governmental activities are to continue operating. These funds pay for
most of the routine operations of federal agencies, including salaries, contracts, and
grants.⁹ Final action on some of the regular appropriations acts is frequently delayed
beyond October 1. A delay may occur, for example, when negotiations between
Congress and the President have not resulted yet in final decisions. When action on
one or more regular appropriations acts is incomplete after the beginning of a fiscal
year, Congress often provides temporary funding for affected agencies by using an
interim CR. The stopgap funding is available until a date specified in the CR,
enactment of a new interim CR, or enactment of full-year appropriations, whichever
occurs earliest. In this sense, the term “continuing” has been used to indicate that
appropriations will continue at a certain level (and subject to certain conditions),
pending further decisions.¹⁰

⁷ (...continued)
latest stage of congressional action (usually the conference agreement, if one has been
reached); (3) formulaic provisions that provide for a “rate for operations”; or (4) a
combination of the previous three types. When full-year CRs have included the full text of
one or more regular appropriations acts, they also have included all the myriad general and
administrative provisions that typically are included in regular acts. Consequently, they may
be hundreds of pages in length, whereas interim CRs may be a few pages or less.
⁸ This section draws in part on CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: FY2008
Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by Sandy Streeter; and CRS Report
RL32614, Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years, by Robert Keith. For legal
analysis of CRs, see U.S. Government Accountability Office (hereafter “GAO”), Principles^rd
of Federal Appropriations Law, 3 ed., vol. II, GAO-06-382SP, Feb. 2006, ch. 8.
⁹ Funds subject to annual appropriations constitute a substantial part, though only a portion,
of federal spending. See CRS Report RL33074, Mandatory Spending Since 1962, and CRS
Report RL34424, Trends in Discretionary Spending, both by D. Andrew Austin.
¹⁰ A form of interim CR is the “long-term” CR, which extends appropriations for outstanding
regular appropriations bills temporarily from one calendar year into the next, but does not
extend funding to the end of the fiscal year.

Interim CRs usually are enacted in the context of ongoing and high-stakes
budget negotiations between Congress and the President and within Congress. In
general, interim CRs typically are intended to (1) preserve congressional prerogatives
to make final decisions on full-year funding levels and (2) prevent a funding gap and
corresponding government shutdown. Consequently, interim CRs provide relatively
restrictive funding levels for agencies. In addition, an interim CR may be structured
purposefully as less than optimal from the perspective of many stakeholders, in order
to retain sufficient incentive for negotiating parties to come to an accord for final
decisions.¹¹ Participants in a negotiation also may find it necessary to compromise,
purposefully accepting what they perceive as some undesirable impacts in an interim
CR (e.g., temporary constraints on funding) in order to achieve what they perceive
as more important, desirable impacts (e.g., achievement of budget policy goals or
avoidance of a government shutdown).¹² In other words, some impacts of interim
CRs may be a product of intentional concessions in negotiations, in order to achieve
other impacts.
Provisions and Agency Requirements
“Rate for Operations” Formula. Interim CRs have remained fairly
constant in form and structure in recent years. In contrast to regular and
supplemental appropriations acts, an interim CR generally does not provide specific
amounts of budget authority for an appropriations account. Instead, an interim CR
uses a formula to calculate the funding amounts that are available for continuing
appropriations during a period of time. Specifically, an interim CR typically provides
“such sums as are necessary” to continue funding at a specified “rate for operations,”
over a specific period of time, for accounts in bills covered by the CR. These rates,
which are based on annual amounts or levels of spending, may be set in various
ways. For example, funding has been based on formulas such as (1) the lower of the
amounts provided in the House-passed version or Senate-passed version of the bill
(assuming both houses have acted); (2) the amounts provided in a particular
committee-reported bill; or (3) the funding levels available for the previous fiscal
year. Interim CRs frequently provide rates that vary among the regular
appropriations bills funded. An agency that hopes to receive an increase in its full-
year funding level compared to the previous year typically would be subject to rate
restrictions, and would not receive the increased level of funding for the duration of
an interim CR, unless special exceptions were made.

¹¹ According to one observer, interim CRs might be seen as devices that set “spending levels
... high enough to let agencies function but not so high that they removed the incentive for
Congress and the president to agree on regular authorization and appropriations bills.” Joe
White, “The Continuing Resolution: A Crazy Way to Govern?,” Brookings Review, vol. 6
(summer 1988), p. 30. GAO also has discussed how incentives for policymakers “to
negotiate seriously and reach agreement” may be affected by proposals for budget process
changes like an automatic continuing resolution. See U.S. GAO, Budget Process:
Considerations for Updating the Budget Enforcement Act, GAO-01-991T, July 19, 2001,
p. 12. For further analysis, see CRS Report RL30339, Preventing Federal Government
Shutdowns: Proposals for an Automatic Continuing Resolution, by Robert Keith.
¹² For related discussion, see G. Richard Shell, Bargaining for Advantage, pp. 156-175.

Apportionment. After enactment of an interim CR, OMB provides detailed
directions to executive agencies on the availability of funds and how to proceed with¹³
budget execution, typically in a bulletin. The bulletin includes announcement of
an “automatic apportionment” of funds that will be made available for obligation, as¹⁴
a percentage of the annualized amount provided by the CR. Under a typical OMB
bulletin, part of the annualized amount is apportioned and made available for
obligation. Funds usually are apportioned either in proportion to the time period of
the fiscal year covered by the CR, or according to the historical, seasonal rate of
obligations for the period of the year covered by the CR, whichever is lower. A 30-
day CR might, therefore, provide 30 days worth of funding, derived either from a
certain annualized amount that is set by formula or from a historical spending pattern.
In an interim CR, Congress also may provide authority for OMB to mitigate
furloughs of federal employees by apportioning funds for personnel compensation
and benefits at a higher rate for operations, albeit with some restrictions.¹⁵ Interim
CRs impose some paperwork burden on agencies as a result of these procedures.
Restrictions on “New Starts” and Other Activities. Congress has used
interim CRs to protect its prerogative to set full-year funding levels by restricting and
guiding agency activities in other ways, as well. For example, an interim CR may
prohibit an agency from initiating or resuming any project or activity for which funds
were not available in the previous fiscal year (i.e., prohibit “new starts”).¹⁶ In
addition, Congress has included provisions like the following in interim CRs,
concerning programs that have high initial rates or distributions of funds (see Sec.

109, below) and concerning projects and activities generally (see Sec. 110).

Sec. 109. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution,
except section 106, for those programs that would otherwise have high initial
rates of operation or complete distribution of appropriations at the beginning of
fiscal year 2008 because of distributions of funding to States, foreign countries,

¹³ For example, see U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget (hereafter “OMB”), OMB Bulletin No. 07-05, “Apportionment of the Continuing
Resolution(s) for Fiscal Year 2008,” Sept. 28, 2007, available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2007/b07-05.pdf]. This bulletin directed
agencies how to operate during the interim CR for the period Oct. 1, 2007, through Nov. 16,^th

2007, as provided for by P.L. 110-92 (110 Cong.; 121 Stat. 989).

¹⁴ The Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 1341-1342, 1511-1519) requires the President to
“apportion,” in writing, an executive agency’s appropriation by specific time periods,
activity, or a combination of time periods and activities, in order to prevent the agency from
spending at a rate that would exhaust the appropriated funds before the end of the fiscal
year. OMB implements the requirement on the President’s behalf. During an interim CR,
Congress may provide some flexibility on the timing requirements in apportioning funds.
For example, see Sec. 108 of P.L. 110-92 (121 Stat. 990).
¹⁵ For example, see Sec. 112 of P.L. 110-92 (121 Stat. 991) and OMB Bulletin No. 07-05,
p. 4 (attachment, Sec. 6). OMB might apportion funds at, essentially, greater than a daily
rate, as the period of time covered by an interim CR elapses. However, Congress may
require that the “authority provided under this section shall not be used until after the
department or agency has taken all necessary actions to reduce or defer
non-personnel-related administrative expenses” (Sec. 112 of P.L. 110-92).
¹⁶ For example, see Sec. 104 of P.L. 110-92 (121 Stat. 990).

grantees, or others, such high initial rates of operation or complete distribution
shall not be made, and no grants shall be awarded for such programs funded by
this joint resolution that would impinge on final funding prerogatives.
Sec. 110. This joint resolution shall be implemented so that only the most
limited funding action of that permitted in the joint resolution shall be taken in¹⁷
order to provide for continuation of projects and activities.
Anomalies. Congress, the President, and agencies sometimes negotiate for the
inclusion of “anomalies” to the formulas and restrictions in a CR, to accommodate
what they perceive as exceptional circumstances for an agency, program, or policy.
Anomalies typically are included to prevent what some or all stakeholders and parties
to CR negotiations perceive as major programmatic, operational, or management
problems that would be caused if an otherwise “cookie cutter” approach were used
to provide funding at a uniform rate and with uniform restrictions. However, when
measured against the typical coverage of interim CRs, anomalies tend to be rare.
Substantive Legislative Provisions
CRs do not necessarily provide only stopgap or final funding. Some interim and
full-year CRs have included “substantive” legislative provisions — that is, provisions
under the jurisdiction of committees other than the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees — covering a wide range of subjects. CRs are attractive vehicles for
such provisions because they are considered must-pass legislation on which Congress
and the President eventually must reach agreement.¹⁸
“Clean” CRs
A CR that contains a rate for operations but does not contain any anomalies or
substantive legislative provisions is sometimes referred to as a “clean” CR.
However, a CR has at times been described as clean if it includes a limited number
of such provisions that an observer views as acceptable. The level of cleanliness of
a CR is typically in the eye of the beholder, therefore.
Types of Potential Impacts
As discussed above, provisions and requirements of interim CRs may impact
upon the operations of agencies in many ways. If impacts were viewed in more

¹⁷ Secs. 109 and 110 of P.L. 110-92 (121 Stat. 990). GAO previously reported that
provisions like these had been included in CRs ever since FY1996. See U.S. GAO,^rd
Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 3 ed., vol. II, GAO-06-382SP, pp. 8-16 - 8-17.
¹⁸ House Standing Rules XXI, clause 2, and XXII, clause 5, prohibit legislative provisions
or unauthorized appropriations in general appropriations measures, but these restrictions do
not apply to continuing resolutions. The House typically adopts special rules restricting
amendments to continuing resolutions, in part for this reason. Comparable Senate
restrictions on legislative provisions and unauthorized appropriations, located in Senate Rule
XVI, do apply in the case of continuing resolutions. See CRS Report RL30343, Continuing
Resolutions: FY2008 Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by Sandy Streeter.

general categories, an interim CR might be characterized as having several types of
potential impacts on the operations of agencies.
Avoidance of Government Shutdowns
In the absence of agreement about full-year appropriations among the House,
Senate, and President, an interim CR may have the impact of preventing funding gaps
and shutdowns of government agencies. Historically, shutdowns prior to FY1996
generally were of short duration and were seen as having relatively modest effects,
especially when they occurred over a weekend. Partial shutdowns of the federal
government in FY1996, however, were more far-reaching in their effects. A 5-day
shutdown in November 1995 resulted in the furlough of an estimated 800,000 federal
employees. A second, 21-day shutdown occurred a month later, resulting in the
furlough of nearly 300,000 federal employees. A large but unspecified number of
federal contractor employees were also furloughed or laid off as a result of suspended
contracts.¹⁹ The shutdowns also had pervasive effects on the delivery of services.
Compliance with Administrative Requirements
Because an interim CR imposes its own tight restrictions on obligating funds for
its duration, an interim CR may impact upon an agency’s administrative work. As
one study of the potential impacts of interim CRs on DOD summarized, “[t]he most
visible effect” of a short-term CR is its impact on the time and paperwork necessary²⁰
to manage the distribution of funds. As a consequence, comments from agency
budget officials about the impacts of interim CRs might focus on, or be colored by,
this experience.
Funding Level
An interim CR determines the funding level that is available for the duration of
the CR. At least three funding scenarios appear to be possible for an agency that is
funded by an interim CR: (1) less funding than otherwise would have been provided
under a full-year appropriation (or, essentially, a lower rate for operations during the
CR’s duration); (2) more funding; or (3) the same amount. For example, suppose an
agency anticipated an increase in its full-year budget because of apparent consensus
on a higher prospective funding level among the House, Senate, and President.
Further suppose, however, that the agency’s budget is included in a legislative
vehicle that is the subject of some controversy due to budget or programmatic issues
elsewhere in the legislation. If the level of policy conflict among the House, Senate,
and President were such that an interim CR were used to provide funding until
disagreements were resolved, the agency might receive a considerably lower rate for
operations than was anticipated for the duration of the CR. Assuming a final funding

¹⁹ For discussion, see CRS Report 95-906, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Effects on
the Federal Workforce and Other Sectors, by James P. McGrath (archived and available
upon request).
²⁰ CRS Report 89-579, Short-Term Continuing Resolutions: The Department of Defense
Experience, by Alice C. Maroni (archived and available upon request).

decision were made at the anticipated level, an agency might or might not be able to
“catch up” with what it had planned to do. By contrast, if an agency expected a lower
full-year amount than the rate that was provided by an interim CR, the agency might
experience more flexibility than previously had been anticipated for the duration of
the CR. Finally, if an agency expected flat funding from one year to another, there
might be little or no impact associated with an interim CR’s funding amount. In the
face of a restrictive funding level, agency personnel may reduce or delay a variety of
actions, including hiring, award of contracts, and travel. Whether any potential
impacts manifest themselves in actual cases would depend on specific circumstances,
including how the interim CR is crafted, the time of year, and an agency’s or
program’s particular operations.
Restrictions on New Projects and Activities
Prohibition on new projects and activities may delay or disrupt an agency’s
ability to undertake planned activities. For agencies with little need to engage in
“new starts,” this prohibition may not be significant in its implications. For agencies
that typically engage in new projects or change their funding priorities from year to
year, however, the prohibition may have more significant impacts on operations.²¹
Funding Uncertainty
Uncertainty related to full-year funding levels may impact upon an agency’s
ability to follow its plans. Uncertainty may have two dimensions, concerning (1) the
level of full-year funding that ultimately will be available and (2) the timing of when
the full-year amount will be available. If one or both kinds of certainty were needed
for an agency to make decisions (e.g., when to begin a critical sequence of actions or
events), an interim CR might cause an agency to alter its operations, rates of
spending, and spending patterns over time, with potential ripple effects for internal
management of the agency and its programmatic activities.
Additional Perspectives on Potential Impacts
Other sources of information may suggest more specific ways in which an
interim CR prospectively might impact, or retrospectively may have impacted, upon
an agency’s operations.
OMB and Agency Documents
OMB and agencies have extensive experience operating under interim CRs. It
seems plausible that they have learned many related lessons in recent decades.
Perhaps as a consequence of such lessons, OMB and agencies have provided to their
personnel written guidance and requirements for how to operate under an interim CR

²¹ For related discussion, see CRS Report RS22774, Federal Research and Development
Funding: Possible Impacts of Operating under a Continuing Resolution, by Dana A. Shea
and Daniel Morgan.

and how to avoid undesirable impacts. The existence and emphases of such
documents may suggest the occurrence, or at least the risk of occurrence, of interim
CR-related challenges for the operations of agencies.²²
OMB Documents. OMB has issued several documents that provide guidance
or requirements to agencies, including its annually issued Circular No. A-11,²³²⁴²⁵
occasionally issued bulletins, and other documents. These documents suggest the
following:
^!There is some risk that an agency may not correctly calculate the
funds available under an interim CR and OMB’s automatic
apportionments without close OMB supervision and guidance. Both
Circular No. A-11 and OMB’s occasional bulletins devote the
majority of their attention to CR formulas and apportionment
amounts, in compliance with the Antideficiency Act and the CR-
imposed direction to “operate at a minimal level until after your²⁶
regular appropriation is enacted.”
^!There is some risk that an agency may undertake a new project or
activity, contrary to an interim CR’s requirements. Both Circular
No. A-11 and OMB’s occasional bulletins address this point.²⁷
^!During a CR of extended duration, there is some risk of “major
disruptions to essential government services” if care is not taken to²⁸
conduct acquisitions using certain practices and “basic steps.”
According to OMB, these practices and steps include determining
the availability of funding for existing and new contract
requirements; modifying existing contracts as required by the “fiscal
constraints imposed by the CR”; giving contractors and especially
small businesses appropriate notice of funding limitations; following
“prudent contracting principles and practices” to ensure available
funds are used “as efficiently and effectively as possible” and to

²² Even in the face of such potential impacts, however, it is not clear that absence of an
interim CR would substantially reduce the need for similar guidance or requirements under
a regular appropriations act. Further study would be necessary to make a determination.
²³ OMB, Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, June

2008, Sec. 123, p. 1, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a11/

current_year/a_11_2008.pdf].
²⁴ For example, concerning apportionment under CRs in specific circumstances.
²⁵ For example, concerning the conduct of acquisitions under a CR. See OMB, “Conducting
Acquisitions Under a Continuing Resolution,” memorandum from Paul A. Denett,
Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Feb. 6, 2007, available at
[http://www.wh itehouse.gov/ omb/procurement/memo/acquisition_under_cr_2007.pdf].
²⁶ OMB, Circular No. A-11, June 2008, Sec. 123, p. 1.
²⁷ For discussion of the two potential meanings of “projects or activities” in this context, see
U.S. GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 3^rd ed., vol. II, pp. 8-21 - 8-27.
²⁸ OMB, “Conducting Acquisitions Under a Continuing Resolution,” memorandum from
Paul A. Denett, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Feb. 6, 2007.

“minimize disruption of agency operations”; and funding only
ongoing projects and activities, “not new initiatives or projects.”
Agency Documents. Agency documents that provide guidance and impose
requirements for how to operate under an interim CR appear to range from the highly
elaborate to the more ad hoc. For example, the Department of the Army issued
extensive “general guidance” concerning “rules for operation” under a CR and during
a funding gap.²⁹ The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has
integrated CRs and shutdowns into its instructions and process diagrams on budget
execution.³⁰ Smaller entities have created their own guidance memoranda and³¹
“instruction” documents. Agencies also may issue documents advising on the
status of grant awards under a CR,³² and providing advice to federal and state³³
officials on how to make timely grant awards under a CR. As with OMB
documents, the existence and emphases of agency-level documents suggest the
following:
^!There is some risk that agency personnel may not properly comply
with CR-related statutory requirements and non-statutory
congressional directives without detailed guidance on, for example,
the execution of new funds for things such as military personnel
appropriations, operation and maintenance appropriations, and other
categories of spending.³⁴
^!To ensure compliance with congressional directions, agency
personnel need to be instructed that objects of expenditure such as
“[t]ravel, training, and other discretionary costs should be limited to

²⁹ U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Continuing Resolution Authority
General Guidance, Aug. 1998, available at [http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&
metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA351724].
³⁰ U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, Office Work Instruction: Budget Execution, Mar. 27, 2002, available at
[http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/iso_docs/pdf/H_OWI_7410_IA000_002_C_.pdf].
³¹ For example, see Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Guidance Memo on Operating Under
a Continuing Resolution (CR),” memorandum from Thomas M. Palmieri, Sept. 30, 2002,
available at [http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/nb.story/story_id/3071]; and
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Weather Service, NWS Guidance for Continuing Resolutions, Instruction 70-204,
Apr. 11, 2005, available at [http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd07002004curr.pdf].
³² For example, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of
Health, “Non-Competing Grant Awards Under the Current Continuing Resolution,” notice
no. NOT-OD-08-001, available at [http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/
NOT -OD-08-001.html ].
³³ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations, Best Practices Guide for Performance Partnership Grants, no date, available at
[ h t t p : / / www.epa.go v/ oci r / n epps/ pp_gr a nt s.ht m] .
³⁴ See U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Continuing Resolution
Authority General Guidance, pp. 3-8.

essential programmatic requirements,” and agency staff need
detailed guidance for actions that obligate funds, including
procurement requests and other purchases.³⁵
^!There is some risk that agency spending may exceed congressionally
directed minimal amounts in some situations, making it necessary to
caution agency personnel to restrain spending even if both Senate
and House versions of appropriations bills may provide for an
i n crease.³⁶
^!Although an agency may have the tools and policies to award grants
in a timely way when operating under an interim CR, and even
improve the timeliness of awards to states under current policies, it
is nevertheless “more difficult ... to make timely awards while the
Agency operates under a series of short continuing resolutions, but
it is still possible.”³⁷
^!There is some risk that stakeholders and grant recipients will not
know that grant awards may not be fully funded until enactment of
full-year appropriations. Therefore, stakeholders and grant
recipients must be notified or reminded.³⁸
GAO Reports
A literature review identified no GAO reports that focused primarily on the
issue of potential or actual impacts of interim CRs. However, a full-text search of
all GAO reports and testimonies for the last 20 years identified a number of items
focusing on other topics that also contained brief mentions of claims of impact
associated with interim CRs.³⁹ In most cases, the claims were made by agency
officials without independent validation, because potential or actual CR impacts were
not the focus of the GAO documents. The claims of impact are analyzed and cited
here in two categories, based on their attribution to interim CR-related (1) funding
levels or (2) funding uncertainty.
Funding Levels. A number of GAO reports and testimonies cited claims of
impact that agency officials attributed to the funding levels of interim CRs. The

³⁵ U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Weather Service, NWS Guidance for Continuing Resolutions, Instruction 70-204,
pp. 3-5.
³⁶ Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Guidance Memo on Operating Under a Continuing
Resolution (CR),” memorandum from Thomas M. Palmieri.
³⁷ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations, Best Practices Guide for Performance Partnership Grants, pp. 26-27. The
“Agency” that is referenced in the quotation is the Environmental Protection Agency.
³⁸ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, “Non-
Competing Grant Awards Under the Current Continuing Resolution,” notice no. NOT-OD-

08-001.

³⁹ Conducted June 2008 using the GAO website’s advanced search function, available at
[http://searching.gao.gov/query.html?ql=a&charset=iso-8859-1]. Additional items
contained brief mentions of claims of impact associated with full-year CRs, as noted below.

claims cited travel expenses being “held to a minimum”;⁴⁰ delayed or frozen hiring
and cancellation of training;⁴¹ possible limitation of funding available for some
construction projects;⁴² suspension of the issuance of loan guarantees;⁴³ delayed
contracts;⁴⁴ prolonged interagency transfer of funds and differences between
estimated and actual costs;⁴⁵ impeded use of funds from previous years for a new
agency;⁴⁶ and delayed delivery of funds to recipients.⁴⁷ In one instance, GAO cited
a claim that an interim CR should have no impact on the timeliness of assistance
paym ents.⁴⁸
Funding Uncertainty. In addition, GAO reports and testimonies cited
alleged impacts that agency officials attributed to funding uncertainty related to

⁴⁰ U.S. GAO, VA Travel: Better Budgeting and Stronger Controls Needed, GAO/GGD-99-

137, Aug. 1999, p. 12.

⁴¹ U.S. GAO, Internal Revenue Service: Assessment of the 2008 Budget Request and an
Update of 2007 Performance, GAO-07-719T, May 9, 2007, p. 18 (full-year CR); Human
Capital: Retirements and Anticipated New Reactor Applications Will Challenge NRC’s
Workforce, GAO-07-105, Jan. 2007, pp. 1-2, 45, and 64 (full-year CR); Securities and
Exchange Commission: Preliminary Observations on SEC’s Spending and Strategic
Planning, GAO-03-969T, July 23, 2003, p. 2; Securities and Exchange Commission: Review
of Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Budget Allocations, GAO-04-818, July 2004, pp. 2-3, 20;
Social Security Administration: Short Time Frame and Workload Challenges Could Affect
Timely Implementation of Income-Based Medicare Part B Premiums, GAO-07-228R, Nov.

17, 2006, p. 2; and HHS OIG: Allegations of Misspending Were Unsubstantiated, GAO-04-

618R, Apr. 30, 2004, p. 5.

⁴² U.S. GAO, Military Base Closures: Management Strategy Needed to Mitigate Challenges
and Improve Communication to Help Ensure Timely Implementation of Air National Guard
Recommendations, GAO-07-641, May 2007, pp. 20-21.
⁴³ U.S. GAO, Housing Finance: Options to Help Prevent Suspensions of FHA and RHS
Loan Guarantee Programs, GAO-05-227, Mar. 2005, pp. 11-12.
⁴⁴ U.S. GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum: Federal Acquisition Challenges and
Opportunities in the 21^st Century, GAO-07-45SP, Oct. 2006, p. 18; and National Science
Foundation: Status of the Business Analysis Plan Contract, GAO-03-832R, July 10, 2003,
pp. 1-2, 14.
⁴⁵ U.S. GAO, Electronic Government: Funding of the Office of Management and Budget’s
Initiatives, GAO-05-420, Apr. 2005, p. 37; and Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should
Improve Its Methods for Estimating Technical Assistance Costs, GAO-05-58, Nov. 2004,
pp. 11-12.
⁴⁶ U.S. GAO, Transportation Security Administration: Actions and Plans to Build a Results-
Oriented Culture, GAO-03-190, Jan. 2003, p. 8.
⁴⁷ U.S. GAO, Financial and Management Practices of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission,
GAO/NSIAD-98-239R, Aug. 28, 1998, p. 5; and Project-Based Rental Assistance: HUD
Should Update Its Policies and Procedures to Keep Pace with the Changing Housing
Market, GAO-07-290, Apr. 2007, p. 33.
⁴⁸ U.S. GAO, Project-Based Rental Assistance: HUD Should Streamline Its Processes to
Ensure Timely Housing Assistance Payments, GAO-06-57, Nov. 2005, p. 24.

interim CRs. These claims cited difficulties in managing a new agency;⁴⁹ frozen
hiring and overtime pay, as well as reduced numbers of cases that were processed;⁵⁰
and delayed start-ups of an office, pilot initiative, and process reengineering.⁵¹
In the absence of validation studies, it is not clear what conclusions can be
drawn about the potential (or actual) impacts of interim CRs. However, the claims
of impact contained in the GAO publications may suggest a number of hypotheses,
including the following:
^!impacts of interim CRs may occur in many or all of the cited
activities in some agencies and circumstances;
^!some or all of the cited activities may be at risk of impacts from
interim CRs unless an agency undertakes focused planning and
execution, or requests that relevant anomalies be included in interim
CRs; and
^!agencies that anticipate large funding increases may be at particular
risk of impacts from interim CRs.⁵²
Potential Issues for Congress
The possibility of interim CR-related impacts may raise issues for Congress.
Notably, claims of impacts may generate arguments that changes in CRs, budget
priorities, or the budget process are necessary to avoid or modify some purported
impacts. Given the high-stakes nature of budget deliberations and the potential for
changes in the budget process to change power relationships among its participants,
claims of impact might be viewed sometimes as similarly significant.
Managing Potential Impacts of CRs with Anomalies
If Congress considers pursuing an interim CR, the subject of anomalies usually
arises. Anomalies may be included among the provisions of an interim CR in order
to modify or eliminate potential impacts of an interim CR. Depending upon how an
anomaly is structured, an anomaly may cause the funding for an agency to behave

⁴⁹ U.S. GAO, Budget Issues: Reprogramming of Federal Air Marshal Service Funds in
Fiscal Year 2003, GAO-04-577R, Mar. 31, 2004, p. 2.
⁵⁰ U.S. GAO, Social Security Disability: Reviews of Beneficiaries’ Disability Status Require
Continued Attention to Achieve Timeliness and Cost-Effectiveness, GAO-03-662, July 2003,
p. 11.
⁵¹ U.S. GAO, Small Business Administration: Progress Made, but Transformation Could
Benefit from Practices Emphasizing Transparency and Communication, GAO-04-76, Oct.
2003, pp. 3, 15; and Agricultural Conservation: USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection
of Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands, GAO-03-418, Apr. 2003, p. 31.
⁵² Some of the claims of impact that were cited in the GAO publication corresponded to
situations when agencies were expecting large increases in their budgets. For other
examples, see Gregg Carlstrom, “Managers Brace for ‘09 Budget Delays,” Federal Times,
Aug. 25, 2008, p. 9, available at [http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3692118].

exactly like it would under a regular appropriations act, at least for the duration of the
CR. However, anomalies frequently are not included for many programs in interim
CRs. A potential explanation for the rarity of anomalies is that the granting of too
many anomalies would reduce incentives to negotiate seriously and come to final
agreement on full-year appropriations. Another, related explanation is that an
anomaly could, in effect, constitute a concession and reduce a stakeholder’s leverage
during negotiations, unless there were consensus the anomaly was necessary.
In situations when an agency expects a higher level of funding in an upcoming
fiscal year, or if an agency needs authority to undertake new projects or activities in
order to achieve a task, the agency could request an anomaly. For executive
agencies, such a request can be made through the President and OMB, if the White
House elected to propose the anomaly to Congress. Alternatively, an agency might
make such a request directly to Congress, either formally or informally. An agency
could make a request to the President or OMB but have the request denied. In such
a case, an agency might or might not informally make its views or concerns known
directly to Congress. The possibility of direct communications between agencies and
Congress has sometimes been a contentious issue in congressional-executive
relations, both generally and in a budgetary context. In a budgetary context, most
executive agencies have operated under statutory requirements since 1921 that
require budget-related requests to be submitted through the President, as noted
below.
Access to Agency Information and Employee Views
The President, OMB, and agencies often are involved with Congress in the
process of formulating, negotiating, and implementing interim CRs. Therefore, they
may influence the potential impacts of interim CRs. Some influence may come from
the bargaining power of the President. Another source of influence, however, may
stem from the issue of access to information from agencies and views of their
employees. Because agencies and their employees are “in the trenches”
implementing and formulating public policy, they may have considerable access to
information about the potential impacts of an interim CR. Congress may not always
have ready access to such information. Under the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921,
as amended and recodified,⁵³ Congress has prohibited most executive branch officers
and employees from submitting budget requests to Congress, except through the
President and subject to presidential modification.⁵⁴ However, Congress has
statutorily exempted some agencies from such restrictions through provisions
sometimes referred to as “bypass authority.”⁵⁵ OMB regulations governing the
budget process also direct agency officers and employees to “avoid volunteering”
opinions to Members and committees of Congress that are inconsistent with

⁵³ P.L. 13, 67^th Cong., 42 Stat. 20; now codified in Title 31, United States Code.
⁵⁴ For the relevant provision, see 31 U.S.C. § 1108(e).
⁵⁵ Administrations and OMB have granted other agencies longstanding “customary” or
“informal” bypass authority, without statutory exemption. See Clinton T. Brass, “Working
in, and Working with, the Executive Branch,” in Tobias A. Dorsey, Legislative Drafter’s
Deskbook: A Practical Guide (Alexandria, VA: TheCapitol.Net, 2006), p. 291.

Administration policies.⁵⁶ Therefore, the extent to which information and views flow
from agencies and their personnel to Congress about the potential impacts of interim
CRs, both formally and informally, may vary.
Role of Assumptions in Assessing Potential Impacts
A claim about the impact of an interim CR may rest on implicit assumptions.
The term “impact” implies a comparison between the described change that is caused
by an interim CR, on one hand, and an assumption about “what otherwise would
have happened” without the interim CR, on the other hand.⁵⁷ The assumption or
estimation of “what otherwise would have happened” is crucial for any claim about
the impact of an interim CR.⁵⁸ Claims of an impact or lack of impact can be
debatable, therefore, and become subjects of scrutiny or even controversy. Some
observers, for example, might question the validity of an assumption. An observer
might be partly motivated to raise such objections, because claims of impacts may
generate arguments that changes in budget priorities or the budget process are
necessary in order to avoid or modify some purported impacts. Viewing interim CRs
as a product of negotiation, in which parties may come to the table with different
underlying values and assumptions, helps explain why differing perspectives may be
plausible. It is conceivable, for example, that participants in a negotiation may hold
opposite perspectives about the impact of an interim CR in a particular situation.
Each participant’s views might be based both on his or her aspirations for the
outcome of negotiations and the negotiating leverage the participant believes he or
she could wield. In other words, because there typically is some uncertainty about
the outcome of any negotiation, contrasting viewpoints may be plausible until
decisions are made.

⁵⁶ OMB, Circular No. A-11, June 2008, Section 22, pp. 1-2. For example, the circular
directs employees “when testifying before any congressional committee or communicating
with Members of the Congress” to “give frank and complete answers to all questions” but
also to “avoid volunteering personal opinions that reflect positions inconsistent with the
President’s program or appropriation request.”
⁵⁷ The concept “what otherwise would have happened” is called a “counterfactual” in the
program evaluation field. For discussion, see CRS Report RL33301, Congress and
Program Evaluation: An Overview of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Related
Issues, by Clinton T. Brass, Blas Nuñez-Neto, and Erin D. Williams.
⁵⁸ For example, suppose an observer characterized an interim CR as having caused a high
level of uncertainty for an agency’s program planning or execution. This statement claims
that the CR caused the stated impact (i.e., high level of uncertainty), which otherwise would
not have happened, all other things being equal. In this case, the claim of impact implicitly
assumes a scenario under which, in the absence of an interim CR, full-year appropriations
would have been passed by October 1. Passage of full-year appropriations, in turn, would
have eliminated uncertainty about funding. However, it also may be plausible that absence
of a CR might instead cause an impasse in negotiations and a government shutdown, rather
than enactment of full-year appropriations, rendering the observer’s claim contestable. The
reverse argument may also be made. Suppose another observer characterized an interim CR
as having prevented a government shutdown. However, it may be plausible that absence of
a CR might cause negotiators to reach agreement on full-year appropriations, thereby
avoiding the shutdown without need for a CR.