Enrollment of Legislation: Relevant Congressional Procedures

Valerie Heitshusen
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

An enrolled bill or resolution is the form of a measure finally agreed to by both chambers of Congress. Enrollment occurs in the chamber where the measure originated and is carried out by enrolling clerks under the supervision of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Senate. Enrolled bills and joint resolutions are signed by the presiding officers of each chamber (or their designees) and are presented to the President by the House Clerk or Secretary of the Senate, depending on the chamber of origination.

In instances in which Congress determines that the enrolled measure does not reflect congressional intent, it can require that changes be made by adopting a concurrent resolution directing the House Clerk or Secretary of the Senate to do so. If the enrolled measure has already been presented to the President—but not yet enacted or vetoed—the concurrent resolution can request its return to allow specified corrections to be made.

If Congress wishes to alter an enacted measure, new legislation must be enacted to do so. In rare instances, the constitutionality of certain measures has been challenged based on allegations that the enrolled (and therefore, enacted) text did not accurately reflect congressional action. In considering these cases, the federal courts have typically relied on precedent to refuse review of the enrollment process (or other pre-enactment congressional procedures).


Date of Report: August 15, 2013
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RL34480
Price: $19.95

To Order:

RL34480.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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: August 6, 2013
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: R42072
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42072.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

Past Government Shutdowns: Key Resources

Jared C. Nagel
Information Research Specialist

Justin Murray
Information Research Specialist

When federal government agencies and programs lack budget authority, they experience a “funding gap.” Under the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341 et seq.), they must cease operations, except in certain circumstances. When there is a funding gap that affects many federal entities, the situation is often referred to as a government shutdown. In the past, there have occasionally been government shutdowns, the longest of which lasted 21 days, from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996.

This report provides an annotated list of historical documents and other resources related to several past government shutdowns. The report also includes links to full-text documents when available. There is limited information and guidance related to shutdowns, and it is difficult to predict what might happen in the event of one, but information about past events may help inform future deliberations.

For more information about federal government shutdowns and funding gaps, see

• CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects, coordinated by Clinton T. Brass;

• CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Jessica Tollestrup; and

• CRS Report R41745, Government Shutdown: Operations of the Department of Defense During a Lapse in Appropriations, by Pat Towell and Amy Belasco. This report will be updated as additional resources are identified.


Date of Report: August 5, 2013
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: R41759
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41759.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

GAO Bid Protests: Trends and Analysis

Moshe Schwartz
Specialist in Defense Acquisition

Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney

Lucy P. Martinez
Research Associate

Bid protests on federal government contracts filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have recently received increased congressional scrutiny due to protests of high-profile awards and reports that the number of protests is increasing. The delay of contract award or performance triggered by a GAO protest, coupled with the increasing number of GAO protests, has also prompted concerns about the potential impact of protests upon government agency operations, especially in the Department of Defense.

There has been a significant shift in bid protest trends over the last five years. From FY2001 to FY2008, total government procurement spending, adjusted for inflation, increased at a faster rate (over 100%) than the number of protests filed (35%). This trend reversed itself in FY2008: from FY2008-FY2012 total government spending, adjusted for inflation, decreased more than 10% while total protests increased 45%. This data indicates that, when compared to the rate of government spending, bid protests decreased from FY2001-FY2008, and increased from FY2008-FY2012.

The rate at which GAO sustains protests has also seen a significant shift in recent years. From FY2001-FY2008 GAO sustained protests in 22% of their opinions; from FY2008-FY2012 that number dropped to 18%. This data suggests that while companies are more likely to file a bid protest, they are somewhat less likely to win a bid protest. According to one recent analysis, in FY2010, there was less than a 1% chance that GAO would sustain a protest and the protesting party would go on to win the contract. However, this figure does not account for cases where the agency took corrective action prior to GAO issuing an opinion. Taking into account agency corrective action, one observer estimated a “protester has a 12% chance of ultimately winning a contract award as a result of its protest.”

In addition to GAO sustaining a protest a contracting agency voluntarily acts to correct the allegation charged in the protest. Many analysts consider the increasing willingness of agencies to voluntarily take corrective action as one of the most significant trends in bid protests. In many cases, voluntary action by an agency could indicate that the agency believes a given protest has merit. However, there may be instances when an agency takes corrective action even when it believes the procurement was done properly (e.g., meeting with the protesting party to clarify why the protester lost the competition). The percentage of protesters obtaining relief—either through a protest being sustained or through voluntary action taken by an agency—is called the effectiveness rate. Over the last 5 fiscal years the effectiveness rate has remained relatively stable, averaging 43%.

Companies file protests based on the belief that the government has made a material error in the bidding process. When agencies do not adequately debrief losing bidders, the losing companies may also file a protest to determine why they lost the competition. A number of analysts have also suggested that companies are increasingly likely to file protests when it is in their business interest to do so, even when they do not believe there was an error in the procurement process. The specter of a company filing a bid protest can influence agency behavior. Fear of protests may motivate agency officials to conduct more rigorous market research, hold a competition instead of awarding a sole-source contract, or conduct more thorough and fair competition. On the other hand, fear of a protest could also prompt officials to try to structure a contract in a manner they deem less likely to be protested, such as using lowest price technically acceptable award criteria instead of a best-value competition.

DOD contracts are less likely to be protested than those of the rest of government. From FY2008- FY2012, on average, DOD accounted for 70% of government contract obligations but only 57% of protests filed against the federal government. Protests against DOD are sustained at a lower rate than the rest of government. From FY2008-FY2012, 2.6% of protests filed against DOD were sustained by GAO, compared to 5.3% of protests filed against federal civilian agencies. Protests against civilian agencies are also growing at a faster rate than protests against DOD.

Date of Report: August 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: R40227
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R40227.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy

Alex Tiersky
Analyst in Foreign Affairs

Marian L. Lawson
Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy

On April 10, 2013, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its budget request for FY2014. The request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs totals $51.84 billion, which is about 1% below the FY2013 post-sequester estimated funding level of $52.24 billion. Within this total, $3.81 billion is designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, which is 68% below FY2013 estimated OCO funding of $11.91 billion. Of the total request, $16.88 billion is for State Department Operations and related agencies, a 5% decline from the FY2013 funding estimate. About $35.1 billion is for Foreign Operations, a 1.5% increase from the FY2013 estimate. This report provides a brief overview of the FY2014 State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Programs funding request, and well as top-line analysis of pending House and Senate State-Foreign Operations appropriations proposals. It does not provide information or analysis on specific provisions in the House and Senate legislation.

A table in the Appendix provides side-by-side account-level funding data for FY2012, FY2013, the FY2014 request, and the pending FY2014 House and Senate proposals. The FY2013 funding data used as a point of comparison throughout this report represent post-sequestration estimates provided by the Department of State and reflect across-the-board rescissions. This data are not yet available for all accounts, or for country allocations. The funding table in the Appendix will be updated as more information becomes available.


Date of Report: August 6, 2013
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: R43043
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43043.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.