Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays




Presenting Measures to the President for
Approval: Possible Delays

Updated November 1, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R41217




Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

Summary
The Constitution requires Congress to present each measure it enacts to the President for
approval. While the Constitution requires the President to act on measures within 10 days of their
presentment, it is silent on the amount of time that may elapse before Congress presents each
measure to the President. Not being subject to a constitutional constraint, Congress has
sometimes temporarily withheld enrolled measures from presentment—for instance, when the
President is absent or to avoid a possible pocket veto.
Before a measure that has passed both chambers can be presented to the President, it must be
enrolled, or prepared in its final form; the enrolled text must then be verified; and the measure
must then be signed by the presiding officers of both houses. For lengthy measures or at times of
heavy congressional workload, these processes may take some time to complete. Rules of
Congress require that measures be presented “forthwith” after being signed, but do not lay
specific constraints on the amount of time that may be taken in enrollment, verification, and
signature.
Generally speaking, data suggest that the time between second chamber passage of a measure and
its enrollment and presentment to the President is almost always completed promptly. For
example, over the past three decades, in no year did the average time between second chamber
passage of a conference report and presentment of the enrolled measure to the President exceed
11 calendar days.
Occasionally, however, significant delays appear to have occurred between final action by
Congress on a measure and its presentment to the President for reasons related not to institutional
or administrative considerations, but to policy or partisan disputes. Some of these instances have
been met with protests, particularly within the House of Representatives. Precedents indicate that
in the House, at least, any “unreasonable” delay in presenting a measure to the President, or
preparing it for such presentment, might give rise to a question of the privileges of the House,
which include matters affecting the integrity of the proceedings of the House. On these grounds a
resolution requiring the prompt performance of necessary actions, or directing other remedies,
might be privileged for consideration in the House. Such resolutions were presented on at least
one occasion in 1888 and once in 1991. Though neither resolution was adopted, one was held to
raise a question of privilege, and in the other case, the chair affirmed the principle that such a
situation might give rise to a valid question of privilege.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Constitutional Considerations ......................................................................................................... 1

Meaning of “Presentment” ........................................................................................................ 1
Implications of the “Pocket Veto” ............................................................................................. 2
Selected Modern Occurrences ......................................................................................................... 3
Congressional Rules and Practice ................................................................................................... 4
The Former Joint Rules ............................................................................................................. 5
The Legislative Reorganization Act .......................................................................................... 5
Signing of Enrolled Measures ................................................................................................... 6
Possible Delays and Possible Restrictions Thereon .................................................................. 7
Summary of Requirements ........................................................................................................ 7

Enforcement Through a Question of Privilege ................................................................................ 8
Early Precedent ......................................................................................................................... 8
Modern Precedent ..................................................................................................................... 9
When Might Delays Be Unreasonable? .................................................................................... 9
Remedies ................................................................................................................................. 10
Data on Delays in Presentment ....................................................................................................... 11

Tables
Table 1. Average Number of Calendar Days Between Second Chamber Passage of a
Conference Report and Its Presentment: 1989-2022 ................................................................... 11

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 12

Congressional Research Service

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

Introduction
The Constitution requires that after any bill or joint resolution that would become law passes both
houses of Congress in final form, it must be presented to the President for approval or veto.1 The
Constitution also sets time limits on the President’s action: after a measure is presented, the
President may sign or veto it within 10 days, excluding Sundays. If the President does neither, the
act either becomes law without his signature (if Congress remains in session) or is pocket vetoed
(if Congress has adjourned).
By contrast, the Constitution specifies no time limit within which Congress must present a
measure to the President after completing its own action on it. In a number of instances, several
days or more have elapsed between these two events. Some of these delays have occurred for
reasons related to formal requirements of the lawmaking process under the Constitution or
because of the time needed for preparing the measure for presentment. Others, however, seem to
have occurred for reasons related to policy or partisan disputes, and some of these occurrences
have led to discussion, either formally or informally but especially in the House of
Representatives, about the appropriate timing for these actions and possible ways of enforcement.
This report discusses possible institutional reasons for delays in the process of presentment and
describes some instances of delay for other reasons. It considers what restrictions against such
delays are provided in the Constitution and in congressional rules. It concludes by examining how
the House might attempt to overcome such delays by considering them as raising a question of
the privileges of the House.
Constitutional Considerations
In accordance with the constitutional requirements for lawmaking, acts of Congress can result in
law only through presentment to the President. The Constitution appears to presume that this
requirement itself should offer Congress sufficient incentive to make such presentment without
needing to be compelled by any further requirements. Two centuries of experience, however,
reveal certain circumstances under which Congress may have institutional reasons to withhold a
measure temporarily from presentment.
Meaning of “Presentment”
First, if Congress were to present acts for approval during an extended absence of the President
(e.g., abroad), it could alter the accepted balance of the constitutional lawmaking process. If more
than 10 days were to elapse before the President’s return, then at the expiration of that period the
acts so presented would become law without the President’s approval. By such action Congress
would be able to avoid even the possibility of a veto. The possibility of this result might give
Congress incentive to withhold presenting any measure likely to be vetoed until the President
departed for an absence of more than 10 days (which in turn would tend to give the President
reason never to leave the capital for such a period). To avoid these potential complications,
Congress and the Executive sometimes arrange that any acts of Congress delivered to the White
House during the President’s absence be considered presented only upon his return.2

1 Article I, clause 7. U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives
, H.Doc. 116-177, 116th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2021), §104, 111, 115. Hereinafter cited as
House Manual.
2 House Manual, §105.
Congressional Research Service
1

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

Implications of the “Pocket Veto”
The possibility of the “pocket veto” has implications of a converse kind. The Constitution
provides that the President normally can veto a measure only by returning it to Congress, thereby
giving Congress the chance to override the veto. If, however, “the Congress by their Adjournment
prevent its Return,” a presented measure that the President does not sign fails to become law.
Under these conditions, therefore, the President may reject a measure without returning it to
Congress for a possible override. This outcome is called a “pocket veto.”3
In early days, it seems to have been often presumed that the President had power either to sign or
to veto a presented measure only while Congress remained in session.4 Under this presumption,
the pocket veto was not a matter of Presidential choice; acts remaining without approval when
Congress adjourned sine die were considered as necessarily pocket vetoed. It was for this reason
that the President customarily spent the last evening of a congressional session at the Capitol, in
order to sign or veto last-minute legislation as it was presented to him, before Congress
adjourned.5 Under this practice, if any measure had been presented after sine die adjournment, the
President would have been held unable to sign it. Under those conditions, Congress had every
incentive to present enrolled measures before adjournment, so that delays in presentment were
unlikely.
In recent decades, by contrast, it has come to be accepted that the President may sign acts of
Congress after its adjournment. This practice makes a pocket veto a presidential option rather
than an automatic result. If an act is presented within 10 days of an expected adjournment, the
President can choose to withhold action until after the adjournment, then reject the measure by
exercising a pocket veto. By this means, the President can avoid having to send Congress a veto
message and risk an override.
This possibility raises the question of what forms of adjournment permit the President to treat acts
he does not sign as pocket vetoed, rather than as requiring return to Congress.6 Some
disagreement still remains today about this question. Several recent Administrations have claimed
that any adjournment of more than three days is an occasion for exercise of a pocket veto; this
broad interpretation has at times clashed with the views of Congress. Other Administrations,
however, have been willing to limit pocket vetoes to final adjournments of a Congress, provided
that during other adjournments, either within a session or between sessions, Congress appoints an
agent to receive veto messages.
Although the courts have provided some clarification of the scope of the pocket veto power, there
is tension between the only two opinions of the Supreme Court interpreting the pocket veto
clause. Where the 10th day falls after the sine die adjournment of a Congress, it is clear that the

3 Article I, section 7. House Manual, §§111-112.
4 Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, (Washington, GPO, 1907).
vol. IV, §§3493, 3497. (Hereafter cited in the form: V Hinds’ Precedents §3493.) Luther Stearns Cushing, Elements of
the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States of America (
Boston: Little Brown, 1856), pp. 919-
920. Robert Luce, Legislative Problems (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1935, reprint, New York: Da Capo, 1971), p. 179.
W.F. Willoughby, Principles of Legislative Organization and Administration (Washington: Brookings, 1934), pp. 87-
88.
5 This custom was especially significant before the 20th Amendment took effect in 1933, changing the constitutional
term of the Congress (and of the President); until then, each Congress uniformly adjourned its final session only when
the constitutional term of its successor began on March 4.
6 This and the following paragraph draw heavily on analysis supplied by Jay Shampansky, former legislative attorney,
American Law Division, CRS.
Congressional Research Service
2

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

President can exercise a pocket veto, because Congress’ adjournment prevents him from returning
the measure.7 The Supreme Court in 1938 held that the pocket veto is not available to the
President during adjournments of three days or less during a session, if the house in which the
measure originated has appointed an agent to receive veto messages.8 Further, dicta in more
recent lower court rulings suggest that today a pocket veto would be unconstitutional during any
adjournment of either or both houses within a session (such as the now customary August recess),
if Congress appoints an agent to receive veto messages.9 During adjournments between sessions
of the same Congress, pertinent judicial precedents provide somewhat conflicting guidance. A
1985 court of appeals ruling that held a pocket veto unconstitutional in such circumstances was
vacated as moot by the Supreme Court.10
Congress has sometimes responded to the possibility of an attempted pocket veto during a recess
by withholding from presentment measures on which it completed action just before the recess
until fewer than 10 days remained therein. The expiration of the 10 days would then find
Congress in session, making the pocket veto provisions of the Constitution once again
inapplicable.11 This practice illustrates a second circumstance in which Congress may have reason
to withhold measures temporarily from presentment to protect its ability to vote on overriding
Presidential vetoes, and no objection on constitutional grounds to its doing so seems ever to have
been pressed.
Selected Modern Occurrences
The delays in presenting measures that have fostered comment in the past several years appear to
stem not from institutional grounds such as those just discussed, but from ones that might be
described as political. Yet if Congress can constitutionally delay presentment to preserve its
institutional prerogatives, it would appear difficult to assert any constitutional grounds against its
doing so for other reasons.
These instances of delay have occurred especially at times when Congress and the Presidency
were controlled by different political parties. In 1991, for example, a measure extending
unemployment benefits, which cleared Congress on October 1, was not signed in the Senate and
presented to the President until October 9. In the interim, a leading member of the minority party
stated on the floor of the House that “no Member of the ... leadership has yet explained why they
kept the bill for ... almost [seven] days now in the Senate.” Members of the majority responded
that, “frankly, we are hoping to get the votes to override or to get the President to sign it,” and
that “this bill will arrive on the President’s desk in better shape to be enacted if it takes another

7 Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 644, 680-81 (1929).
8 Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).
9 Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
10 Barnes v. Kline, 759 F.2d 21 (D.C. Cir. 1985, vacated as moot sub nom). Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361 (1987).
11 See “Delaying Presentation of Legislation to the President as A Method of Avoiding the Use of A Pocket Veto,”
Congressional Research Service memorandum of January 28, 1971, reprinted in Constitutionality of the President’s
“Pocket Veto” Power
, hearing before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
92nd Cong., 1st sess., 214-15 (1971) (hereafter, CRS memorandum). The following is cited as an example in the CRS
memorandum, id. at 215: “A bill to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia passed the Senate on
December 13, 1866 and the House on December 14. Congress adjourned for Christmas from December 20 until
January 3, 1867. The bill was not presented to the President until December 26, 12 days after passage by both Houses
and six days after Congress had adjourned but less than 10 days, Sundays excepted, before Congress reconvened. On
January 7, 1867, the bill was returned by President Johnson with his objections and subsequently passed over his veto.”
Congressional Research Service
3

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

day or two. [The] President ... needs to feel the ... heat.... ”12 A press report said that “leaders in
[the Senate] held the bill for eight days ... in order to delay the eventual override vote. Their hope
is that constituents might be able to persuade two [Senators] to change their votes during the
intervening days.”13
In another instance, in 1995, the President vetoed the first legislative branch appropriation bill for
FY1996 on the grounds that more action should first take place on at least some of the other
regular appropriation bills. After the veto, Congress passed identical provisions in a new bill,
clearing the measure on November 2. Under the circumstances, the leadership preferred that the
measure not be again presented to the President “without some indication that he would sign it.”14
Ultimately, the bill was presented on November 18 and signed the following day.
Other examples occurred in 1996. H.R. 1833, to ban partial-birth abortions, cleared Congress on
March 27, but was not presented to the President until April 5. H.R. 956, to regulate product
liability suits, cleared Congress on March 29, but was presented only on April 30. Both measures
were vetoed, though the congressional schedule in these instances suggests that avoidance of a
possible pocket veto was not at issue.
The longest delay in presentment identified during the past three decades was 176 days, occurring
in the case of H.R. 1757 from the 105th Congress (1995-1996.) One other measure identified,
H.R. 2466 from the 106th Congress (1997-1998), was enrolled but ultimately never presented,
instead being tabled by concurrent resolution. In these latter two cases, it is not clear from the
record whether any specific dispute between the branches led to these delays.
Congressional Rules and Practice
If the Constitution offers no source of constraint on the action of Congress in presenting measures
to the President, the only other likely source of such constraints would be the rules of Congress
itself. Specifically, pertinent would be rules governing the administrative actions that take place
between final congressional action on a measure and its presentment to the President. These are
internal congressional proceedings, whose regulation is subject to the constitutional grant to each
house of Congress of plenary power to “determine the rules of its proceedings.”15 Today’s
congressional practice in these matters derives in part from joint rules that were in effect from
1789 until 1876, and in part from provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L.
79-602, 60 Stat. 912).
The processes governed by these regulations begin with the preparation of the final text of the
measure, under the direction of the Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate (depending on
the chamber of origin); this preparation is called enrollment.16 The enrolled measure is then
examined for accuracy, today under the auspices of the House Clerk or Secretary of the Senate,
respectively. It is then signed by the Speaker, in the House, and then the Vice President (or other

12 U.S. Congress, House, “Point of Personal Privilege—Alleged Impugning of Character or Motives of Minority
Whip,” proceedings in the House, Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 137 (October 8, 1991), pp. H7564-H7565,
H7569.
13 “President Vetoes Jobless Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 49, October 12, 1991, p. 2961.
14 Jonathan D. Salant, “Legislative Branch Bill Wins in Second Round,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol.
53, November 25, 1995, p. 3590.
15 Article I, Section 5. House Manual, §§58-59.
16 CRS Report RL34480, Enrollment of Legislation: Relevant Congressional Procedures, by Valerie Heitshusen.
Congressional Research Service
4

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

Presiding Officer), in the Senate, to attest that the respective houses have agreed to it. Once so
signed, the enrolled measure is ready for presentment to the President.
The Former Joint Rules
The pertinent provisions of the former joint rules originated in the first session of the First
Congress in 1789.17 These joint rules lapsed, for reasons unrelated to the presentment of bills, in
1876, but the “certification and presentation of enrolled bills to the President” continued to be
“governed by usage founded” thereon.18 In their ultimate form, these joint rules provided (among
other things) that
After a bill shall have passed both Houses, it shall be duly enrolled ... by the Clerk of the
House ... or the Secretary of the Senate ... before it shall be presented to the President.
When bills are enrolled they shall be examined by a joint committee ... who shall make
their report forthwith to their respective Houses.
After examination and report, each bill shall be signed in the respective Houses, first by
the Speaker of the House ... then by the President of the Senate.
After a bill shall have been thus signed ... it shall be presented by the said committee to the
President ... for his approbation.... The said committee shall report the day of presentation
to the President, which time shall also be carefully entered on the Journal of each House.19
Other joint rules extended the application of these procedures to joint resolutions as well as bills.
The Legislative Reorganization Act
Although the joint rules lapsed in 1876, these arrangements appear to have remained substantially
unchanged until the 1946 Reorganization Act. For measures originating in the House, that act
gave functions of the Joint Committee on Enrolled Bills to the Committee on House
Administration, which the same act also established.20 In somewhat altered wording, the act’s
stipulations on this subject continued in effect until 2001 as clause 4(d)(1) of Rule X, giving the
committee the duty
in cooperation with the Senate, [of] examining all bills and joint resolutions which shall
have passed both Houses to see that they are correctly enrolled, forthwith presenting those
which originated in the House to the President of the United States in person after their
signature by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and reporting the
fact and date of such presentation to the House[.]21
In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), the responsibility of examining enrolled bills was transferred
from the Committee on House Administration to the Clerk of the House.22 Corresponding duties

17 V Hinds’ Precedents §3430.
18 IV Hinds’ Precedents §3430. See also Lewis Deschler, Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House of
Representatives
, H.Doc. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1977), vol. 7, chapter 24, §15. (Hereafter
cited in the form: 7 Deschler’s Precedents chapter 24, §15.)
19 IV Hinds’ Precedents §3430.
20 7 Deschler’s Precedents, chapter 24, §§14.1-14.3.
21 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives, H.Doc. 105-
358, 105th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1999), §750, pp. 465-466.
22 House Rule II.
Congressional Research Service
5

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

in relation to acts originating in the Senate are carried out by or under the supervision of the
Secretary of the Senate.23
Signing of Enrolled Measures
None of these procedures explicitly regulate when the Speaker and the President of the Senate
must sign enrolled measures. The President of the Senate (or other presiding officer) does so
while the Senate is meeting, and until recent times, the Speaker of the House was required to do
so while the House was meeting. Even under the joint rules, however, measures were
occasionally enrolled so near the end of the first session of a Congress (or any session other than
the last) that they could not be made ready in time for one or both presiding officers to sign them
or were signed so near the end of such a session that they could not be presented before the
adjournment. Through at least 1920, Congress dealt with such situations in its next session by
adopting resolutions authorizing those measures to be then signed or presented.24 This practice
suggests that Congress at that time treated such delays as administrative difficulties to be
overcome rather than engaging in them purposefully.
In more recent times, failure to complete the enrollment of measures before an adjournment
seems to have become more common. Each house has sometimes dealt with these situations by
authorizing its presiding officer, by simple or concurrent resolution or by unanimous consent, to
sign enrolled measures during an adjournment. The adjournments in question have included not
only adjournments between sessions, but also recesses within a session, as well as adjournments
of fewer than three days.25 It is now common practice for the Speaker to authorize a specific
Member or Members to sign enrolled bills in the Speaker’s absence. The Senate traditionally
adopts a unanimous consent agreement at the beginning of a new Congress permitting not only its
President but also the President pro tempore and the Acting President pro tempore to sign
enrolled bills and joint resolutions. Although any such authorization would have the effect of
increasing the presiding officers’ flexibility in timing their signing, there is no available evidence
of any specific instances in which they used this flexibility to achieve any particular purpose,
even to time the presentment of measures so as to avoid the possibility of a pocket veto.
The prevalence of such practices seems to have led, in 1981, to a change in House Rule I, clause
4, which now permits the Speaker “to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions whether or not the
House is in session.”26 By further loosening the connection between this ministerial act and its
formal context, this change strengthened the apparent justification for the Speaker to exercise
flexibility in timing the signature of enrolled measures, and may have also increased the
likelihood of doing so. Occasionally in the years since the change, the Speaker has used the
requirement for signing the measure as an occasion for a public enrollment “signing ceremony.”27

23 Senate Rule XIV, paragraph 5. U.S. Senate Manual, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 116-1 (Washington: GPO, 2020),
p. 12. §14.5. 7 Deschler’s Precedents, chapter 24, §14.4.
24 IV Hinds’ Precedents, §. 3486-3488. Clarence Cannon, Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the
United States
, vol. VII (Washington: GPO, 1935), §1086.
25 7 Deschler’s Precedents chapter 24, §§15.1-15.7. Floyd M. Riddick and Alan S. Frumin, Riddick’s Senate
Procedure: Precedents and Practices
, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 101-28 (Washington: GPO, 1992) p. 830.
26 House Manual, §§624-625. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of
the House of Representatives
, [compiled by] W[illia]m Holmes Brown, Parliamentarian, 95th Cong., 2nd sess. H.Doc.
95-403 (Washington: GPO, 1979), §§624-5.
27 The first identified instance of such an action took place on a job training bill in the 97th Congress under Speaker
Thomas P. O’Neill. See “S&L Aid, Jobs Bills Cleared,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 40, October 9,
1982, p. 2622. For a more recent example, see, “Speaker Pelosi Holds Bill Enrollment Ceremony for H.R. 3525,”
Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, press release, June 7, 2022, available at https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/6722-2.
Congressional Research Service
6

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

Possible Delays and Possible Restrictions Thereon
The accomplishment of some of the tasks regulated by these rules necessarily requires a certain
amount of time. The process of enrollment, in particular, can take some time because it involves
the physical production of the correct final text. For similar reasons, the process of verifying the
enrolled text might also require some measurable amount of time. The specific time required in
each case presumably varies with the length and complexity of the measure and the volume of
other work. Signature by the presiding officers, in itself, might require only minimal time, but its
accomplishment might again depend on the press of other business, as well as on time required to
transmit the measure between the houses. Similar statements might be made about the actual act
of presentment.
In addition, however, the amount of time taken by any of these steps could also be further
extended by deliberate intent. Such delay might accordingly occur at any point in these processes.
Yet at only one point did the old joint rules make any reference to the time to be allowed for these
actions: they required that the Joint Committee on Enrolled Bills report “forthwith” when it found
a measure to be correctly enrolled. They limited the time allotted neither for the Clerk or
Secretary to enroll the measure nor for the committee to examine the enrollment. It was doubtless
understood that the length of measures and the level of other workload would require some
flexibility. Nor did the joint rules govern either the action of the Speaker of the House and
President of the Senate in signing enrolled measures or the subsequent action of the joint
committee in presenting them to the President.
The time constraints established pursuant to the Reorganization Act differ in some respects from
those of the joint rules. Whereas the former Committee on Enrolled Bills was to transmit enrolled
measures for the signature of the Speaker and the President of the Senate “forthwith” after
examining them, the terms of the Reorganization Act did not subject the Committee on House
Administration or Secretary of the Senate to any similar constraint. Conversely, the present rules
of each chamber, but not the former joint rules, require that presentment to the President follow
“forthwith” after signature by the Speaker and the President of the Senate. No available
information indicates what substantive meaning may have been given to “forthwith,” either under
the joint rules or under present regulations, or whether the use of this term may ever have been
considered to impose any enforceable constraints.28
Summary of Requirements
In summary, no rules now explicitly limit the time for the process of enrollment itself. The
officers charged with examining the enrollment for accuracy are not limited in their time for
doing so, although the former requirement that they report the measure for signature “forthwith”
after that examination might be construed still to have the force of practice. Again, no rules limit
the time for the two presiding officers to sign the enrolled measure, although the measure is to be
presented “forthwith” after signature. Practice, nevertheless, allows presentment to be delayed if
the President is absent or to avoid a pocket veto. It is not clear whether such delays are today
customarily accomplished by withholding signed measures from presentment despite the

28 The term forthwith has been used in other parliamentary contexts. For example, when it was used in instructions to a
committee contained in a motion to recommit a measure, the term was understood to mandate immediate pro forma
compliance. This interpretation, however, almost certainly could not be applied to the processes of enrollment and
presentment, for these cannot be accomplished pro forma, because they require the accomplishment of several
substantive actions and the occurrence of several concrete circumstances. These include the actual preparation of the
enrolled text, its examination, its physical delivery to the President, the President’s presence, and (formerly) the House
or Senate being in session.
Congressional Research Service
7

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

requirement of House Rule II and Senate Rule XIV or by pauses at earlier stages of the process of
preparation.
Enforcement Through a Question of Privilege
Despite this paucity of specific mandates, there is precedent for attempting to enforce the timely
occurrence of actions requisite to presenting an act of Congress to the President. House Rule IX
provides that questions of the privileges of the House are privileged for consideration on the floor
of the House. It defines such questions as those “affecting the rights of the House collectively, its
safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.”29 It is the practice of the House that such
questions must be presented in the form of a resolution. The Speaker rules on whether the
resolution presents a question of the privileges of the House; if it does, it is privileged for
consideration under the one-hour rule, either then or within two days of session (depending on
whether it is presented by the majority or minority leader and, if not, at the discretion of the
Speaker).
In at least two instances, resolutions of this kind have been offered alleging that failure to present
to the President, in a timely fashion, a measure passed by Congress, affected the integrity of
House proceedings. These two precedents show one means by which at least the House of
Representatives might, under appropriate circumstances, take action to enforce the presentment to
the President of a cleared measure.
The Senate possesses no similar mechanism to provide privileged consideration of a resolution of
this kind but could presumably entertain a resolution with similar intent, and thereby direct
remedial action, if it so chooses.
Early Precedent
The earliest known instance of such action, which occurred in 1888, is described in the compiled
precedents of the House. The headnote of this precedent states the pertinent principle in the
negative, declaring that “There having been no unreasonable delay in transmitting an enrolled bill
to the President, a resolution relating thereto was decided not to present a question of privilege.”30
The body of the precedent, however, suggests that under appropriate circumstances, such a
situation could give rise to a question of privilege.
In this incident, the press had reported that the Committee on Enrolled Bills was withholding the
presentment of a specific bill, although it had been reported correctly enrolled and had been
signed by the Speaker and President of the Senate. Based on these reports, a Member offered, as a
question of the privileges of the House, a resolution directing the committee to present the bill to
the President “forthwith and without further delay.”
A point of order was raised that this resolution did not involve a question of the privileges of the
House. In ruling on the point of order, the Speaker pro tempore pointed out that the Constitution
fixes “no time ... within which ... presentment shall be made; it does not say ‘forthwith’ or
‘immediately.’” Similarly, “the chairman of the Committee on Enrolled Bills ... takes these bills
to the President. Within what time? There is no rule or law operating upon him in this respect.”
Further,

29 House Manual, §§698-699.
30 III Hinds’ Precedents, §2601.
Congressional Research Service
8

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

Has there been in this case unusual delay? The actual lapse of time appears to have been
one day. The Chair ... finds ... that the time within which bills passed by the Senate and
House and signed by their respective presiding officers reach the President varies from one
to ten days, the average being three days. Non constat that [i.e., it is not established
whether] the President may be out of town, or that there may be some other impediment....
Hence the Chair decides that this is not a question of privilege.
This ruling, however, explicitly left open the possibility that delay in the presentment of a
measure might, under some circumstances, give rise to a question of privilege. The chair
explicitly stated that he was ruling whether the matter involved a question of privilege under the
circumstances presented. He pointed out that questions of privilege included those that affect the
“integrity of the House ... or of its proceedings,” and indicated that “If this matter should come up
on a subsequent day, when there had been an unreasonable delay in transmitting the bill to the
President, the Chair is not prepared to say what he might do in the premises, for lapse of time
might raise some inference upon which to predicate a question of privilege.”
Finally, the chair explicitly affirmed that “If the resolution were properly before the House ... the
House could no doubt adopt the resolution” and that “If this resolution should properly come
before the House it would no doubt be entertained; and the House could direct, according to its
own judgment, the action which the Committee on Enrolled Bills should take in reference to this
bill.”31
Modern Precedent
No available accounts reveal that any such question was again raised in the House until 1991, in
connection with one of the situations described earlier. Seven days after Congress had cleared the
measure in question, a resolution was presented, as a question of the privileges of the House,
asserting that the enrollment of the measure had not been completed in the Senate “even though
the bill was only 48 pages in length,” that “failure to complete action on an enrolled bill delays its
presentation to the President,” and that “an unreasonable delay in the transmission of an enrolled
bill to the President affects the integrity of the proceedings of the House.... ” The resolution
accordingly directed the appointment of a committee of two to “determine whether there has been
unreasonable delay in transmitting the enrolled bill ... to the President” and “promptly inform the
Senate of the concern of the House of Representatives over the delay.”32
The Speaker pro tempore ruled that this resolution did constitute a question of the privileges of
the House, thereby establishing an affirmative precedent for the principle that delays in
enrollment may give rise to a question of the privileges of the House. On motion by the majority
leader, however, the House disposed of the resolution adversely by laying it on the table.
When Might Delays Be Unreasonable?
A difference between the two occurrences just discussed is that in 1888, the bill in question was
in all respects ready for presentment, having been enrolled, examined, and signed; whereas in
1991, the enrollment itself had apparently not been completed. The more recent precedent
therefore suggests that the integrity of House proceedings might be affected by delay not only in
the actual presentment of an act to the President, but also in the process of preparing the measure

31 Ibid.
32 Text of H.Res. 239 in U.S. Congress, House, “Privileges of the House—Failure to Complete Action on Enrolled
Bill,” proceedings in the House, Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 137 (October 8, 1991), p. H7562.
Congressional Research Service
9

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

for presentment. The 1888 ruling, however, also suggests that whether any such delays affected
the privileges of the House might depend on whether they might be considered unreasonable.
Whether delay might be unreasonable, in turn, would no doubt depend on how long the process
normally takes and on specific circumstances such as the length of the measure, the volume of
other workload of the enrolling clerks, the possible imminence of a recess, and the possible
absence of the President. It might also depend on the reasons for the delay; institutional reasons
such as those discussed earlier might constitute generally acceptable grounds. A resolution
proposing a question of privilege in such a situation would presumably state, either in the
preamble or in the body, the case for considering the delay unreasonable.
At the time of the 1888 case, no formal restrictions of time governed the process of preparation
for presentment, for the joint rules had already lapsed and the Reorganization Act was not yet in
place. The ruling in that case accordingly suggests that a question of privilege may be involved
even in the absence of any provision of the Constitution, law, or rule setting specific time limits
for accomplishing the actions necessary to prepare a measure for presentment. On the other hand,
the case that the integrity of House proceedings was involved might be strengthened if the delay
took place at a point at which applicable mandates required action “forthwith.” The only such
point explicit in present rules is that at which the measure in question has been enrolled,
examined, and signed, and is therefore immediately ready for presentment. As suggested earlier,
nevertheless, the former requirement that bills be sent to the presiding officers for signature
immediately after examination for correctness might also be considered applicable.
Remedies
The remedies by which a resolution of this kind might propose to overcome delays in the process
of preparation for presentment would also depend on the point in the process at which delay
might occur. The 1888 bill was entirely ready for presentment, and at that time no general
requirement existed for immediate presentment of measures in that condition. The resolution
offered in that case accordingly proposed to direct the committee to transmit the bill to the
President “forthwith and without delay.” The more recent cases of delay appear instead to involve
delay either in the process of preparing the enrolled bill or in obtaining the signatures of the
presiding officers. In such a case a resolution might propose to direct the Clerk of the House or
Speaker to take immediate or expeditious action to accomplish their pertinent functions.
On the other hand, the resolution offered in the House in 1991 concerned a Senate measure whose
enrollment had not been completed in that chamber. The resolution therefore could not direct that
enrollment proceed without delay or immediately, for the officers charged with that function were
not subject to the direction of the House. Instead, the House resolution could propose only that
inquiries and expressions of concern be directed to the Senate, and the results reported to the
House.
Since the House has never gone so far as actually to adopt any resolution addressing a situation of
this kind, no concrete information is available bearing on how directives contained in such a
resolution might be implemented or enforced. Especially in completing the process of enrollment,
it might be difficult to ascertain whether action was occurring as expeditiously as might be.
Finally, the remedies that any such resolution in the House might direct are also limited by the
principle that such a resolution loses its privilege for consideration if it would have the effect of
changing rules of the House.
Congressional Research Service
10

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

Data on Delays in Presentment
Using data from the Congress.gov database, CRS calculated the time from second chamber
passage of all conference reports to their presentment to the President from the 101st Congress
(1989-1990) to the present. This data set included more than 500 conference reports presented
during the period in question.33
The shortest period between second chamber passage and presentment of a conference report
during the period examined was zero days—that is, the enrolled measure was presented to the
President on the same day it passed the second house of Congress. This occurred on more than 40
occasions during the period examined. As has been noted, the longest delay in presentment
identified during the period was 176 days, occurring in the case of H.R. 1757 from the 105th
Congress (1995-1996). Over the past three decades, in no year did the average time between
second chamber passage of a conference report and presentment of the enrolled measure to the
President exceed 11 calendar days.
The average number of days between second chamber passage and presentment of conference
reports for each Congress is detailed in the table below.
Table 1. Average Number of Calendar Days Between Second Chamber Passage of a
Conference Report and Its Presentment: 1989-2022
Average Number of Calendar Days
Between Second Chamber Passage

Congress and Years
and Presentment
117th (2021-2022)
-
116th (2019-2020)
1.00
115th (2017-2018)
5.80
114th (2015-2016)
5.66
113th (2013-2014)
4.30
112th (2011-2012)
4.14
111th (2009-2010)
2.70
110th (2007-2008)
8.69
109th (2005-2006)
4.44
108th (2003-2004)
6.50
107th (2001-2002)
7.03
106th (1999-2000)
6.62
105th (1997-1998)
10.26
104th (1995-1996)
5.30
103rd (1993-1994)
5.31
102nd (1991-1992)
6.48

33 Although conference reports represent only a subset of all enrolled measures, they do provide useful data on average
enrollment and presentment times. Conference reports are arguably more likely than other measures to be subject to
delays in presentment because of factors such as length, complexity, and their potential to be more politically
contentious.
Congressional Research Service
11

Presenting Measures to the President for Approval: Possible Delays

101st (1989-1990)
9.90
Source: CRS analysis of data from Congress.gov.
Note: Data are current as of November 1, 2022.

Author Information

Christopher M. Davis

Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R41217 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
12