GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Oversight of Government Management, the 

Federal Workforce, and the District of 

Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

CONTINUING 

RESOLUTIONS 

Uncertainty Limited 

Management Options 

and Increased 

Workload in Selected 

Agencies 

September 2009 

GAO-09-879 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2009

CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS 

Uncertainty Limited Management Options and 

Increased Workload in Selected Agencies

Highlights of GAO-09-879, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Oversight of Government Management, 

the Federal Workforce, and the District of 

Columbia, Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 

Senate 

In all but 3 of the last 30 years, 

Congress enacted a continuing 

resolution (CR) allowing federal 

agencies to continue operating 

when their regular appropriations 

had not been passed. CRs 

appropriate funds generally 

through rates for operations—

funding formulas frequently 

referenced to the previous years’ 

appropriations acts or a bill that 

has passed either the House or 

Senate—instead of a specific 

amount. GAO was asked to 

examine how CRs have changed 

over time, the effect CRs have had 

on selected agency operations, and 

actions that have been taken to 

mitigate the effects. Accordingly, 

GAO analyzed CR provisions 

enacted over the past 10 years and 

did a case study review of selected 

agencies that have considerable 

experience with CRs, represent 

different ways of providing 

services, and have different 

operational capabilities. Case study 

agencies were the Administration 

for Children and Families, Bureau 

of Prisons, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Food and Drug 

Administration, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, and Veterans 

Health Administration. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making any 

recommendations. Departments 

responsible for case study agencies 

provided comments that were 

clarifying or technical in nature and 

were incorporated as appropriate. 

Since 1999, all agencies operated under a CR for some period of time. The CRs 

included 11 standard provisions that provided direction on the availability of 

funding and demonstrated the temporary nature of CRs. During CR periods, 

these standard provisions required most agencies to operate under a 

conservative rate of spending and imposed limitations on certain activities. 

However, CRs provided some agencies or programs funding or direction 

different from what was provided by the standard provisions, especially under 

longer-term CRs. These specific provisions—called legislative anomalies—

may alleviate some challenges of operating during the CR period. Over the last 

decade, the duration of individual CRs ranged from 1 to 157 days and the CR 

period lasted 3 months on average (see figure). 

Number and Duration of Continuing Resolutions, Fiscal Years 1999–2009 

Source: GAO.

2

4

4b

3

3

5a

8

8

21

7

6

Fiscal year

Quarter 1 Quarter 2

Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 Jan. 1 Feb. 1 Mar. 1 Apr. 1

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

Continuing resolution

a

The fifth CR amended the original CR with substantive provisions but did not extend the CR period. 

b

The CR passed in February 2007 provided funding for the remainder of the fiscal year and is not 

included above. 

All six case study agencies reported that operating within the limitations of 

the CR resulted in inefficiencies. The most common inefficiencies reported 

were delays to certain activities, such as hiring, and repetitive work, including 

issuing multiple grants or contracts. Case study agencies also reported that 

CRs limited management options, making trade-offs more difficult. Both the 

limitations in planning and amount of additional work varied by agency and 

activity and depended in large part on the number and duration of CRs. After 

operating under CRs for a prolonged period, agencies faced additional 

challenges executing their budget in a compressed time frame. Officials from 

three agencies said that multiyear budget authority was helpful for managing 

funds in these circumstances. CRs enabled agencies to continue to carry out 

their missions until their regular appropriations were enacted. 

View GAO-09-879 or key components.

For more information, contact Denise M. 

Fantone at (202) 512-6806 or 

fantoned@gao.gov or Susan A. Poling at 

(202) 512-2667 or polings@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-879

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 3 

CRs Provide Interim Funding for Agencies and Programs 8 

Selected Agencies’ Experiences Varied but All Reported That CRs 

Limited Management Options and Resulted in Inefficiencies 12 

Concluding Observations 24 

Agency Comments 25 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 27 

Appendix II Additional Information on Provisions and Funding 

Provided in Continuing Resolutions 34 

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 40 

Tables 

Table 1: Annual Salary Increases for Federal Employees for Years 

in Which the CR Extended Beyond the First Quarter 23 

Table 2: Appropriations Acts under a Continuing Resolution for 

More than the Average of 847 Days during Fiscal Years 

1999 and 2008 29 

Table 3: Days Case Study Agencies Operated under a CR, Fiscal 

Years 1999-2008 31 

Table 4: Standard CR Provisions 34 

Figures 

Figure 1: Number and Duration of CRs (Fiscal Years 1999–2009) 5

Figure 2: Average Annual Duration of CRs by Appropriations 

Subcommittee (Fiscal Years 1999–2009) 7

Figure 3: Duration of Initial CR and Number of Anomalies (Fiscal 

Years 1999–2009) 10

Figure 4: FBI Streamlined Its Requisition Process during a CR 18

Figure 5: Agencies Shifted Contract and Grant Cycles 19

 Continuing Resolutions 
Figure 6: Practice Used to Streamline VA’s Allotment Process 

during a CR 20

Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2005-Rate for Operations 37

Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2006-Rates for Operations 38

Abbreviations 

ACF Administration for Children and Families 

AFI Assets for Independence 

BOP Bureau of Prisons 

CFO Chief Financial Officers 

CR continuing resolution 

CRS Congressional Research Service 

DOJ Department of Justice 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

LIHEAP Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

VA Department of Veterans Affairs 

VBA Veterans Benefits Administration 

VHA Veterans Health Administration 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Page 1 GAO-09-879 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

September 24, 2009 

The Honorable George V. Voinovich 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

 the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Dear Senator Voinovich: 

Congress enacted continuing resolutions (CR)—that is, funding for 

agencies to continue operating when their regular appropriation bills have 

not been enacted before the beginning of the new fiscal year—in all but 3 

of the last 30 fiscal years.1 Federal departments and agencies receive 

funding through regular annual appropriations acts, and in their absence, 

CRs prevent a funding gap. However, they only provide funding for the 

period of the CR and thereby create uncertainty about both the timing and 

level of funding that ultimately will be available. The Congressional 

Research Service (CRS) recently reported on the potential impacts of CRs 

on agency operations. Besides imposing some paperwork burden on 

agencies, CRS said that CRs may lead agencies to reduce or delay a variety 

of activities and alter their operations and spending patterns over time.2

However, no systematic review has been done to identify factors that may 

influence how agencies manage during CRs and what steps agencies take 

to mitigate the effects of uncertainty. 

In response to your request that we evaluate the effects of CRs on federal 

agency operations, this report examines (1) the history and characteristics 

of CRs, and (2) for selected case study agencies, how CRs have affected 

agency operations and what actions have been taken to mitigate the 

effects of CRs. 

1

Appropriations were enacted on time in fiscal years 1989, 1995, and 1997. See 

Congressional Research Service, Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2009) for more information on the history of CRs. 

2

See Congressional Research Service, Interim Continuing Resolutions (CRs): Potential 

Impacts on Agency Operations (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 2008). 

 Continuing Resolutions 
 

To accomplish the first objective, we analyzed provisions in CRs enacted 

from 1999-2009. We described how they direct agencies to operate during 

the period and how the provisions changed over time. We also analyzed 

nonstandard provisions called legislative anomalies that provide specific 

directives to particular agencies. To accomplish our second objective, we 

conducted a case study review of six agencies within three cabinet-level 

departments. We selected departments and agencies based on a number of 

factors discussed with a panel of federal departmental Chief Financial 

Officers (CFO) that we convened in November 2008. Factors included 

such things as the average number of days an agency operated under a CR 

between 1999 and 2008 and the way they provide services (e.g., directly by 

federal personnel, through contracts or grants to third parties, and through 

the use of federal facilities).3

 Our case study agencies were: 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

• Administration for Children and Families (ACF) 

• Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

• Veterans Health Administration (VHA) 

• Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) 

Department of Justice (DOJ) 

• Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

In our selected agencies, we interviewed officials from budget, program, 

and procurement offices about the effects of CRs on program delivery, 

management support, and revenue collection. We asked agencies to 

demonstrate the effects of regular appropriations being enacted after the 

start of the fiscal year—October 1st—and identify associated costs where 

possible. However, it is difficult to isolate the effects of CRs and none of 

the agencies said they tracked the time or resources explicitly devoted to 

CRs. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to September 

2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

 

3

Appendix I contains more information on how we selected agencies for review. 

Page 2 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For additional details on 

our scope and methodology, see appendix I. 

Federal departments and agencies receive funding through regular annual 

appropriations acts.4

 However, in the years covered in this study, all 

appropriations acts were not enacted before the beginning of the new 

fiscal year. If one or more of the regular appropriations acts are not 

enacted, a funding gap may result and agencies may lack sufficient funding 

to continue operations.5

 The last such occurrence was in fiscal year 1996 

during which unusually difficult budget negotiations led to two funding 

gaps with a widespread shutdown of government operations and the 

furlough of an estimated 800,000 federal government employees. To 

prevent similar results, Congress enacts CRs to maintain a level of service 

in government operations and programs until Congress and the President 

reach agreement on regular appropriations. 

Background 

CRs are temporary appropriations acts. Once the regular appropriation act 

is enacted it supersedes the CR. CRs generally do not specify an amount 

for programs and activities but permit agencies to continue operations at a 

certain “rate for operations.”6

 They typically incorporate by reference the 

conditions and restrictions contained in prior years’ appropriations acts or 

the appropriations bills currently under consideration. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for 

apportioning executive branch appropriations, including amounts made 

available under CRs. An apportionment divides appropriations by specific 

time periods (usually quarters), projects, activities, objects, or 

 

4

Fundamental to Congress’ constitutional spending power is that federal programs may 

only expend federal funds to the extent appropriated by an act of Congress. For a 

discussion and history of the congressional “power of the purse” see GAO, Principles of 

Federal Appropriations Law, 3 ed., vol. 1, ch. 1 (GAO-04-261SP, January 2004). 

5

The Antideficiency Act generally restricts agencies from continuing operations during a 

funding gap. 

6

The rate for operations has varied over time and may be based on such things as the 

previous year’s appropriation, an amount provided in a House or Senate bill, or the amount 

requested in the President’s budget submission. See app. II for more information. 

Page 3 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

combinations thereof, in part to ensure agencies have resources 

throughout the fiscal year. OMB automatically apportions amounts made 

available under a CR.7

 

Duration of CRs The duration of CRs varied during the period covered in this study, fiscal 

years 1999-2009. Figure 1 shows that the duration of individual CRs 

enacted from 1999 to 2009 ranged from 1 to 157 days and the number of 

CRs enacted in each year ranged from 2 to 21. The average length of the 

CR period was about 3 months and in several years—fiscal years 2002-

2004, 2007, and 2009—agencies’ regular appropriations were not enacted 

until the second quarter of the fiscal year. This figure also shows that the 

duration of initial CRs was less than 1 month from 1999-2003, but since 

then the duration has been about 1 month or more. 

 

7

The apportionment is equal to the annualized amount (or rate) for each appropriation 

account funded by the CR multiplied by the lower of the percentage of the year covered by 

the CR, or the historical seasonal rate of obligations for the period of the year covered by 

the CR. An agency may request a different amount than what is automatically apportioned, 

i.e., an exception apportionment, but according to OMB staff, OMB rarely approves 

exception apportionments. We discuss OMB guidance in app. II. 

Page 4 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

Figure 1: Number and Duration of CRs (Fiscal Years 1999–2009) 

Source: GAO.

2

4

4b

3

3

5a

8

8

21

7

6

Fiscal year

Quarter 1 Quarter 2

Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 Jan. 1 Feb.1 Mar. 1 Apr. 1

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

Continuing resolution

a

The fifth CR, Pub. L. 108-185, amended the original CR with substantive provisions but did not 

extend the CR period. 

b

In February 2007, Congress enacted a 227-day CR that provided funding for the remainder of the 

fiscal year; this CR is not included in fig. 1. 

Between fiscal year 1999 and 2009, most agencies operated under a CR at 

the beginning of the fiscal year, uncertain if there would be subsequent 

CRs and if so, how many and how long before receiving regular 

appropriations. In fiscal year 2001, for example, there were 20 extensions 

of the initial CR, each ranging from 1 to 21 days, and the total period when 

one or more agencies operated under a CR was 83 days. There is no 

discernable pattern for the duration or number of extensions and not all 

federal agencies are under CRs for the entire duration. As shown in figure 

Page 5 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

2, agencies covered by the Defense, Military Construction, and Homeland 

Security Appropriations Subcommittees operated under CRs for about 1 

month on average during fiscal years 1999-2009, whereas other agencies 

operated under CRs for at least 2 months on average. 

Page 6 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

Figure 2: Average Annual Duration of CRs by Appropriations Subcommittee (Fiscal 

Years 1999–2009) 

Appropriations subcommittee

Days

Source: GAO.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Labor/

HHS

Commerce/

Justice

State

Foreign

Operations

District of

Columbia

Treasury 

Transportation

Housing

and Urban

Development

Agriculture

Energy/

Water

Interior

Legislative

branch

VA

Military

Construction

Defense

Homeland

Security 21

27

37

66

67

69

71

79

81

81

83

84

88

89

89

96

Notes: The number and jurisdiction of appropriations subcommittees changed over time. Adjustments

were made to account for changing appropriations subcommittee jurisdictions. Currently, Congress

considers 12 regular appropriations acts organized around one or more major departments. The 227-day 

CR passed in February 2007 provided funding for the remainder of the fiscal year and is excluded above. 

Page 7 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

During the period studied, fiscal years 1999-2009, every agency operated 

under a CR for some period of time. For most, this meant temporarily 

operating under a conservative rate of spending and limitations on certain 

activities, as required by the standard provisions. However, in some 

circumstances, Congress increased amounts available to some programs 

and activities, extended authorities, or provided greater direction than 

what was provided by the standard provisions, especially in longer CRs. 

These specific provisions—called legislative anomalies—may alleviate 

some challenges during the CR period. 

CRs Provide Interim 

Funding for Agencies 

and Programs 

Standard Provisions 

Govern Most Agencies and 

Programs Funded under a 

CR 

We identified 11 standard provisions applicable to the funding of most 

agencies and programs under a CR.8

 These provisions provide direction 

regarding the availability of funding and demonstrate the temporary nature 

of the legislation. For example, one standard provision provides for an 

amount to be available to continue operations at a designated rate for 

operations. Since fiscal year 1999, different formulas have been enacted 

for determining the rate for operations during the CR period. The amount 

often is based on the prior fiscal year’s funding level or the “current rate” 

but may also be based on a bill that has passed either the House or Senate. 

Depending on the language of the CR, different agencies operate under 

different rates.9

 The amount is available until a specified date or until the 

agency’s regular appropriations act is enacted, whichever is sooner. In 

general, CRs prohibit new activities and projects for which appropriations, 

funds, or other authority were not available in the prior fiscal year. Also, 

so the agency action does not impinge upon final funding prerogatives, 

agencies are directed to take only the most limited funding actions and 

CRs limit the ability of an agency to obligate all, or a large share, of its 

available appropriation. 

Congress added two new standard provisions since 1999. At the beginning 

of fiscal year 2004, Congress standardized a provision that makes funding 

available under CRs to allow for entitlements and mandatory payments 

funded through the regular appropriations acts to be paid at the current 

 

8

The standard provisions are listed in app. II. 

9

See app. II for an explanation of the differences in the various rates for operations. 

Page 8 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

fiscal year level.10 In 2007, Congress enacted the furlough provision in the 

CR for the first time. This provision permits OMB and other authorized 

government officials to apportion up to the full amount of the rate for 

operations to avoid a furlough of civilian employees. This authority may 

not be used until after an agency has taken all necessary action to defer or 

reduce nonpersonnel-related administrative expenses. The problem of 

covering salary and personnel expenses with limited funding may be 

exacerbated when a CR crosses the calendar year and a mandatory salary 

increase becomes effective.11 For example, in fiscal year 2009, the CR 

enacted a 3.9 percent pay increase for certain civilian employees to begin 

on the first full pay period of the calendar year. However, the CR did not 

provide additional funding beyond the enacted rates for operations. 

Accordingly, most agencies were expected to cover the salary increase 

and related personnel costs at fiscal year 2008 funding levels. 

Legislative Anomalies May 

Alleviate Some Challenges 

of Operating during the CR 

Period 

In addition to the standard provisions, CRs contained legislative anomalies 

that provided funding and authorities that were different from the 

standard provisions. We identified approximately 280 anomalies enacted 

in CRs since fiscal year 1999. The number of anomalies generally increased 

as the duration of initial CRs increased in recent years (see fig. 3). Despite 

the growing number, legislative anomalies covered a small share of the 

agencies, programs, and activities covered by the CR in each year. Most 

agencies operated under the more conservative funding levels and 

limitations provided by the standard provisions for the duration of the CR. 

 

10Mandatory programs, such as Social Security, that are funded through permanent, 

indefinite appropriations are not subject to the annual appropriations process. However, 

under programs such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, and certain VA programs, beneficiaries 

who meet eligibility criteria are entitled to certain payments or other benefits under federal 

law and funding is provided through the annual appropriations process. 

11The rates of pay for most executive branch civilian and foreign service employees 

increase at the beginning of the new calendar year pursuant to statute. 5 U.S.C. §§ 5303 – 

5304a. 

Page 9 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

Figure 3: Duration of Initial CR and Number of Anomalies (Fiscal Years 1999–2009) 

Oct.1

Jan. 1

Apr. 1

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Source: GAO.

Fiscal year

Duration of initial CR

Number of anomalies in initial CR

Days Number of anomalies

Over two-thirds of the anomalies enacted since 1999 fell into two 

categories: 

• a different amount than that provided by the standard rate for operations, 

and 

• extensions of expiring program authority. 

Over one-third of the legislative anomalies enacted since 1999 provided an 

agency, program, or activity an amount different from that provided in the 

standard provisions. Programs that received a specific or additional 

amount or a different rate for operations under a CR include the decennial 

census, wildfire management, disaster relief, veterans healthcare and 

benefits, and presidential transition activities. An anomaly in the 2009 CR 

provided BOP with funding equal to the amount requested to cover costs 

for the current services level in the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget 

request.12 The previous year, BOP had received more than $296 million in 

supplemental appropriations and amounts made available from other DOJ 

 

12Current services estimates are based on the continuation of existing levels of service. 

Page 10 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

appropriation accounts that were not included in the standard rate for 

operations in the 2009 CR. According to BOP officials, the anomaly in the 

2009 CR helped ensure BOP could continue to pay salaries and expenses 

of the existing staff and costs of the growing inmate population. In any one 

of the years we studied prior to 2009, CRs only included up to 18 

provisions that provided a different amount than what was provided in the 

standard provisions. However, in 2009 over 30 such provisions were 

included in the 157-day CR. 

In some cases, CRs provided full-year appropriations for a program or 

activity. Under these circumstances, agencies have funding certainty 

during the CR period. For example, in fiscal year 2009, the CR 

appropriated an amount to cover the entire year for Low Income Home 

Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) payments. LIHEAP provides 

assistance for low-income families in meeting their home energy needs 

and typically 90 percent of LIHEAP funding is obligated in the first quarter 

to cover winter heating costs. For several years prior to 2009, OMB 

provided LIHEAP a seasonal apportionment allowing the program to 

operate at a higher rate than would have been allowed under OMB’s 

automatic apportionment. However, by receiving a full-year appropriation 

in the CR, the LIHEAP program could operate with certainty about its final 

funding level making an exception apportionment unnecessary. However, 

these circumstances are rare; most federal programs and activities faced 

uncertainty during the CR period about when and how much funding 

would be provided in their regular appropriations. 

Another large share of legislative anomalies enacted since fiscal year 1999 

extended expiring authorities through the specified termination date of the 

CR. The types of programs extended during the years of our review are 

diverse, including the National Flood Insurance Program, affordable 

housing, free lunch, and food service programs. CRs also have extended 

the authority to collect and obligate fees, such as for mining, or to collect 

certain copayments from veterans for medications. The fiscal year 2008 

CR, for example, included an extension of VA’s authority to collect certain 

amounts from veterans and third parties, including insurance providers. If 

the authorization had not been extended, VA would have had to operate 

with less funding. 

In some cases, Congress lifted or added restrictions on the authorized 

purpose for which funds could be used during the CR period or amended 

other laws. Also, there have been a few legislative anomalies for activities 

not funded in the prior year, such as a presidential transition. In sum, the 

number and range of anomalies demonstrate that while CRs are temporary 

Page 11 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

measures, Congress has chosen to include provisions to address specific 

issues. 

All six case study agencies reported that the most common inefficiencies 

were delays to certain activities, such as hiring, and repetitive work, 

including having to enter into several short-term contracts or issuing 

multiple grants to the same recipient. The effects of the delays and the 

amount of additional work varied by agency and by activity and depended 

in large part on the number and duration of CRs. 

All case study agencies reported not filling some new or existing positions 

during the CR period because they were uncertain how many positions 

their regular appropriation would support or to meet more immediate 

funding needs during the CR period. For example, according to FBI 

officials, rates for operations provided in CRs based on the previous year’s 

appropriations acts do not include annual pay raises, the annualization of 

pay for the previous year’s hiring increases, or the increased costs of 

retirement, health insurance, and other employee benefits. To cover these 

costs, FBI delayed filling existing positions during CRs. In addition, 

officials from ACF and FDA said they were reluctant to begin the hiring 

process during the CR period for fear that the time invested would be 

wasted if the certificate of eligibles listing qualified applicants expired or 

the agency received insufficient funding to support the additional staff. 

Agency officials said that if hiring was delayed during the CR period, it 

was particularly difficult to fill positions by the end of the year after a 

longer CR period. Overall, case study agency officials said that, absent a 

CR, they would have hired additional staff sooner for activities such as 

grant processing and oversight, food and drug inspections, intelligence 

analysis, prison security, claims processing for veterans’ benefits, or 

general administrative tasks, such as financial management and budget 

execution. 

Selected Agencies’ 

Experiences Varied 

but All Reported That 

CRs Limited 

Management Options 

and Resulted in 

Inefficiencies 

Agency officials said that given the number of variables involved, it is 

difficult to quantify the effect that hiring delays related to CRs had on 

specific agency activities. Agencies were also largely unable to identify any 

specific foregone opportunities that may have resulted from a delay in 

hiring related to CRs. However, they did describe some general effects. 

• An FDA official from the Office of Regulatory Affairs said that deferring 

the hiring and training of staff during a CR affected the agency’s ability to 

conduct the targeted number of inspections negotiated with FDA’s 

product centers in areas such as food and medical devices. Another FDA 

Page 12 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

official said that routine surveillance activities (e.g., inspections, sample 

collections, field examinations, etc.) are some of the first to be affected. 

• BOP officials said that deferring hiring during CRs has made it difficult for 

BOP to maintain or improve the ratio of corrections officers to inmates as 

the prison population increases. 

• VBA officials cited missed opportunities in processing additional benefits 

claims and completing other tasks. Because newly hired claims processors 

require as much as 24 months of training to reach full performance, a VBA 

official said that the effects of hiring delays related to CRs are not 

immediate, but reduce service delivery in subsequent years. However, VBA 

was able to achieve its hiring goals by the end of the fiscal year in each of 

the past 4 years.13 

The effects of CRs on hiring at other departments as described by 

departmental CFOs and others who participated in our panel discussion 

were similar to those identified by officials at case study agencies. To 

avoid these types of hiring delays, FBI proceeded with its hiring activities 

based on a staffing plan supported by the President’s Budget during the 

CR period in 2009. This helped FBI avoid a backlog in hiring later in the 

year and cumulatively over time. However, FBI assumed some risk that 

the regular appropriation for the year would not support the hiring plan. 

According to FBI officials, if the agency had not received a regular 

appropriation equal to or greater than the President’s fiscal year 2009 

budget request, it likely would have had to suspend hiring for the 

remainder of the fiscal year and make difficult cuts to other nonpersonnel 

expenses. 

In addition to delays in hiring, case study agencies also reported delaying 

contracts during the CR period. For example, VHA medical facilities did 

not start nonrecurring maintenance projects designed to improve and 

maintain the quality of VA Medical Centers (e.g., repairs to electrical or 

sewage systems) but instead waited until the agency received its regular 

appropriation to fund these projects. BOP reported that it frequently 

postponed awarding some contracts during a CR. For example, BOP 

reported delaying the activation of its Butner and Tucson Prison facilities 

and two other federal prisons in 2007 during the CR period to make $65.6 

million in additional resources available for more immediate needs. 

According to BOP, delays resulting from CRs contributed to delays in the 

availability of additional prison capacity at a time when prison facilities 

 

13VBA operated under a CR for almost 3 months on average in fiscal years 2005-2008 but 43 

days into the CR period in fiscal year 2008 it received funding above the current rate. 

Page 13 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

were already overcrowded. A recent BOP study found that overcrowding 

is an important factor affecting the rate of serious inmate assault.14 As of 

July 9, 2009, BOP facilities were 37 percent over capacity systemwide. 

As a result of delaying contracts during CRs, officials from BOP, VHA, and 

VBA said that they sometimes had to solicit bids a second time or have 

environmental, architectural, or engineering analyses redone resulting in 

additional costs in time and resources for the agency. According to BOP, 

delaying contract awards for new BOP prisons and renovations to existing 

facilities prevented the agency from locking in prices and resulted in 

higher construction costs. Based on numbers provided by BOP, a delay in 

awarding a contract for the McDowell Prison Facility resulted in about 

$5.4 million in additional costs. However, in general, case study agencies 

were unable to provide documents confirming cost increases resulting 

from a CR. 

Some agency officials said that contracting delays resulting from longer 

CRs have also affected their ability to fully compete and award contracts 

in the limited time remaining in the fiscal year after the agency has 

received its regular appropriation. Federal law and regulations require 

federal contracts to be competed unless they fall under specific exceptions 

to full and open competition.15 Depending on the type of contract, to fully 

compete a contract an agency must solicit proposals from contractors, 

evaluate the proposals received, and negotiate and award the contract to 

the firm with the best proposal. BOP’s Field Acquisition Office, which is 

responsible for acquisitions over $100,000, said that trying to complete all 

of its contracts by the end of the fiscal year when a CR lasts longer than 3 

to 4 months negatively affects the quality of competition. 

Longer CRs also have contributed to distortions in agencies’ spending, 

adding to the rush to obligate funds late in the fiscal year before they 

expire. For example, VHA reported that it has often delayed contracts for 

nonrecurring maintenance projects, as described above, until the agency 

receives its regular appropriation. Although other factors contributed to 

delays, in 2006 VHA obligated 60 percent (about $248 million) of its $424 

 

14Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, The Effects of Changing Crowding, 

and Staffing Levels in Federal Prisons on Inmate Violence Rates (Washington, D.C.: 

2005). 

15Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-369; 48 C.F.R. § 6.101(b). 

Page 14 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

million nonrecurring maintenance budget in September, the last month of 

the fiscal year.16 

Officials from ACF and VHA said that, in general, most of the discretionary 

grants that they award are not delayed by shorter-term CRs because these 

grants are typically awarded later in the fiscal year after the agencies have 

received their regular appropriation. However, an ACF official said that 

lengthy CR periods—particularly those that extend beyond mid-February, 

like the ones that ACF operated under in 2003 and 2009—delay 

discretionary grant announcements. The official said the delay causes a 

shift in the grant cycles, pushing back the application review period, which 

in turn pushes back the final award date. 

A longer CR period also may compress the application time available for 

discretionary grants. For example, VHA reported that CR periods that 

extend several months into the fiscal year have delayed notification to 

nonprofit, state, or local governments of possible grant opportunities for 

constructing, acquiring, or renovating housing and nursing home care for 

veterans. These delays reduce the time available for potential grant 

recipients to meet the program’s application deadlines, which can affect 

the quality of applications submitted. The application time available for 

ACF’s discretionary grants may also be compressed by a longer CR. We 

reviewed the application times for 277 grants awarded by four ACF 

discretionary grant programs between 2005 and 2008. We found that while 

application times varied considerably—from 13 to 89 days—they were on 

average 11 days more in fiscal years when the agency’s regular 

appropriation was enacted before the end of the first quarter than when 

the agency’s appropriation was enacted in the second quarter.17 However, 

we could not isolate the effect on application times that resulted from a 

longer CR period from other factors. 

The effect of CRs on grants described by case study agencies was 

consistent with what we heard from departmental CFOs and others who 

 

16See GAO, Department of Veterans Affairs’ Lack of Timely and Accurate Information on 

Unexpended Balances Limits Effective Management and Congressional Oversight,

GAO-07-410R (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2007). Congress added language to VA’s 2009 

appropriation act prohibiting it from obligating more than 20 percent of nonrecurring 

maintenance funds in the last 2 months of the fiscal year. 

17The four grants were Administration for Native Americans Social and Economic 

Development grants, Head Start grants (including Early Head Start), Transitional Living, 

and Unaccompanied Alien Children Services grants. 

Page 15 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

participated in our panel discussion. Specifically, panel participants said 

that discretionary grant awards are generally put on hold at their 

departments during a CR to avoid having to solicit proposals multiple 

times. If the amount of funding provided by a formula grant is based on a 

certain percentage of the total amount appropriated, the grant may be 

delayed until the department has received its final funding. 

According to some representatives of nonprofit organizations and state 

and local governments, in the past, federal grant recipients have been able 

to temporarily support programs with funds from other sources until 

agencies’ regular appropriations are passed; however, it is more difficult to 

do so during periods of economic downturn such as the one they are 

currently experiencing. An ACF official told us that nonprofit 

organizations providing shelter to unaccompanied alien children have 

used lines of credit to bridge gaps in federal funding during a CR. 

However, in March 2009, a shelter in Texas informed ACF’s Office of 

Refugee Resettlement that its credit was at its limit and it was in 

immediate need of additional funds to sustain operations for the next 45 to 

60 days. The Office of Refugee Resettlement made an emergency grant to 

this organization to maintain operations with the CR funding remaining. 

In addition to the delays described above, some agency officials told us 

that they delayed making program enhancements because of funding 

constraints related to the CR. For example, FBI officials said that over 

$440 million in enhancements to existing programs and activities were 

delayed in 2009 because the CR instructs agencies to implement only the 

most limited funding actions to continue operating at the enacted rate. 

These include improvements to the Data Loading and Analysis System, 

which FBI said was designed to improve its ability to analyze and share 

data for counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber intrusion 

investigations. 

All Case Study Agencies 

Reported That CRs 

Increased Workload 

In addition to delays, all case study agencies reported having to perform 

additional work to manage within the constraints of the CR. The most 

common type of additional work that agencies reported was having to 

enter into new contracts or exercise contract options to reflect the 

duration of the CR. Agencies often made contract awards monthly or in 

direct proportion to the amount and timing of funds provided by the CR. In 

other words, if a CR lasted 30 days, an agency would award a 30-day 

contract for goods or services. Then, each time legislation extended the 

CR, the agency would enter into another short-term contract to make use 

of the newly available funding. 

Page 16 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

For example, a BOP-administered federal prison contracted for an 

optometrist to provide care for the period between October 1, 2007, and 

November 16, 2007, the dates of the initial CR in 2008. When the CR was 

extended, the prison awarded a second contract to the optometrist 

covering November 19, 2007, to December 14, 2007, and a third contract 

covering December 17, 2007, to December 21, 2007, roughly corresponding 

to the duration of the CRs in that fiscal year. The prison also entered into 

contracts for medical services, fuel and utility purchases, and program 

services such as parenting instructions in a similar manner during CR 

periods. According to BOP officials, these contracts would have been 

awarded for the entire fiscal year had there not been a CR. BOP said that 

personnel perform this type of additional work at each of BOP’s 115 

institutions to manage funds during a CR. 

Other case study agencies reported similar experiences. FBI reported that 

it undertakes contract actions, including renewals and options, at a 

specific percentage based on the rate for operations for the period covered 

by the CR. For example, during the CR in 2009 that covered 43 percent of 

the fiscal year, FBI said it executed no more than 40 percent of the value 

of contract renewals. The FBI adjusts over 7,550 purchase orders each 

time a CR is extended. VHA reported that to conserve funding, the agency 

enters into contracts that run month to month or the length of the CR 

rather than annual contracts covering the agency’s needs for the entire 

fiscal year. Also, VHA’s 153 medical facilities and roughly 800 clinics order 

supplies to maintain only the minimum levels needed. Agency officials said 

that if the agencies had received their regular appropriations at the start of 

the fiscal year, they would have entered into fewer contracts for longer 

periods of performance or placed purchase orders less frequently, making 

this additional work unnecessary. 

In general, shorter and more numerous CRs led to more repetitive work 

for agencies managing contracts than longer CRs did. Numerous shorter 

CRs were particularly challenging for agencies, such as VHA and BOP, that 

have to maintain an inventory of food, medicine, and other essential 

supplies. For example, under longer CRs—or with their regular 

appropriation—BOP officials said that prison facilities routinely contract 

for a 60- to 90-day supply of food. In addition to reducing work, this allows 

the prison facilities to negotiate better terms through a delivery order 

contract by taking advantage of economies of scale. However, under 

shorter CRs, these facilities generally limit their purchases to correspond 

with the length and funding provided by the CR. Thus, the prison makes 

smaller, more frequent purchases, which BOP officials said can result in 

increased costs. 

Page 17 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

To reduce some of the additional work required to manage contracts in 

years when there are multiple CRs, FBI changed its requisition process to 

reduce the amount of work its Finance Division spends creating 

requisitions for contracts when a CR is extended (see fig. 4). 

Figure 4: FBI Streamlined Its Requisition Process during a CR 

FBI generally enters into contracts based on the rate for operations for the period covered 

by the CR. Previously, each time Congress extended a CR, FBI renewed its contracts to 

make use of the additional funds that became available, and FBI’s Finance Division 

provided a requisition for the renewal. Under FBI’s new streamlined process, at the 

beginning of the fiscal year, the Finance Division commits enough funds to cover a fullyear contract, thus relieving FBI of the need to create a new requisition for each renewal 

every time a CR is extended. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

CRs had a similar effect on grant awards. Officials from ACF said that they 

issue multiple grants to the same grant recipient during the CR period 

instead of making annual or quarterly awards, resulting in additional work 

for program managers and/or personnel in the Office of Grants 

Management.18 For example, a Head Start official said that if the program 

received its regular appropriation at the start of the fiscal year, it would 

likely be able to fund more grant recipients with a single award covering a 

12-month period. However, during a CR, Head Start receives funding based 

on the duration of the CR, and the amount is usually not sufficient to fund 

all grant recipients for a full year. Rather than delay any individual grants, 

a Head Start official said that the program has provided some of its grant 

recipients with a smaller, initial award during the CR period. Then, once 

the regular appropriation was enacted, Head Start awarded an additional 

grant to the same recipient, providing the remainder of their annual 

funding. A Head Start official estimated that issuing an additional grant to 

the same recipient could take as much as 1 hour per award. The longer the 

CR period lasts, a Head Start official said, the greater the number of grants 

they have to award and thus the greater the workload increase. 

We examined data from ACF’s Grants Administration, Tracking and 

Evaluation System. Though we could not establish a clear causal link 

 

18ACF was selected for case study review in part because of the volume of grants the 

agency awards. For more information on case study selection, see app. I. FDA and VHA 

also award a small number of grants but did not report issuing multiple grants to the same 

recipient because of a CR. 

Page 18 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

between CRs and specific instances where a grant recipient received 

multiple awards, we found that in 2008, 185 (about 35 percent) of Head 

Start Project grants administered to recipients through Head Start’s 10 

regional offices received a grant during the CR period and a second grant 

award shortly after ACF’s regular appropriation for the year was enacted.19

For example, one childhood development center received a grant for 

roughly $1.1 million on December 10, 2007, while ACF was operating 

under a CR, and a second grant for roughly $1.7 million 51 days later, after 

ACF’s regular appropriation was enacted. 

To reduce the amount of additional work required to modify contracts and 

award grants in multiple installments, two case study agencies reported 

shifting contract and grant cycles to later in the fiscal year (see fig. 5). An 

agency’s ability to shift its contract cycle depends on a number of factors, 

including the type of services being acquired. The Federal Acquisition 

Streamlining Act of 1994 allows agencies to enter into 1-year contracts for 

severable services that cross fiscal years, so long as the contract period 

does not exceed 1 year and agencies have sufficient funds to enter into the 

annual contract. Severable service contracts are for services, such as 

janitorial services, that are recurring in nature. Using this contract 

flexibility, an agency can shift its contract cycle so that annual contracts 

for severable services are executed in the third and fourth quarters of the 

fiscal year when agencies are less likely to be under a CR. 

Figure 5: Agencies Shifted Contract and Grant Cycles 

Two case study agencies said they had shifted their contracts and grant cycles later in the 

year to avoid having to delay awards or make multiple, smaller awards during the CR 

period. FDA reported that over the past several years it has shifted from awarding most of 

its contract and grant awards at the beginning of the fiscal year to awarding them later in 

the fiscal year and having them run across fiscal years (e.g., from January to January). 

Similarly, an ACF official who administers the Assets for Independence (AFI) program—

which helps low-income households save earned income in special-purpose, matched 

savings accounts—said that AFI has scheduled grant awards and new contracts in the 

second half of the year to reduce the amount of administrative work that the agency 

performs during a CR. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

 

19CRs are not the only reason that Head Start made multiple grant awards to the same 

recipients. 

Page 19 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

However, some agencies’ ability to shift their contract cycle to mitigate the 

effects of CRs was limited. A VHA official, for example, said that the 

agency’s contract workload is so large that it is difficult for the agency to 

delay work on certain contracts for even short periods of time. VHA 

officials also said that the agency makes acquisitions based on immediate 

needs identified by officials in the field rather than centrally managing the 

timing of contracts. 

All agencies also reported having to perform a variety of administrative 

tasks multiple times that they would otherwise not have done or would 

have needed to do only once had they received their regular appropriation 

on October 1st. For example, FDA reported that CRs increased the amount 

of administrative work required to allot funds. Agencies generally 

subdivide the funds that they are apportioned by OMB into allotments, 

which are distributed to different offices and/or programs within the 

agency. FDA typically makes allotments from its total apportioned funds 

to each of the agency’s six centers. When FDA receives its regular 

appropriation, it generally makes these allotments on a quarterly basis. But 

when it is operating under a CR, FDA officials reported that the agency 

has made allotments for each CR. Conversely, VBA and VHA reported that 

they did not allot specific dollar amounts during a CR but rather provided 

guidance that all offices operate at a certain percentage of the previous 

year’s appropriations (see fig. 6). 

Figure 6: Practice Used to Streamline VA’s Allotment Process during a CR 

During a CR, VA’s Central Office provides broad funding guidance to its components, 

including VBA and VHA, rather than allotting funds through its financial management 

system. According to agency officials, this provides the agency with more flexibility during 

the CR period and reduces the workload associated with changes in funding levels. VHA 

officials said that this also allows each facility to manage its funds to meet priorities 

identified at the local level. Agencies monitor the spending levels to ensure that the 

amount obligated does not exceed the funding available to each organization. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

The types of administrative tasks affected by CRs varied by agency but 

included the following: 

• issuing guidance to various programs and offices; 

• providing information to Congress and OMB; 

• creating, disseminating, and revising spending plans; and 

• responding to questions and requests for additional funding above what 

the agency allotted to different programs or offices within the agency. 

Page 20 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

Departmental CFOs and others who participated in our panel discussion 

said that CRs led to similar repetitive work activities at their agencies. 

While case study agencies all agreed that performing repetitive activities 

involved additional time and resources—potentially resulting in hundreds 

of hours of lost productivity—none of the agencies reported tracking these 

costs. The time needed to enter into a contract or issue a grant award may 

be minimal and vary depending on the complexity of the contract or grant, 

but the time spent is meaningful when multiplied across VHA’s 153 

medical facilities and roughly 800 clinics, FBI’s 56 field offices, BOP’s 115 

institutions, and the thousands of grants and contracts awarded by our 

case study agencies. VHA, for example, estimated that it awards 20,000 to 

30,000 contracts a year; ACF’s Head Start program awards grants to over 

1,600 different recipients each year; and FBI places over 7,500 different 

purchase orders a year. Some agencies provided estimates of the 

additional or lost production costs at our request for selected work 

activities for illustrative purposes. These estimates are based on agency 

officials’ rough approximations of the hours spent on specific activities 

related to CRs. In the case of VHA, the estimate is based on the number of 

employees performing the tasks multiplied by the average monthly salary. 

• VHA estimated that a 1-month CR results in over $1 million in lost 

productivity at VA medical facilities and over $140,000 in additional work 

for the agency’s central contracting office. The agency operated under a 

CR for more than 2 months per year on average between 1999 and 2009. 

• FBI estimated that the Accounting, Budget, and Procurement Sections 

spent over 600 hours in 2009 on activities related to managing during the 

CR such as weekly planning meetings and monitoring agency resources 

and requisitions.20 

• ACF estimated that approximately 80 hours of additional staff time is 

spent for each CR by the ACF’s Division of Budget and program offices 

issuing guidance, allotting funds, creating and revising spending tables, 

and performing other administrative tasks.21 In addition, ACF officials 

estimated that issuing block grant awards multiple times in a single 

quarter led to approximately 10 additional staff days of work preparing 

and verifying allocations for grant recipients and preparing the award 

notices for mailing. 

 

20This time estimate does not include the additional work that personnel perform modifying 

contracts. 

21This time estimate does not include the additional work required to issue multiple grants. 

Page 21 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

We did not independently verify these estimates or assess their reliability 

beyond a reasonableness check, which involved reviewing the related 

documentation for each estimate and corroborating with related 

interviews and other documents where possible. Moreover, agencies were 

not able to identify specific activities that were foregone because of the 

CR. 

Operating under CRs for a 

Prolonged Period Limited 

Some Agencies’ Decisionmaking Options 

While some agency officials said that a single, long-term CR allowed for 

better planning in the near term, reducing delays and the amount of 

repetitive work, others said that operating under the specified rate for 

operations for a prolonged period limited their decision-making options, 

making trade-offs more difficult. For example, FBI officials reported that 

the number of contract requests that it receives to address emergency 

situations increases the longer the CR period lasts. As a result, FBI often 

has to reprioritize funds from other operations to fund these contracts, 

placing a strain on agency operations. Also, agency officials said that if the 

agency is unable to spend its funding on high-priority needs, such as hiring 

new staff, because of the limited time available after a lengthy CR, it 

ultimately will spend funds on a lower priority item that can be procured 

quickly. 

Some agency officials said that it was difficult to implement unexpected 

changes in their regular appropriations, including both funding increases 

and decreases, in the limited time available after longer CRs. For example, 

officials from ACF’s Office of Community Services said they made cuts to 

planned expenditures for training and technical assistance in 2009 to 

adjust to an unexpected funding directive for a national initiative on 

community economic development training and capacity development. 

Officials from FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division said that while funding 

increases were beneficial, receiving them in their regular appropriation 

after a longer CR period limited the division’s ability to review new 

contract requests and make the most effective decisions. The Criminal 

Investigative Division received additional funding in 2009 for mortgage 

fraud investigations in its regular appropriation enacted on March 11. 

According to FBI officials, the usual budget and planning cycle, which can 

take several months, had be completed in just 6 weeks to meet the 

deadline that FBI has established for completing all of its large dollar 

contracts by the end of the fiscal year. 

In addition, some agency officials reported that absorbing the increased 

personnel costs in years when the CR period extends into January creates 

additional challenges, particularly if personnel costs represent a large 

Page 22 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

share of their total budget. This is because most federal civilian employees 

receive an annual pay adjustment effective in January of each year. Since 

1999, the CR period has extended into January four times, and the cost of 

the salary increase has ranged from 1.7 percent to 4.1 percent (see table 1). 

Table 1: Annual Salary Increases for Federal Employees for Years in Which the CR 

Extended Beyond the First Quarter 

Fiscal year Percent increase

Date by which all regular 

appropriation acts were enacted 

2003 4.1 2/20/2003

2004 4.1 1/23/2004 

2007a1.7 2/15/2007 

2009 3.9 3/11/2009 

Source: Federal Register. 

a

The full-year CR enacted on February 15, 2007, provided funds to applicable agencies for the 

remainder of the fiscal year and provided 50 percent of the cost of an increase in rates of pay. 

To the extent an agency’s regular appropriations were constant or 

declined from the previous year, these costs would need to be absorbed by 

the agency or program regardless of CRs. However, for those agencies that 

ultimately receive a funding increase, absorbing the annual salary increase 

may strain already tight budgets during the CR period. For example, BOP 

reported that approximately 70 percent of operating budgets at BOP 

institutions are devoted to personnel costs. The 3.9 percent statutory 

salary increase for 2009 contributed to a $7.8 million increase in payroll 

requirements between December 2008 and January 2009. Departmental 

CFOs and others who participated in our panel discussion said that 

agencies across the federal government have to reduce funding for other 

needs, such as hiring and training, to pay for statutory salary increases. 

Multiyear Appropriations 

and Exception 

Apportionments When 

Granted Helped Agencies 

Manage during CRs 

In addition to the anomalies previously described, multiyear 

appropriations or exception apportionments when granted helped to 

mitigate the effects of CRs at case study agencies. Officials from three 

agencies that we reviewed said that having multiyear budget authority—

funds that are available for more than one fiscal year—was helpful for 

managing funds in the compressed time period after regular 

appropriations were enacted. For example, both VBA and VHA said that 

having the authority to carry over funds into the next fiscal year has been 

helpful in years with lengthy CRs because there is less pressure to obligate 

all of their funds before the end of the fiscal year, thus reducing the 

incentive to spend funds on lower priority items that can be procured 

Page 23 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

more quickly. FBI also has authority to carry over a limited amount of 

funds into the subsequent fiscal year, and officials from FBI’s central 

budget office said this was helpful during a CR. 

OMB has also helped agencies manage during a CR by providing more 

than the automatic apportionment when justified. While OMB 

automatically apportions funds to agencies based upon the lower of the 

percentage of the year covered by the CR or the seasonal rate of 

obligations for that same time period, OMB recognizes that some 

programs may need more of their appropriation available at the beginning 

of the fiscal year during a CR period. OMB will adjust the apportionment 

upward in some cases, but these are rare exceptions according to OMB 

staff. 

Two of our case study agencies—VHA and ACF—received exception 

apportionments during the study period—fiscal years 1999 to 2009. OMB 

apportioned funding for VHA’s medical administration account to reflect 

its seasonal rate of obligations during the CR period in 2008. According to 

ACF officials, between 2003 and 2008, OMB also apportioned ACF’s 

LIHEAP funding based upon its seasonal rate of obligations during the CR 

period.22 The exception apportionment allowed ACF to obligate the bulk 

of the funds in the first quarter when heating assistance is most needed. 

Officials from the remaining four case study agencies—BOP, FBI, FDA, 

and VBA—said these agencies operated with the automatically 

apportioned amount during CR periods since fiscal year 1999. 

The federal budget is an inherently political process in which Congress 

annually faces difficult decisions on what to fund among competing 

priorities and interests. CRs enable federal agencies to continue carrying 

out their missions and delivering services until agreement is reached on 

their regular appropriations. While not ideal, CRs continue to be a 

common feature of the annual appropriations process. They provide 

parties additional time for deliberation and avoid gaps in funding. 

Agencies have experience managing programs within the funding 

constraints and uncertainty of CRs and use methods within their available 

authorities. However, there is no easy way to avoid or completely mitigate 

the effects of CRs on agency operations. 

Concluding 

Observations 

 

22In the first CR of 2009, LIHEAP received a legislative anomaly providing a full-year 

appropriation for fiscal year 2009. 

Page 24 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

The degree of difficulty that case study agencies encountered in managing 

under a CR varied, but all of the agencies that we reviewed expressed 

similar concerns about CRs and their effects on their ability to carry out 

their work efficiently and effectively. These concerns included the need 

for repetitive activities and incremental planning. Agencies reported that 

CRs inhibited them from hiring staff and providing a higher level of service 

than if they were operating under a regular appropriation. When the CR 

period is long, the time for planning and program execution is 

compressed, which can be especially challenging when trying to 

implement new programs or program enhancements. Although we cannot 

say that the case studies represent the experiences of all federal agencies, 

there is nothing that suggests they are atypical. Case study examples cross 

program types and activities and are consistent with the views of our panel 

of CFOs and other budget officials. Therefore, we believe that the 

experiences of these six agencies provide useful insights for Congress 

about agency operations under CRs. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Departments of 

Health and Human Services, Justice, and Veterans Affairs. The 

departments provided comments that were clarifying or technical in 

nature and we incorporated them as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days 

from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and interested congressional committees. 

This report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 25 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

Denise M. Fantone at (202) 512–6806 or fantoned@gao.gov or Susan A. 

Poling at (202) 512–2667 or polings@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Managing Associate General Counsel 

Denise M. Fantone 

Director, Strategic Issues 

Susan A. Poling 

Page 26 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix I: 

Methodology 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Page 27 GAO-09-879 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

The objectives of this report are to describe: 

1. the history and characteristics of continuing resolutions (CR), and 

2. for selected case study agencies, how CRs have affected agency 

operations and what actions have been taken to mitigate the effects of 

CRs. 

Analysis of CR Provisions To achieve our first objective, we analyzed how provisions in CRs enacted 

from fiscal years 1999-20091

 direct agencies to operate during the CR 

period and how the provisions changed over time. Our analysis also 

covered the number and type of provisions in CRs that provided specific 

directives or funding levels to particular departments, agencies, and 

programs for the CR period. We refer to these provisions in the report as 

“legislative anomalies.” 

Case Study Selection To achieve our second objective, we conducted a case study review 

analyzing the effects of CRs on select agency operations. In selecting case 

study agencies, we focused on agencies with (1) extensive experience 

managing under CRs to facilitate identification of key practices and (2) a 

broad range of program types, service delivery mechanisms, and 

operational capabilities to make the findings more useful to agencies 

across government. Based on the process described below, we selected 

the following departments and agencies: 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

• Administration for Children and Families (ACF) 

• Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

• Veterans Health Administration (VHA) 

• Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) 

Department of Justice (DOJ) 

• Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

 

1

This time period was chosen to capture recent experiences under a range of 

circumstances, such as years when different parties were in control of Congress; different 

administrations; and election and nonelection years. 

 Continuing Resolutions 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

We used a multistep process to select these departments and agencies. We 

convened a panel of Chief Financial Officers (CFO) or their 

representatives from major cabinet-level departments in part to help us 

identify criteria for case study selection. Eleven of the 15 cabinet-level 

agencies were represented in our panel, including CFOs, deputy CFOs, and 

budget directors from the departments of Education, Energy, Homeland 

Security, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Interior, Justice, Labor, 

State, Transportation, Treasury,2

 and Veterans Affairs. The panel was 

specifically asked to identify (1) factors that may make it more or less 

difficult to manage under a CR, (2) the activities most affected, and (3) 

strategies agencies use for managing under CRs. The programs, activities, 

and other factors identified by our panel that may make it more or less 

difficult to make trade-offs in a CR environment were considered in our 

case study selection. 

To begin the selection process, we first analyzed the amount of time 

departments, covered by different appropriations acts, operated under 

CRs during fiscal years 1999-2008. We calculated the time between the 

beginning of the fiscal year—October 1—and the date when the regular 

appropriations were enacted for each appropriations subcommitee. We 

then selected departments (based upon the jurisdiction of each 

subcommittee) that were under a CR for more than the average of 847 

days over the past 10 years (see table 2).3

 

 

2

The Department of Treasury was represented by an official from the Internal Revenue 

Service. 

3

Currently, Congress considers 12 regular appropriations acts organized around one or 

more major departments. The number and jurisdiction of appropriations subcommittees 

changed overtime. Adjustments were made to account for the changes. 

Page 28 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Table 2: Appropriations Acts under a Continuing Resolution for More than the 

Average of 847 Days during Fiscal Years 1999 and 2008

Appropriations act Days under CR

1 Labor/Education/HHS 1125

2 Commerce/Justice 1044

3 State 1044

4 Foreign Operations 1034

5 District of Columbia 995

6 Treasury 977

7 Transportation 962

8 HUD 955

9 VA 955

10 Agriculture 940

Source: GAO analysis of appropriation acts. 

Notes: These numbers have been adjusted for changes in subcommittee jurisdiction. 

Next, we eliminated from further consideration the District of Columbia 

because it receives significant amounts of funding outside of the regular 

appropriations process that may have mitigated the effect of CRs on its 

operations.4

 We also eliminated the Department of State because it 

received 10 percent or more of its funding from fiscal years 1999-2006 from 

supplemental appropriations.5

 

Third, to better understand the range of issues raised by CRs across 

government, we examined departments within the remaining 

appropriations subcommittees with the intent of selecting departments 

that provide services in different ways (e.g., directly by federal personnel, 

through contracts or grants to third parties, and through the use of federal 

facilities). We analyzed obligations of the remaining departments based on 

the following four budget object class categories that were used as proxies 

for different types of service delivery: 

 

4

The District of Columbia and activities related to the city’s government received a 

substantial portion of funding from nonfederal sources, such as local taxes. 

5

Based on data from GAO, Supplemental Appropriations: Opportunities Exist to Increase 

Transparency and Provide Additional Controls, GAO-08-314 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 

2008). 

Page 29 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

• Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits (employee salaries and benefits); 

• Contractual Services and Supplies (rent, services, supplies and materials); 

• Grants and Fixed Charges (grants, insurance, and interest); and 

• Acquisition of Assets (equipment, land and structures, investments, and 

loans). 

To maximize the usefulness of each department selected for review and to 

minimize any limitations of object class data, we selected departments 

that appeared in the top three for more than one object class. 6

 Based on 

this analysis, the following departments were selected: 7

 

• VA (personnel, contractual services and acquisition); 

• DOJ (personnel, acquisition); and 

• HHS (contractual services, grants). 

Fourth, we selected two agencies for review within each of these 

departments (see table 3) based on a set of criteria that were developed in 

part from previous GAO work and what we heard from CFOs and others 

who participated in our panel discussion. These criteria included the 

number of accounts, the amount of multiyear funding, whether the 

appropriation provided a lump sum, and whether the agency had transfer 

authority. We also reviewed budget data to see if any of the selected 

agencies received a significant amount of their resources (defined for our 

purposes as 10 percent or more) from offsetting collections, which are 

treated differently in the regular appropriations process. We reviewed the 

2008 appropriation acts for selected agencies with the goal of having 

representation from one or more case study agency for each of the 

criteria. We analyzed data at the account level, and if more than one-half of 

an agency’s accounts met the criteria, then the agency was considered for 

review. 

We focused our analysis primarily on discretionary funding because 

funding for mandatory accounts occurs outside of the annual 

 

6

This analysis was based on 2007 data. We limited our analysis to the top three in each 

category. Lower ranking departments (i.e., fourth and fifth) for each object class represent 

a much smaller portion of budget authority relative to other units of the federal 

government. 

7

Treasury appeared in the top three in two categories; however, a large percentage of funds 

classified as “Grants and Fixed Charges” was used to pay interest and dividends, which is a 

function unique to Treasury. As a result, we considered Treasury to rank highly in only one 

object class (Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits) and therefore eliminated it based on 

this criterion. 

Page 30 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

appropriations process and therefore is not directly affected by CRs. 

However, we included VBA because we sought to include at least one 

agency responsible for administering mandatory benefits with 

discretionary funds. 

To analyze the service mechanisms that agencies use to achieve their 

missions, we examined object class data, program activities, and agencies’ 

descriptions of their programs. If we found that one of the service 

mechanisms or factors affecting an agency’s flexibility in obligating funds 

was not included, we examined other agencies with large discretionary 

accounts in each department to see if they could make up for the 

deficiency. We continued this process until we selected agencies that 

covered a variety of budget flexibilities and ways to deliver services. 

Table 3 shows the agencies selected for review and how long they 

operated under CRs from 1999 to 2008. 

Table 3: Days Case Study Agencies Operated under a CR, Fiscal Years 1999-2008 

Case study agency 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007c

 2008 Averagec

BOP and FBI 20 59 81 58 142 114 68 52 137 86 82

ACFa20 59 81 101 142 114 68 90 137 86 90

FDAb 20 21 27 58 142 114 68 40 137 86 71

VBA and VHA 20 19 26 56 142 114 68 60 137 86 73

Case study average 20 40 54 68 142 114 68 61 137 86 n/a

Source: GAO. 

a

ACF receives its annual appropriations through the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 

Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 

b

FDA receives its annual appropriations through the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 

Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 

c

Excludes the final CR of fiscal year 2007, which provided funding to agencies for the remainder of 

the year. 

Overall, our six case study agencies received more than $46 billion in 

discretionary budget authority in 2007, accounting for approximately 10 

percent of all nondefense discretionary spending. All three of our case 

study departments were in the top 10 in federal contract dollars by 

executive department and independent agencies in 2006, and accounted 

for approximately 22 percent of all nondefense federal contract dollars. 

The HHS grant portfolio is the largest in the federal government, with 

approximately 60 percent of the federal government’s grant dollars. 

Page 31 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To obtain a range of perspectives, we conducted semistructured 

interviews with officials at each department-level budget office, each 

agency’s budget office, and at least one program office in each agency. We 

discussed the effects of CRs on different types of programs and activities 

within these agencies. We asked agency officials to demonstrate the 

effects of regular appropriations being enacted after the start of the fiscal 

year and to distinguish the effects of the CR versus other possible causes 

(e.g., level of funding, changes in workload). 

Data Collection 

We provided each agency a standard request for information on budget 

resources, activities associated with CRs, and planning documents among 

other things. To provide illustrative examples of the types of costs 

associated with CRs, we also asked for estimates of the resources needed 

to perform certain activities or to provide services (e.g., time, average cost 

of staff days) associated with CRs. In one instance, BOP provided the 

approximate cost of delays in awarding a contract for a new prison 

facility, but overall, agencies reported that they do not track these costs. 

However, they did provide their best estimates at our request. We have not 

independently verified these estimates or assessed the estimates for 

reliability beyond a reasonableness check but include them for illustrative 

purposes. Our check involved reviewing the related documentation for 

each estimate and corroborating the estimate with related interviews and 

other documents where possible. 

One of the limitations of our case study analysis is that we had to rely to a 

large degree on testimonial evidence because case study agencies could 

not provide documentation showing the foregone opportunities resulting 

from a CR. In general, agencies do not produce planning documents—such 

as spending plans or monthly hiring targets—until they have received their 

regular appropriations. Aside from VA, all case study agencies have 

operated under a CR for each of the past 11 years and therefore could only 

speculate on how they would have operated differently or more efficiently, 

except anecdotally. In general, there were too many variables for agencies 

to isolate the effects of CRs from other factors. 

Selected case studies cannot be generalized, but similarities in agency 

officials’ accounts of operating under CRs suggest that there are broadbased commonalities in the experiences of federal agencies. When 

possible, we incorporated statements made by CFOs and others who 

participated in our panel discussion into our case study review questions 

and discussions with officials at case study agencies to better understand 

whether the effects of CRs described by case study agencies were similar 

to those made by our panel. 

Page 32 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To better understand the potential effects of CRs on entities receiving 

federal funding, we interviewed officials representing states and 

contractors, including the National Association of State Budget Officers, 

National Conference of State Legislatures, Federal Funds Information for 

States, one state budget officer, the Professional Services Council, and 

Logistics Management Institute Government Consulting. In addition, ACF 

also provided us with information that it received from some grant 

recipients regarding difficulties managing programs during CRs. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to September 

2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Page 33 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix II: Additional Information on 

Provisions and Funding Provided in Appendix II: Additional Information on Continuing Resolutions 

Provisions and Funding Provided in 

Continuing Resolutions 

Since 1999, continuing resolutions (CR) have contained the same nine 

standard provisions that govern most agencies, programs, and activities 

covered by the CR. Two new standard provisions were added during this 

time period, the appropriated entitlement provision and the furlough 

restriction. These standard provisions are listed and described in table 4.1

 

Table 4: Standard CR Provisions 

Provision Description 

Rate for Operations Appropriates amounts necessary to continue projects and activities that were 

conducted in the prior fiscal year at a specific rate for operations. 

Extent and Manner Incorporates restrictions from prior year’s appropriations acts or the acts currently 

under consideration. 

No New Starts Amounts appropriated under a CR are not available to initiate or resume projects or 

activities for which appropriations, funds, or authority were not available during the prior 

fiscal year. 

Coverage of CR Obligations Appropriations made available under the CR shall remain available to cover all properly 

incurred obligations and expenditures during the CR period. 

Adjustment of Accounts Expenditures made during the CR period are to be charged against applicable 

appropriations acts once they are finally enacted. 

Apportionment Timing Apportionment time requirements under 31 U.S.C. § 1513 are suspended during the 

CR period but appropriations provided under a CR must still be apportioned to comply 

with the Antideficiency Act and other federal laws. 

High Rate of Operations Programs or activities with a high rate of obligation or complete distribution of 

appropriations at the beginning of the prior fiscal year shall not follow the same pattern 

of obligation nor should any obligations be made that would impinge upon final funding 

prerogatives. 

Limited Funding Actions Agencies are directed to implement only the most limited funding action to continue 

operations at the enacted rate. 

Appropriated Entitlements Authorizes entitlements and other mandatory payments whose budget authority was 

provided in the prior year appropriations acts to continue at a rate to maintain program 

levels under current law (or to operate at present year levels). Amounts available for 

payments due on or about the first of each month after October are to continue to be 

made 30 days after the termination date of the CR. 

Furlough Restriction Authorizes the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other authorized 

government officials to apportion up to the full amount of the rate for operations to 

avoid a furlough of civilian employees. This authority may not be used until after an 

agency has taken all necessary action to defer or reduce nonpersonnel-related 

administrative expenses. 

Termination Date Date on which the CR expires. Usually based on the earlier of a specific date or the 

enactment of the annual appropriations acts. 

Source: GAO. 

 

1

For a broader discussion of CRs, see GAO, Federal Principles of Appropriations Law, 

vol. 2, ch. 8, (GAO-06-382SP, February 2006). 

Page 34 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions 
Appendix II: Additional Information on 

Provisions and Funding Provided in 

Continuing Resolutions 

CRs are often described as continuing projects and activities at the 

previous year’s level, but this is not always the case. The amount provided 

by a CR often is based on the prior fiscal year’s funding level or the 

“current rate” but may also be based on other documents that reflect 

Congress’ or the Administration’s more current positions on funding and 

operations of federal agencies and programs. The amount provided is 

sometimes based on an appropriations bill that has passed both the House 

and the Senate but has not been signed by the President or other 

legislative or executive documents such as a conference report or the 

President’s budget request. Often the CR will enact a rate equal to the 

lower of the “current rate” or not to exceed the current rate and an 

amount provided for in a bill, the budget request, or some other legislative 

document. 

A CR will appropriate “such amounts as may be necessary” for continuing 

“projects or activities” that were conducted in the previous fiscal year at a 

specified rate for operations. For purposes of determining which 

government programs are covered by the resolution, the term “project or 

activity” refers to the total appropriation rather than the specific project or 

activities as provided by the President’s budget request or a committee 

report. If an agency is operating at a rate based upon the prior year’s 

funding level, or the current rate, during a CR period, the agency is 

operating within the limits of the resolution so long as the total of 

obligations under the appropriation does not exceed the level enacted in 

the prior year. Below we describe the differences in the various rates for 

operations and other considerations when determining the enacted rate. 

Current Rate “Current rate” as used in a CR refers to the total amount of budget 

authority that was available for obligation for a project or activity during 

the fiscal year immediately prior to the one for which the CR is enacted. In 

general, the current rate refers to a sum of money rather than a program 

level. Thus, the amount of money available under the CR will be limited by 

that rate, even though an agency’s workload and program needs may 

increase. 

To determine the amount available under the current rate, it is necessary 

to determine whether the appropriation is a 1-year, multiple-year, or noyear appropriation. For programs and activities funded through a 1-year 

appropriation in prior years, the current rate is equal to the total funds 

Page 35 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix II: Additional Information on 

Provisions and Funding Provided in 

Continuing Resolutions 

appropriated for the program for the previous year.2 In those instances in 

which the program has been funded by multiple-year or no-year 

appropriations in prior years, the current rate is equal to the total funds 

appropriated for the previous fiscal year plus any unobligated budget 

authority carried over into that year from prior years.3

Rate Not Exceeding the 

Current Rate 

When the CR appropriates funds to continue an activity at a rate for 

operations “not exceeding the current rate” or “not in excess of the 

current rate” the project or activity has no more funds than it had available 

for obligation in the prior fiscal year. Thus, if the appropriation is multipleyear or no-year funding, any unobligated balance carried over into the CR 

period must be deducted from the current rate in determining the amount 

of funds appropriated by the CR. If this were not done, the project or 

activity would be funded at a higher level in the present year than it was in 

the prior year. 

Other Rates for Operations The CR may also appropriate funds to continue a project or activity at a 

rate for operations in reference to legislative documents, such as House, 

Senate, or Conference Reports, or executive documents, such as the 

President’s budget request. Often, the CR will provide for the possibility of 

several rates for operations depending upon where the appropriations bill 

is in the legislative process at the beginning of the fiscal year. In such 

cases, for each appropriation account, the agency must compare the 

amounts referenced in the CR to determine the enacted rate for that 

particular account. 

The rate for operations specified in the CR, regardless of whether it is the 

current rate or based on another amount in a legislative document, is an 

annual amount. The continuing resolution, whether lasting 1 day or 1 

month, appropriates this full amount. As such, an agency may legally 

follow any pattern of obligating funds, so long as it is operating under a 

plan which enables continuation of activities through the fiscal year within 

 

2

Amounts transferred into the appropriation account as required by statute are included in 

the current rate. Transferred amounts pursuant to discretionary transfer authority are not 

included in the determination of the current rate. B-308773, Jan. 11, 2007. 

3

Amounts provided in supplemental acts will be included in the amount unless it is clear 

from the language of the CR or the supplemental legislation that such amounts were not to 

be considered in the current rate. For example, in fiscal year 2009, the CR stated that the 

amounts enacted in certain emergency supplemental appropriations acts were not to be 

included when determining the rate for operations. 

Page 36 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix II: Additional Information on 

Provisions and Funding Provided in 

Continuing Resolutions 

the limits of that annual amount and is consistent with other provisions of 

the CR.4

 Under this principle, when operating under a CR which 

appropriates funds at the current rate, an agency is not necessarily limited 

to incurring obligations at the same rate it incurred them in the 

corresponding time period of the preceding year. Instead the pattern must 

reflect an operation that could continue activities for the fiscal year at the 

limits of the amounts appropriated in the previous year. OMB’s 

apportionment of the appropriation will also affect the availability of the 

appropriation for obligation. 

Determining the Amounts 

Available for Operations 

Because the rate for operations changes from year to year, it is necessary 

to examine the language of the CR very carefully to identify the formula 

that has been provided for determining amounts available during the CR 

period. It may be necessary to examine documents other than the CR 

itself. Often, different appropriations accounts will be operating at 

different rates depending upon the status of the appropriations bill. The 

following two examples illustrate different rates for operations enacted in 

the standard provisions during the last 10 years. 

Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2005-Rate for Operations 

SEC. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary under the authority and conditions 

provided in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 for continuing projects or 

activities including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees (not otherwise specifically 

provided for in this joint resolution) which were conducted in fiscal year 2004, at a rate for 

operations not exceeding the current rate, and for which appropriations, funds, or other 

authority was made available in the following appropriations Acts: [List of annual 

appropriations acts for fiscal year 2004]. 

Source: Pub. L. 108-309. 

 

4

The obligation patterns during the CR period must also follow other provisions in the 

legislation. As discussed previously, standard provisions provide direction about how 

agencies should manage expenditures during the CR period. 

Page 37 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix II: Additional Information on 

Provisions and Funding Provided in 

Continuing Resolutions 

Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2006-Rates for Operations 

SEC. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary under the authority and conditions 

provided in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 for continuing projects or 

activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) that are not otherwise 

specifically provided for in this joint resolution, that were conducted in fiscal year 2005, 

and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority would be available in the following 

appropriations Acts: 

[List of proposed fiscal year 2006 acts:] 

(b) Whenever the amount that would be made available or the authority that would be 

granted for a project or activity under an Act listed in subsection (a) as passed by the 

House of Representatives as of October 1, 2005, is the same as the amount or authority 

that would be available or granted under the same or other pertinent Act as passed by the 

Senate as of October 1, 2005— 

(1) the project or activity shall be continued at a rate for operations not exceeding the 

current rate or the rate permitted by the actions of the House and the Senate, 

whichever is lower, and under the authority and conditions provided in applicable 

appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2005; or 

(2) if no amount or authority is made available or granted for the project or activity by 

the actions of the House and the Senate, the project or activity shall not be 

continued. 

Source: Pub. L. 108-309. 

In figure 7, all appropriations listed in section 101 would operate at the 

rate for operations not exceeding the current rate. In figure 8, a project or 

activity may operate at the lower of either the rate for operations not 

exceeding the current rate or the rate based upon the amounts provided 

by the House and Senate bills passed before October 1, 2005. So, for 

example, if bills passed by the House and Senate included the same 

amount for an activity in fiscal year 2006, the agency would have to 

compare the amounts passed by the House and Senate with the current 

rate. If the House and Senate amount is lower, the agency will continue the 

project or activity at a rate based upon that amount. If the current rate is 

lower, the project and activities will continue at a rate for operations not 

exceeding the current rate. Also, in 2006, if the bills passed by the House 

and Senate provided no amount for the project or activity, the project or 

activity would not continue (rate for operations is zero). 

OMB Apportionment 

Guidance 

OMB issues apportionment guidance directing agencies how to calculate 

the amount of funds available to obligate and spend during the CR period. 

OMB automatically apportions these amounts. The formula used to 

determine the apportionment has generally remained the same since fiscal 

year 1999. To better preserve Congress’ and the President’s final funding 

prerogatives, the apportionment is equal to the annualized amount (or 

Page 38 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix II: Additional Information on 

Provisions and Funding Provided in 

Continuing Resolutions 

rate) for each appropriation account funded by the CR multiplied by the 

lower of: 

• the percentage of the year covered by the CR, or 

• the historical seasonal rate of obligations for the period of the year 

covered by the CR. 

For example, assume an agency’s annualized amount for an appropriation 

account was $100 million. If the initial CR period was 36 days or 10 

percent of the fiscal year and the agency’s rate of obligations during the 

first 10 percent of the fiscal year was 25 percent of its annual 

appropriations, then the automatic apportionment for that appropriation 

account would be $10 million during the CR period because the amount 

based on the percentage of the year is lower than the seasonal rate. If the 

rate of obligations was 5 percent, the automatic apportionment would be 

$5 million for the CR period. 

While the automatic apportionment formula has remained the same over 

the last 10 years, the calculation of the annualized amount will change 

depending on the rate for operations provided by the CR and other 

provisions. 

Page 39 GAO-09-879 Continuing Resolutions
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contacts and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 40 GAO-09-879 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Denise M. Fantone, (202) 512–6806 or fantoned@gao.gov 

Susan A. Poling, (202) 512–2667 or polings@gao.gov

In addition to the contacts named above, Carol Henn, Assistant Director; 

Julie Matta, Assistant General Counsel; Melissa Wolf, Analyst-in-Charge; 

Sheila Rajabiun, Senior Attorney; Aglae Cantave; Juan Cristiani; Felicia 

Lopez; and Tom McCabe made key contributions to this report. Leah 

Querimit Nash, Albert Sim, and Jessica Thomsen also contributed. 

 Continuing Resolutions 

GAO Contacts 

Acknowledgments 

(450704) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper