Availability of Legislative Measures in the House of Representatives (The “Three-Day Rule”)

Elizabeth Rybicki
Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process

House rules govern the length of time legislative measures must be available to Members before being considered on the floor. For measures reported from committee, the committee report must have been available for three calendar days, excluding weekends and legal holidays unless the House is in session on such days. Conference reports must also have been available for three calendar days, and special rules for considering measures for one legislative day. Bills and joint resolutions that have not been reported by committee, and therefore are not accompanied by a written report, also may not be considered on the House floor unless the measure has been available for at least three calendar days, again excluding weekends and legal holidays unless the House is in session on such days. Under new procedures agreed to in the 112th Congress, committee reports, unreported bills and joint resolutions, conference reports and joint explanatory statements can be considered available under these rules if they are publicly available in electronic form on a website designated by the Committee on House Administration for this purpose, http://docs.house.gov.

The House has several means by which it can choose to waive these availability requirements and call up, debate, and vote on a measure in a single calendar day, even if the text of the measure was not made available prior to consideration. These include (1) adopting a special rule that waives the three-day requirement; (2) adopting a special rule that waives the one-day requirement for another special rule; and (3) convening a second legislative day on the same calendar day. Waiving availability requirements allows the House to act quickly when necessary, such as near the end of a session. Sometimes Members oppose waiving availability requirements.


Date of Report: January 20, 2012
Number of Pages: 8
Order Number: RS22015
Price: $19.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview

Jessica Tollestrup
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

The Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341-1342, 1511-1519) generally bars the obligation of funds in the absence of appropriations. Exceptions are made under the act, including for activities involving “the safety of human life or the protection of property.” The interval during the fiscal year when appropriations for a particular project or activity are not enacted into law, either in the form of a regular appropriations act or a continuing resolution (CR), is referred to as a funding gap. Although funding gaps may occur at the start of the fiscal year, they also may occur any time a CR expires and another CR (or the regular appropriations bill) is not enacted immediately thereafter. Multiple funding gaps may occur within a fiscal year.

When a funding gap occurs, federal agencies begin a shutdown of the affected projects and activities, which includes the prompt furlough of non-excepted personnel. The general practice of the federal government after the shutdown has ended has been to pay furloughed employees for time missed, even when no work was performed.

Although a shutdown may be the result of a funding gap, the two events should be distinguished. This is because a funding gap may result in a total shutdown of all affected projects or activities in some instances, but not others. For example, when funding gaps are of a short duration, agencies may not have enough time to complete a shutdown of affected projects and activities before funding is restored. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget has previously indicated that a shutdown of agency operations within the first day of the funding gap may be postponed if a resolution appears to be imminent.

Since FY1977, 17 funding gaps occurred, ranging in duration from one day to 21 full days. About half of these funding gaps were brief (i.e., three days or less in duration). Of these, most occurred over a weekend, and the disruption in federal operations was minimal.

Almost all of the funding gaps occurred between FY1977 and FY1995. During this 19-fiscal-year period, 15 funding gaps occurred.

The most controversial funding gaps, however, since FY1977 occurred in FY1996, when President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress engaged in difficult and protracted negotiations over budget policy, resulting in the veto of a continuing resolution and several regular appropriations acts for FY1996. Two funding gaps, amounting to five days and 21 days, ensued leading to the initial furlough of about 800,000 federal employees.

As of the date of this report, there have been no funding gaps since the two that occurred during FY1996.


Date of Report: January 19, 2012
Number of Pages: 8
Order Number: RS20348
Price: $19.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Legislative Branch Agency Appointments: History, Processes, and Recent Proposals

Ida A. Brudnick
Specialist on the Congress

The leaders of the legislative branch agencies and entities—the Government Accountability Office, the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Government Printing Office, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the U.S. Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Compliance—are appointed in a variety of manners. Four agencies are led by a person appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate; two are appointed by Congress; one is appointed by the Librarian of Congress; one is appointed by a board of directors. Congress has periodically examined the procedures used to appoint these officers with the aim of protecting the prerogatives of, and ensuring accountability to, Congress within the framework of the advice and consent appointment process established in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

This report contains information on the legislative branch agency heads’ appointment processes, length of tenures (if terms are set), reappointment or removal provisions (if any), salaries and benefits, and most recent appointments.


Date of Report: January 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: R42072
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The U.S. Postal Service: Common Questions About Post Office Closures

Kevin R. Kosar
Analyst in American National Government

In late July 2011, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) announced it was considering the closure of 3,652 retail postal facilities. These are not the only USPS facilities that might discontinue operations. An additional 728 retail postal facilities are being considered for closure under a 2009 USPS initiative, for a total of 4,380 USPS retail facilities.

More than a dozen bills in the 112th Congress carry provisions that address post offices and the public’s access to retail postal services, including H.R. 2309, H.R. 2692, S. 353, S. 1010, and S. 1668.

This report addresses common questions about the closure of post offices. Questions answered include (1) What is a post office? (2) How many post offices are there? (3) How many post offices might the USPS close? (4) What authority does the USPS have to close post offices? (5) What is the current post office closure process? (6) What is the role of the Postal Regulatory Commission in post office closures? (7) When might the post office closure process begin? (8) How many USPS employees may lose their jobs? and (9) What current legislation carries provisions related to post offices?

Colloquially, the term “post office” often is employed to refer to any place where stamps are sold and postal services are provided by USPS employees. However, the USPS differentiates among several categories of postal facilities, including post offices, post office branches and stations, community post offices, and contract postal units. At the end of FY2010, the USPS had 35,633 retail postal facilities.

Congress has given the USPS considerable discretion to decide how many post offices to erect and where to place them. Congress also requires the USPS to provide the public with access to retail postal services (e.g., sales of postage, parcel acceptance, etc.).

Both federal law and the USPS’s rules prescribe a post office closure process, which takes at least 120 days. The USPS must notify the affected public and hold a 60-day comment period prior to closing a post office. Should the USPS decide to close a post office, the public has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Postal Regulatory Commission. Sixty days after it has made a closure decision, the USPS may shut down a post office.

The USPS has not provided a clear timeline for its consideration of the possible closure of the 3,652 retail postal facilities. Nor has the USPS reported how many employees might lose their jobs. In December 2011, the USPS said it would delay the closing of post offices until May 15, 2012, “in response to a request made by multiple U.S. Senators.”

H.R. 2309, H.R. 2692, S. 353, S. 1010, and S. 1668 are very different from one another. Among their other provisions, H.R. 2309 would reduce the number of post offices; H.R. 2692 would alter the post office closure process; S. 353 would require the USPS to expand the provision of postal services via private retail outlets. S. 1010 would increase the USPS’s authority to close post offices and require it to expand retail services via other means; and S. 1668 would forbid any closure that would create more than 10 miles distance between any two post offices.


Date of Report: January 13, 2012
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R41950
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

Ross W. Gorte
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy

Forest management generally, as well as forest research and forestry assistance, have long been within the jurisdictions of the Agriculture Committees. Although most forestry programs are permanently authorized, forestry has usually been addressed in the periodic farm bills to reauthorize many agriculture programs. The 2008 farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246) contained a separate forestry title, with provisions establishing national priorities for forestry assistance; requiring statewide forest assessments and strategies; providing competitive funding for certain programs; creating new programs for open space conservation and for emergency reforestation; reauthorizing four existing programs; and prohibiting imports of illegally logged wood products, among other provisions. Forestry provisions were included in other titles as well—the conservation title revised the definition of conservation actions to include forestry activities for almost all conservation programs; the trade title required special reporting on softwood lumber imports; the energy title established two woody biomass energy programs; and the tax title included three provisions altering tax treatments for forests and landowners.

Additional forestry issues have been suggested by various interests for inclusion in the next farm bill. Funding is likely to play a central role in the overall farm bill debate. While forestry was included for almost all agriculture conservation programs in the 2008 farm bill, the previous sole forest-specific assistance program was not reauthorized. Whether reauthorization of these programs is necessary or whether additional funds are needed to assist landowners in implementing sustainable forestry practices are issues for debate. Protecting communities from wildfire continues to be a priority for some, while controlling invasive species that threaten native forests is a priority for others. Congress could address programs for these purposes in the next farm bill. Also, use of woody biomass for renewable energy could be combined with wildfire protection and invasive species control, and the next farm bill could extend, expand, alter, or add to the woody biomass energy programs created in the 2008 farm bill and in other legislation. Ecosystem services—forest values that have not traditionally been sold in markets, such as clean air and water, wildlife habitats, and scenic beauty—were addressed in the 2008 farm bill, and Congress could extend, expand, alter, or terminate the existing ecosystem services program. Protocols—or a direction to establish protocols—for measuring, monitoring, and verifying forest carbon sequestration projects, which might qualify as offsets under existing or proposed regulatory schemes (e.g., regional programs or a national cap-and-trade system) or in voluntary carbon markets, could also be included in the farm bill. Finally, assisting forest-dependent communities in diversifying their economies has also been debated.


Date of Report: January 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: R41213
Price: $19.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.