Order Code RL30343
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Updated January 11, 2002
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. From 1988 through 2001, the nature, scope, and
duration generally contracted, except during 1995 and 1996. During this period
expanded FY1996 continuing resolutions were enacted.
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.
Since none of the 13 FY2002 regular appropriations bills were enacted by
October 1, 2001, and the last three regular bills did not become law until January 10,
2002, eight FY2002 continuing resolutions were enacted into law. These measures
sequentially extended funding for each of the outstanding regular appropriations bills
from October 1, 2001, through midnight, January 10, 2002.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
History and Recent Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Types of Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Substantive Legislative Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Funding Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Congressional Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Current Status of FY2002 Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by Deadline and
Continuing Resolutions (CRs), FY1977-FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

---

Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Most Recent Developments
Since none of the 13 FY2002 regular appropriations were enacted by October
1, 2001, and the last three regular bills did not become law until January 10, 2002,1
eight FY2002 continuing resolutions were enacted into law. These measures
sequentially extended funding for each of the outstanding regular appropriations bills
from October 1, 2001, through midnight, January 10, 2002.
The first FY2002 continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 65, P.L. 107-44) extended
funding from October 1, through midnight, October 16, 2001. This continuing
resolution provided a spending level for each appropriation at generally the total
amount of budget authority2 that was available last year. The funding level included
adjustments for supplementals and rescissions. The continuing resolution also
extended provisions in various acts through October 16, 2001 (for dates of
congressional and presidential action on this measure, see Table 1).
Subsequently, seven FY2002 continuing resolutions have become law that
sequentially extended the date:
! H.J.Res. 68 (P.L. 107-48) extended funding under the same terms as P.L. 107-
44 for the outstanding regular appropriations bills for a week, through October
23, 2001;
1The final three FY2002 regular appropriations bills were: Defense (H.R. 3338, P.L. 107-
117); Foreign Operations (H.R. 2506, P.L. 107-115); and Labor-Health and Human Services-
Education (H.R. 3061, P.L. 107-116).
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
! H.J.Res. 69 (P.L. 107-53) continued funding under the same terms as P.L.
107-44 for the outstanding regular appropriations bills through October 31,
2001;
! H.J.Res. 70 (P.L. 107-58) extended funding under the same terms for the
outstanding bills through November 16, 2001;
! H.J.Res. 74 (P.L. 107-70) continued funding under the same terms through
December 7, 2001;
! H.J.Res 76 (P.L. 107-79) extended funding under the same terms through
December 15, 2001;
! H.J.Res. 78 (P.L. 107-83) continued funding under the same terms through
December 21, 2001; and
! H.J.Res. 79. (P.L. 107-97) extended funding under the same terms through
January 10, 2002.
For dates of congressional and presidential action on these measures, see Table 1.
Table 1. Current Status of FY2002 Continuing Resolutions
House
House
Senate
Senate
Measure
Conference
Public Law
Report
Adoption
Report
Adoption
09/24/01
09/25/01
H.J.Res. 65
—
—
b
09/28/01
Vote: 392-0
Vote: UCa
P.L. 107-44
10/11/01
H.J.Res. 68
c
10/11/01
—
b
10/12/01
Vote: Voice
Vote: UCa
P.L. 107-48
10/17/01
H.J.Res. 69
c
10/17/01
—
b
10/22/01
Vote: Voice
Vote: UCa
P.L. 107-53
10/25/01
10/25/01
H.J.Res. 70
—
—
b
10/31/01
Vote: 419-0
Vote: UCa
P.L. 107-58
11/15/01
H.J.Res. 74
c
11/15/01
—
b
11/17/01
Vote: Voice
Vote: UCa
P.L. 107-70
12/05/01
H.J.Res. 76
c
12/05/01
—
b
12/07/01
Vote: Voice
Vote: UCa
P.L. 107-79
12/13/01
12/14/01
H.J.Res. 78
—
—
b
12/15/01
Vote: Voice
Vote: UCa
P.L. 107-83
12/20/01
12/20/01
H.J.Res. 79
—
—
b
12/21/01
Vote: Voice
Vote: UCa
P.L. 107-97
a. By unanimous consent, the House discharged the House Appropriations Committee from further
consideration of the measure.
b. The Senate adopted the House-adopted measure without amendment.
c. The continuing resolution was adopted by unanimous consent. That is, a unanimous consent
request was proposed to adopt the measure and since no Senator objected, the resolution was
adopted.

---

CRS-3
Background
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 These measures provide
funding by fiscal year.5 Since these measures expire at the end of the fiscal year, the
regular appropriations bills for the subsequent fiscal year must be enacted by October
1st. However, it is not unusual for the enactment of one or more of these acts to be
delayed beyond the deadline (for data on the FY1977-FY2002 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 past 26 years
(FY1977-FY2002), 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 varied.6 From the early 1970s through 1987, continuing resolutions gradually
3See Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and 31 U.S.C. 1341.
4There are three types of appropriations measures. Regular appropriations acts provide most
of the funding that is provided in all appropriations measures for a fiscal year. Supplemental
appropriations acts are generally considered after the regular appropriations bills are enacted
and provide additional appropriations. Continuing resolutions are discussed in this report.
For more information on regular and supplemental appropriations measures and the
appropriations process, see CRS Report 97-684, The Congressional Appropriations Process:
An Introduction, by Sandy Streeter.
5Fiscal years begin on October 1 and end the following September 30. For example, the
fiscal year 1997 began on October 1, 1996.
6 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 Congress, 1st session
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
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 legislation (i.e.,
provisions under the jurisdiction of committees other than the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees). From 1988 through 2002, the nature, scope, and
duration generally contracted,7 except during 1995 and 1996.8
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.
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 2 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.9
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).10 From FY1988 through
FY1995, a period of relative agreement on overall budget priorities, agreement on
regular appropriations acts came more readily. Continuing resolutions, when
6(...continued)
(Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1987).
7There were no continuing resolutions for FY1995 and FY1997.
8During this period, expanded FY1996 continuing resolutions were enacted.
9See P.L. 99-591 and P.L. 100-202.
10For more information, see CRS Report 97-684, The Congressional Appropriations
Process: An Introduction, by Sandy Streeter; and CRS Report 98-720, Manual on the
Federal Budget Process, by Allen Schick and Robert Keith.

---

CRS-5
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 gaps11 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 FY2001, budgetary and other conflicts continued
between the President and Congress. Instead of resolving these differences in
expanded continuing resolutions, they were generally resolved in omnibus regular
appropriations bills.12 During conference on a regular appropriations bill, other
outstanding regular appropriations bills and substantive legislation were attached to
the bill in conference — creating an omnibus regular appropriations bill. During this
period, continuing resolutions, when needed, provided interim funding for short
periods of time and included little substantive legislation.
The change in the type of vehicle for omnibus appropriations bills from
continuing resolutions to regular appropriations bills was due, in part, to avoid floor
amendments to regular appropriations bills13 and to expedite completion of the regular
bills.14
11For information on funding gaps, see Funding Gaps below.
12During this 5-year period, all 13 regular appropriations bills were enacted separately only
once (FY1998).
13In the House and Senate, conference reports are not amendable. Some regular bills either
were not considered on the House or Senate floors or were pulled before floor action was
completed thereby preventing action on certain floor amendments. By attaching these
measures to a conference report on another regular bill, action on amendments was avoided.
14By attaching five of the FY1997 regular appropriations bills to a sixth FY1997 regular bill
in conference, all the regular bills were enacted by the October 1st deadline, which obviated
the need for a continuing resolution.

---

CRS-6
Table 2. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by Deadline and Continuing Resolutions (CRs), FY1977-FY2002
Party in Control of Congress:
Regular Appropriations Bills:
Presidential
Approved by or on
Enacted in Continuing
Continuing Resolutions
Fiscal Year
Administration
Senate
House
October 1st
Resolution
Enacted
1977
Gerald Ford
Democrats
Democrats
13
0
2a
1978
Jimmy Carter
Democrats
Democrats
9
1
3
1979
5
1
1
1980
3
3
2
1981
1
5
2
1982
Ronald 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
George Bush
Democrats
Democrats
1
0
3
1991
0
0
5
1992
3
1
4
1993
1
0
1
1994
William 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
2001
2
0
21
2002
George W. Bush
Democratsd
Republicansd
0
0
8
Sources: U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Appropriations, Budget Estimates, Etc., 94th Congress, 2nd session - 104th Congress, 1st session (Washington: GPO, 1976-1995). U.S.
Congress, House, Calendars of the U.S. House of Representatives and History of Legislation, 104th Congress, 1st session - 107th Congress, 1st session (Washington: GPO, 1995-2001).
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 attached to the FY1997 Defense regular act.
d. On June 6, 2001, the Democrats became the majority in the Senate. By that time, the Senate Appropriations Committee had not reported any FY2002 regular appropriations measures.

---

CRS-7
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. Traditionally, they
have established formulas that provide funding levels for programs and activities.
Recently, they have provided spending levels at the previous year’s amount and
sometimes included formulaic exceptions. For example, P.L. 105-240 provided that
when the President’s request and the House- and Senate-passed versions of the bill
are lower than the previous year’s amount, the funding level is the higher of the
President’s request, House-passed bill, or Senate-passed bill. (See section 101 of P.L.
105-240.)
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

---

CRS-8
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 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 rules15 that prohibit the consideration of general appropriations measures
containing legislative provisions or unauthorized appropriations16 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
restrictions17 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), foreign affairs
reform and restructuring assistance legislation (FY1999), Medicare, Medicaid, and
SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (FY2001), that establish
major new policies and amend permanent provisions of law.18 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 adjustments
to the requirements of the 1985 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
(or Gramm-Rudman-Hollings). These provisions vary in length from less than one
page to over 200 pages (in the case, for example, of the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of 1984).
15House Rules XXI, Clause 2, and XXII, Clause 5.
16Unauthorized 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 CRS Report 97-684, The
Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction).
17Senate Rule XVI.
18For numerous examples, see CRS Report RL30619, Examples of Legislative Provisions
in Omnibus Appropriations Acts, by Robert Keith.

---

CRS-9
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.19 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.
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.”20
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.21
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.22 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
19For more information on funding gaps, see CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps:
A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith; and CRS Report 98-844, Shutdown of the Federal
Government: Causes, Effects, and Process, by Sharon S. Gressle.
20U.S. General Accounting Office, Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government
Operations, GAO report PAD-81-31 (Washington: March 3, 1981), i.
21U.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.
22For 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: December 1992),
pp. 6-92—6-99.

---

CRS-10
functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the
safety of human life or the protection of property.”23
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). 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.24
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.”25 The 1990 amendment, he maintained, basically served to confirm
the appropriateness of the 1981 opinion.
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 Congress, 1st session, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1987.
CRS Reports
CRS Report 97-947. The Appropriations Process and the Congressional Budget
Act, by James V. Saturno.
CRS Report 97-684. The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction,
by Sandy Streeter.
23P.L. 101-508 Section 13213(b), 31 U.S.C. 1342.
24See CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith.
25U.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: August 16, 1995).

---

CRS-11
CRS Report RS20095. The Congressional Budget Process: A Brief Overview, by
James V. Saturno.
CRS Report RL30619. Examples of Legislative Provisions in Omnibus
Appropriations Acts, by Robert Keith.
CRS Report RS20348. Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith.
CRS Report 98-721. Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, by Robert Keith.
CRS Report 97-865. Points of Order in the Congressional Budget Process, by
James V. Saturno.
CRS Report RL30339. Preventing Federal Government Shutdowns: Proposals for
an 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.
— Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Vol. II, 2nd Ed., GAO report
GAO/OGC-92-13, Washington, December1992, Ch. 8, “Continuing
Resolutions.”

---