Order Code RL30343
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Continuing Appropriations Acts: Brief Overview
of Recent Practices
Updated September 26, 2000
Sandy Streeter
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Summary
Normally, most of the operations of federal departments and agencies are funded
each year through the separate enactment of 13 regular appropriations acts, which are
scheduled to be enacted by October 1. Rarely, however, are all 13 bills enacted by
the deadline. The affected departments and agencies usually are funded under
continuing appropriations acts. Because continuing appropriations acts typically are
enacted in the form of joint resolutions, such acts are referred to as continuing
resolutions (or CRs).
Over the last 30 years, the nature, scope, and duration of continuing resolutions
have fluctuated. From the early 1970s through 1987, continuing resolutions gradually
expanded from interim funding measures of comparatively brief duration and length
to full-year funding measures. During the Bush years and early Clinton years, the
nature, scope, and duration contracted; in 1995-1996 they generally expanded; and
in 1997-1999, they, again, contracted.
Continuing resolutions generally can be divided into two categories—those that
provide temporary funding and those that provide funds for the entire fiscal year.
Temporary continuing resolutions provide interim funding until a specific date or until
the enactment of the applicable regular appropriations acts. Full-year continuing
resolutions provide continuing appropriations for the entire fiscal year.
Over the years, delay in the enactment of regular appropriations measures and
continuing resolutions after the beginning of the fiscal year has led to periods during
which appropriations authority has lapsed. Such periods generally are referred to as
funding gaps.
On September 25, 2000, Chairman C.W. Bill Young, House Appropriations
Committee, introduced H.J.Res. 109, which would continue funding for the eleven
outstanding FY2001 regular appropriations bills through October 6, 2000.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
History and Recent Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Types of Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Substantive Legislative Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Funding Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Congressional Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Tables
Table 1. Current Status of FY2001 Continuing Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by Deadline and Continuing
Resolutions (CRs), FY1977-FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

---

Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Most Recent Developments
On September 25, 2000, Chairman C.W. Bill Young, House Appropriations
Committee, introduced H.J.Res. 109, which would continue funding for the eleven
outstanding FY2001 regular appropriations bills1 through October 6, 2000. It
provided a spending level for the projects and activities associated with the bills at
generally the total amount of budget authority2 available last year. For instance, the
funding level would include adjustments for supplementals and rescissions.
Table 1. Current Status of FY2001 Continuing Resolution
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Measure
Public Law
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
H.J.Res. 109
—
—
—
—
—
—
1The eleven outstanding bills are: Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-State-the Judiciary, District
of Columbia, Energy and Water Development, Foreign Operations, Interior, Labor-Health and
Human Services-Education, Legislative Branch, Transportation, Treasury-General
Government, and Veterans Affairs-Housing and Urban Development. The Defense bill
became law on Aug. 9, 2000, and the Military Construction bill became law on July 13, 2000.
2Congress provides budget authority instead of cash to agencies. Budget authority represents
the legal authority for federal agencies to make obligations requiring either immediate or
future expenditures (or outlays). These obligations (for example, entering into a contract to
construct a ship or purchase supplies) result in outlays, which are payments from the
Treasury, usually in the form of checks, electronic funds transfers, or cash disbursements.
For example, an appropriations act might provide $3 billion in new budget authority for
FY2000 to the Defense Department to construct four ships. That is, the act gives the
department legal authority to sign contracts to build the ships. The department can not
commit the government to pay more than $3 billion. The outlays occur when the contractor
cashes the government check for building the ships.
Generally, appropriations are a type of budget authority.

---

CRS-2
Introduction
Under the Constitution and federal law, no funds may be drawn from the U.S.
Treasury or obligated by federal officials unless appropriated by law.3 Normally,
most of the operations of federal departments and agencies are funded each year
through the separate enactment of 13 regular appropriations acts.4 However, it is not
unusual for the enactment of one or more of these acts to be delayed beyond the
beginning of the fiscal year on October 15 (for data on the FY1977-FY2000 period,
see Table 2). When this occurs, affected departments and agencies usually are funded
under continuing appropriations acts. Because continuing appropriations acts
typically are enacted in the form of joint resolutions, such acts are referred to as
continuing resolutions (or CRs).
This report provides information on the history of continuing resolutions; the
nature, scope, and duration of CRs during the last 30 years; the various types of CRs
that have been enacted; and an overview of those instances when budget authority has
lapsed and a funding gap has resulted.
History and Recent Trends
Continuing resolutions date from at least the late 1870s, and have been a regular
part of the annual appropriations process in the post World War II period. In fact,
with the exception of FY1989, FY1995, and FY1997, at least one continuing
resolution has been enacted for each fiscal year since 1954. During the FY1977-
FY2000 period, Congress enacted on average four continuing resolutions per year
(for detailed information, see Table 2).
Over the last 30 years, the nature, scope, and duration of continuing resolutions
have fluctuated.6 From the early 1970s through 1987, continuing resolutions
gradually expanded from interim funding measures of comparatively brief duration
and length to full-year funding measures. In many cases, the full-year measures
included the full text of several regular appropriations bills and contained substantive
3See Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and 31 U.S.C. 1341.
4For information on the types of appropriations measures and the appropriations process, see
U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Congressional
Appropriations Process: An Introduction, by Sandy Streeter, CRS Report 97-684 GOV
(Washington: updated periodically).
5Fiscal years begin on October 1 and end the following September 30. For example, the
fiscal year 1997 began on October 1, 1996.
6For a brief discussion of earlier periods see U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional
Research Service, Budget Concepts and Terminology: The Appropriations Phase, by Louis
Fisher, CRS Report 74-210 GGR (Washington: Nov. 21, 1974). For a discussion of trends
involving the use of continuing resolutions through the mid-1980s, see U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Budget, The Whole and the Parts: Piecemeal and Integrated Approaches
to Congressional Budgeting, committee print No. CP-3, prepared for the Task Force on the
Budget Process by Allen Schick, 100th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1987).

---

CRS-3
legislation. During the Bush years and early Clinton years, the nature, scope, and
duration contracted; in 1995-1996 they generally expanded; and in 1997-1999, they,
again, contracted. The more restricted nature of continuing resolutions in the 1997-
1999 period occurred because budgetary conflicts were resolved in omnibus regular
appropriations bills, instead of continuing resolutions.
Until the early 1970s, continuing resolutions principally were limited in scope
and duration, and rarely exceeded a page or two in length. They were used almost
exclusively to provide temporary funding at a minimum, formulaic level, and
contained few provisions unrelated to the interim funding.

---

CRS-4
Table 2. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by Deadline and Continuing Resolutions (CRs), FY1977-FY2000
Party in Control of Congress
Regular Appropriations Bills
Continuing
Fiscal
Presidential
Approved by or on
Enacted in Continuing
Resolutions
Year
Administration
Senate
House
October 1st
Resolution
Enacted
1977
Ford
Democrats
Democrats
13
0
2a
1978
Carter
Democrats
Democrats
9
1
3
1979
5
1
1
1980
3
3
2
1981
1
5
2
1982
Reagan
Republicans
Democrats
0
4
4
1983
1
7
2
1984
4
3
2
1985
4
8
5
1986
0
7
5
1987
0
13
5
1988
Democrats
0
13
5
1989
13
0
0
1990
Bush
Democrats
Democrats
1
0
3
1991
0
0
5
1992
3
1
4
1993
1
0
1
1994
Clinton
Democrats
Democrats
2
0
3
1995
13
0
0
1996
Republicans
Republicans
0
5b
14
1997
8c
0
0
1998
1
0
6
1999
1
0
6
2000
4
0
7
Sources: U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Appropriations, Budget Estimates, Etc., 94th Cong., 2nd sess. - 104th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1976-1995). U.S.
Congress, House, Calendars of the U.S. House of Representatives and History of Legislation, 104th Cong., 1st sess. - 105th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1995-1999).
a The two CRs did not provide continuing funding for entire regular bills; instead, they provided funding for selected activities.
b An FY1996 continuing resolution (P.L. 104-99) provided full-year funding for the FY1996 foreign operations regular bill; however, the continuing resolution provided that the foreign
operations measure be enacted separately (P.L. 104-107). It is excluded from the amount.
c The remaining five bills were enacted by October 1, but not as separate measures; therefore, they are excluded from this amount. The five bills were included in the FY1997 Defense
regular act.

---

CRS-5
Beginning in the early 1970s, conflict between the President and Congress over major
budget priorities, triggered in part by rapidly increasing deficits, greatly increased the
difficulty of reaching final agreement on regular appropriations acts. This conflict led to
protracted delay in their enactment. Continuing resolutions, because they historically have
been viewed as "must-pass" measures in view of the constitutional and statutory imperatives,
became a major battleground for the resolution of budgetary and other conflicts.
Consequently, the nature, scope, and duration of continuing resolutions began to change.
Continuing resolutions began to be used to provide funds for longer periods, and
occasionally for an entire fiscal year, when agreement on one or more regular acts could not
be reached. Further, continuing resolutions became vehicles for substantive legislative
provisions unrelated to interim funding, as it became clear that in some years continuing
resolutions would be the most effective means to enact such provisions into law. These trends
culminated in FY1987 and FY1988, following a period of persistently high deficits and
sustained conflict over how to deal with them. For those two years, continuing resolutions
effectively became omnibus appropriations measures for the federal government,
incorporating all of the regular appropriations acts for the entire fiscal year as well as a host
of substantive legislation covering a broad range of policy areas.7
Since FY1988, Congress and the President have generally operated under multi-year
deficit reduction agreements achieved through budget summits. Since 1990, these agreements
have included enforceable limits on spending controlled in annual appropriations acts (so-
called discretionary spending).8 From FY1988 through FY1995, a period of relative
agreement on overall budget priorities, agreement on regular appropriations acts came more
readily. Continuing resolutions, when necessary, generally were more limited, contained far
less substantive legislation, and were used mainly to provide interim funding for relatively
brief periods.
During consideration of the FY1996 regular appropriations bills and continuing
resolutions, the President and Congress were in conflict over the 1995 balanced budget plan
and spending and policy priorities in the FY1996 appropriations measures. As a result, two
funding gaps9 occurred; 14 continuing resolutions were enacted; and action was not completed
until almost seven months into the fiscal year. The final continuing resolution was used for
the entire fiscal year and contained six regular appropriations bills.
From FY1997 through FY2000, budgetary and other conflicts continued between the
President and Congress. The differences were resolved in omnibus bills included in regular
appropriations bills, instead of continuing resolutions. Therefore, continuing resolutions,
when needed, provided interim funding for short periods of time and included little substantive
legislation.
7See P.L. 99-591 and P.L. 100-202.
8For more information, see Streeter, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An
Introduction; and U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Manual on the
Federal Budget Process, by Allen Schick and Robert Keith, CRS Report 98-720 GOV
(Washington: periodically updated).
9For information on funding gaps, see Funding Gaps below.

---

CRS-6
Types of Continuing Resolutions
Continuing resolutions generally can be divided into two categories—those that provide
temporary funding and those that provide funds for the entire fiscal year.
Temporary continuing resolutions provide interim funding until a specific date or until
the enactment of the applicable regular appropriations acts, if earlier. They have remained
fairly constant in form and structure in recent years. Typically, they establish formulas that
provide funding for programs and activities under the affected appropriations act(s) at a level
which is the lowest of one of the following: (1) the current rate (i.e., the total amount
provided for the previous year); (2) the rate provided for in the applicable regular act as
reported to or passed by the House (if any); or (3) the rate provided in the applicable regular
act as reported to or passed by the Senate (if any). (See, for example, Section 101 of P.L.
103-88, approved September 30, 1993.) In earlier years, this funding formula sometimes
included the rate of appropriations provided for in the President's budget as another option.
(See, for example, Section 101(b) of P.L. 94-41, approved June 27, 1975.)
The temporary continuing resolutions in recent years have generally used some variation
of the formula that provides funds at the lower of the House or Senate passed (reported)
levels, or at the current rate. In most cases, the formula has applied to all programs or
activities covered by a particular regular appropriations act. However, such formulas also
have been used to fund specific programs that were not covered by regular appropriations acts
because they were not yet authorized by law or for other reasons (for example, Section 101
of P.L. 94-473, approved October 11, 1976). Once a temporary continuing resolution is
enacted, additional temporary resolutions, if necessary, may simply extend the deadline in the
initial resolution without changing the funding formula, or they may include an updated
formula that represents, for example, a later stage of congressional action on one or more of
the covered regular acts than had been reached earlier.
Full-year continuing resolutions provide continuing appropriations for the entire fiscal
year. (Table 2 provides the number of regular bills funded through the end of the fiscal year
in continuing resolutions.) Typically, full-year funding provisions are one of two types: (1)
provisions that incorporate regular appropriations acts by reference to the latest stage of
congressional action (usually the conference agreement, if one has been reached); or (2) the
full text of the regular act.
Full-year continuing resolutions effectively become regular appropriation acts for the
fiscal year. Further, when continuing resolutions have included the full text of one or more
regular appropriations acts, they also have included all the myriad general and administrative
provisions (so-called riders) typically included in regular acts. (See, for example, Section 101
of P.L. 100-202, approved December 22, 1987, and Section 101 of P.L. 99-591, approved
October 30, 1986.) Consequently, they may be hundreds of pages in length, whereas
temporary resolutions typically are a few pages or less (in the case of a simple extension of
a previous resolution, perhaps only one page).
During consideration of the FY1996 continuing resolutions, Congress also used targeted
appropriations. Traditionally, a single continuing resolution provides funding for all activities
in the outstanding regular appropriations bills and generally provides the same expiration date
for all these bills. However, Congress separated activities from the outstanding regular bills
and distributed them among three FY1996 continuing resolutions. Congress distributed
funding for activities in four of the six outstanding regular bills among the three continuing
resolutions. Funding for most of the activities in the fifth regular bill (Foreign Operations)
was provided in one of these continuing resolutions and funding for most of the activities in

---

CRS-7
the sixth bill (District of Columbia) in another. In addition, Congress extended funding for
the entire fiscal year for selected activities in the bills, such as Meals on Wheels and visitor
services in national parks, while it provided interim funding for the remaining activities.
Substantive Legislative Provisions
Substantive legislative provisions (i.e., provisions in the jurisdiction of committees other
than the House and Senate Appropriations Committees) covering a wide range of subjects also
have been included in some continuing resolutions. Continuing resolutions are attractive
vehicles for such provisions because they are considered must-pass legislation on which the
President and Congress eventually must reach agreement. Such provisions have been included
both in temporary and full-year continuing resolutions.
House rules10 that prohibit the consideration of general appropriations measures
containing legislative provisions or unauthorized appropriations11 do not apply to continuing
resolutions (though the House typically adopts special rules restricting amendments to
continuing resolutions, in part for this reason). Comparable Senate restrictions12 on legislative
provisions and unauthorized appropriations do apply in the case of continuing resolutions.
Substantive provisions in continuing resolutions have included comprehensive measures,
such as omnibus crime control legislation (in FY1985) and foreign assistance reauthorizations
(in FY1984), that establish major new policies and amend permanent provisions of law. They
have also included narrower provisions focused on temporary or one-time problems, such as
special House and Senate procedures for considering certain presidential requests for funding,
temporary increases in the statutory limit on the public debt, and provisions canceling or
modifying a sequester order under the 1985 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act (or Gramm-Rudman-Hollings). These provisions vary in length from one page to over
200 pages (in the case, for example, of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984).
Funding Gaps
Over the years, delay in the enactment of regular appropriations measures and
continuing resolutions after the beginning of the fiscal year has led to periods during which
appropriations authority has lapsed. Such periods generally are referred to as funding gaps.13
Depending on the number of regular appropriations that have yet to be enacted, a funding gap
can affect either a few departments or agencies or most of the federal government.
10House Rules XXI, clause 2, and XXII, clause 5.
11Unauthorized appropriations are funds in an appropriations measure for agencies or
programs whose authorization has expired or was never granted, or whose budget
authority exceeds the ceiling authorized (for more information, see Streeter, The
Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction).
12Senate Rule XVI.
13For more information on funding gaps, see U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional
Research Service: Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith, CRS Report
RS20348, (Washington: updated periodically) and Shutdown of the Federal Government:
Causes, Effects, and Process, by Sharon S. Gressle, CRS Report 98-844 GOV (Washington:
updated periodically).

---

CRS-8
Funding gaps are not a recent phenomenon. In fact, by the 1960s and 1970s, delay in
the enactment of appropriation acts, including continuing resolutions, beyond the beginning
of the fiscal year had become almost routine. Notably, according to a 1981 GAO report,
"most Federal managers continued to operate during periods of funding gaps while minimizing
all nonessential operations and obligations, believing that Congress did not intend that
agencies close down while the appropriations measures were being passed."14
On April 25, 1980, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a formal opinion which
stated in general that maintaining nonessential operations in the absence of appropriations was
not permitted under the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341), and that the Justice Department
would enforce the criminal sanctions provided for under the Act against future violations.15
In another opinion issued on January 16, 1981, the Attorney General outlined the
activities that could be continued by federal agencies during a funding gap. Under that
opinion, the only excepted activities include (1) those involving the orderly termination of
agency functions; (2) emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of
property; or (3) activities authorized by law.16 Activities authorized by law, for example,
include funding for entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, that are
permanently appropriated. In 1990, the Antideficiency Act was amended to clarify that "the
term ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property’ does not
include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not
imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property."17
Since 1981, whenever delay in the appropriations process has led to periods of lapsed
appropriations, federal agencies and departments lacking appropriations generally have shut
down all nonessential operations and furloughed nonessential employees (although provisions
of law have been enacted to ratify obligations and pay employees retroactively). During late
1995 and early 1996, there were two funding gaps—one lasting 21 days and the other lasting
six (including weekends).18 In contrast, from 1981 through 1994, there were nine funding
gaps, varying in duration from only one to three days, some of which occurred over weekends.
Most of these gaps occurred after the beginning of the fiscal year, meaning that they were not
caused because of a failure to enact an initial continuing resolution, but because of delay in
enacting a further extension.19
14U.S. General Accounting Office, Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government
Operations, GAO report PAD-81-31 (Washington: March 3, 1981), i.
15U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Memorandum to the President, April
25, 1980. Reprinted in Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government Operations, App. IV,
pp. 63-67.
16For additional information on the 1981 opinion of the Attorney General, and on the excepted
activities outlined in that opinion, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Principles of Federal
Appropriations Law: vol. II, GAO report GAO/OGC-92-13 (Washington: Dec. 1992), pp.
6-92—6-99.
17P.L. 101-508 sec. 13213(b), 31 U.S.C. 1342.
18U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Shutdown of the Federal
Government: Effects on the Federal Workforce and Other Sectors, by James P. McGrath,
CRS Report 95-906 GOV (Washington: Aug. 15, 1997), pp. 4-5.
19See U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Continuing Resolutions
and Funding Gaps: Fiscal Years 1981-1995, by Robert Keith and Edward Davis, CRS
(continued...)

---

CRS-9
On August 16, 1995, Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger, in a memorandum
for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), stated that "the 1981
Opinion continues to be a sound analysis of the legal authorities respecting government
operations when Congress has failed to enact regular appropriations bills or a continuing
resolution to cover a hiatus between regular appropriations."20 The 1990 amendment, he
maintained, basically served to confirm the appropriateness of the 1981 opinion.
19(...continued)
Report 95-77 GOV (Washington: Dec. 30, 1994).
20U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Government Operations in the Event
of a Lapse in Appropriations, Memorandum for Alice Rivlin, Director, Office of
Management and Budget (Washington: Aug. 16, 1995).

---

CRS-10
For Additional Reading
Congressional Documents
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Budget, The Whole and the Parts: Piecemeal and
Integrated Approaches to Congressional Budgeting, committee print No. CP-3,
prepared for the Task Force on the Budget Process by Allen Schick, 100th Cong., 1st
sess. (Washington: GPO, 1987).
CRS Reports
CRS Report 97-684. The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, by
Sandy Streeter.
CRS Report RL30236. H.R. 853, The Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act:
Summary of Provisions, by James V. Saturno.
CRS Report 95-77. Continuing Resolutions and Funding Gaps: Fiscal Years 1981-1995,
by Robert Keith and Edward Davis.
CRS Report RS20348. Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith.
CRS Report 98-720. Manual on the Federal Budget Process, by Allen Schick and Robert
Keith.
CRS Report RL30339. Preventing Federal Government Shutdowns: Proposals for an
Automatic Continuing Resolution, by Robert Keith.
CRS Report 97-611. Proposals for Automatic Continuing Resolution, by Robert Keith.
CRS Report 98-844. Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Effects, and Process,
by Sharon S. Gressle.
Other Sources
U.S. General Accounting Office, Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government Operations,
GAO report PAD-81-31 (Washington: March 3, 1981).
U.S. General Accounting Office, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Vol. II, 2nd Ed.,
GAO report GAO/OGC-92-13 (Washington: Dec.1992), Ch. 8, “Continuing
Resolutions.”

---