Order Code RL30343
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Updated October 25, 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.
Until October 23, 2002, none of the 13 FY2003 regular appropriations bills had
been enacted into law. Therefore, four FY2003 continuing resolutions have been
enacted that together have extended funding from October 1, 2002, through
November 22, 2002 (P.L. 107-229, P.L. 107-235, P.L. 107-240, and P.L. 107-244).
On October 23, the President signed two FY2003 regular appropriations bills:
Defense and Military Construction.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Congressional Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Current Status of FY2003 Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by Deadline and
Continuing Resolutions (CRs), FY1977-FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Most Recent Developments
Until October 23, 2002, none of the 13 FY2003 regular appropriations bills had
been enacted into law. Therefore, four FY2003 continuing resolutions have been
enacted that together have extended funding from October 1, 2002, through
November 22, 2002 (P.L. 107-229, P.L. 107-235, P.L. 107-240, and P.L. 107-244).
On October 23, the President signed two FY2003 regular appropriations bills:
Defense and Military Construction. (For more details on congressional and
presidential action on the continuing resolutions, see Table 1.)
P.L. 107-229 sets forth the spending levels for the various purposes covered in
the outstanding regular appropriations bills, with certain exceptions, and P.L. 107-
240 includes amendments to the initial continuing resolution providing additional
exceptions.
P.L. 107-229 provides a funding level for each purpose at generally the total
amount of budget authority1 that was available for use (obligation) in FY2002,
excluding funds that were available for use in the FY2002, but were not used and
remained available. Funds available for obligation in FY2002 includes the net
amount appropriated for FY2002, such as adding supplemental appropriations and
subtracting rescissions.2 It also includes any budget authority enacted before FY2002
that was available for use in FY2002. (Congress sometimes provides budget
authority that is available for more than one year.)
P.L. 107-229 provides an exception. Half of the $40 billion provided in the
FY2001 supplemental appropriations act responding to the September 11th attacks
1 Congress 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.
2 Rescissions cancel previously enacted budget authority.
CRS-2
(P.L. 107-38) is specifically excluded. The continuing resolution includes the
remaining $20 billion, which was not available for obligation until January 10, 2002.
P.L. 107-240 excludes funding for activities that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has identified as one-time non-recurring activities totaling $16
billion.3 The general purpose of continuing resolutions is to fund on-going projects
or activities until the regular appropriations bills are enacted. OMB states that the
activities listed are not on-going activities, instead they are one-time non-recurring
activities, which therefore should not be funded. Some of the activities OMB
identified were those Congress distributed on January 10, 2002.
Regarding a related issue, P.L. 107-229 continues to provide funding for the 13
regular bills under terms and conditions provided in the applicable FY2002 regular
appropriations acts. For example, a limitation that applied to one account in the
FY2002 Interior regular appropriations bill would generally continue in effect under
the continuing resolution.
The four FY2003 continuing resolutions are provided below:
! P.L. 107-229, set forth spending levels and continued funding from October
1, 2002, through October 4, 2002;
! P.L. 107-235 extended the initial continuing resolution for one week, through
October 11, 2002;
! P.L. 107-240 modifies the initial continuing resolution and extends funding
for another week, through October 18, 2002; and
! P.L. 107-244 continues funding through November 22, 2002.
Table 1. Current Status of FY2003 Continuing Resolutions
Amends.
House
House
Senate
Senate
Measure
Between
Public Law
Report
Adoption
Report
Adoption
Housesa
09/26/02
09/26/02
09/30/02
H.J.Res. 111
—
—
Vote: 370-1
Vote: UCb
—
P.L. 107-229
10/03/02
10/03/02
10/04/02
H.J.Res. 112
—
—
Vote: 404-7
Vote: UCb
—
P.L. 107-235
10/10/02
10/10/02
10/11/02
H.J.Res. 122
—
—
Vote: 272-144
Vote: UCb
—
P.L. 107-240
10/16/02
10/16/02
10/18/02
H.J.Res. 123
—
—
Vote: 228-172
Vote: UCb
—
P.L. 107-244
a. Instead of resolving differences between House- and Senate-passed versions of a measure in
conference, the House and Senate resolve the differences through an exchange of amendments
between the two Houses.
b. 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.
3 For a list of these activities, see Attachment C of “OMB Bulletin No. 02-06, Supplement
No. 1, Apportionment of the Continuing Resolution(s) for Fiscal Year 2003” (Oct. 4, 2002),
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins], visited Oct. 17, 2002.
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.4 Normally,
most of the operations of federal departments and agencies are funded each year
through the separate enactment of 13 regular appropriations acts.5 These measures
provide funding by fiscal year.6 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.7 From the early 1970s through 1987, continuing resolutions gradually
4 See Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and 31 U.S.C. 1341.
5 There 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.
6 Fiscal years begin on Oct. 1 and end the following Sept. 30. For example, the fiscal year
1997 began on Oct. 1, 1996.
7 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,
prepared for the Task Force on the Budget Process by Allen Schick, 100th Cong., 1st sess.,
(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,8 except during 1995 and 1996.9
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.
7 (...continued)
CP-3 (Washington: GPO, 1987).
8 There were no continuing resolutions for FY1995 and FY1997.
9 During this period, expanded FY1996 continuing resolutions were enacted.
CRS-5
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 H.W. 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-6
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.10
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).11 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 gaps12 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 five
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.13 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.
10 See P.L. 99-591 and P.L. 100-202.
11 For 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.
12 For information on funding gaps, see Funding Gaps below.
13 During this 5-year period, all 13 regular appropriations bills were enacted separately only
once (FY1998).
CRS-7
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 bills14 and to expedite completion of the
regular bills.15
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.
14 In 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.
15 By attaching five of the FY1997 regular appropriations bills to a sixth FY1997 regular bill
in conference, all the regular bills were enacted by the Oct. 1 deadline, which obviated the
need for a continuing resolution.
CRS-8
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 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 rules16 that prohibit the consideration of general appropriations measures
containing legislative provisions or unauthorized appropriations17 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
restrictions18 on legislative provisions and unauthorized appropriations do apply in
the case of continuing resolutions.
16 House Rules XXI, Clause 2, and XXII, Clause 5.
17 Unauthorized 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).
18 Senate Rule XVI.
CRS-9
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.19 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).
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.20 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.”21
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.22
19 For numerous examples, see CRS Report RL30619, Examples of Legislative Provisions
in Omnibus Appropriations Acts, by Robert Keith.
20 For 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.
21 U.S. General Accounting Office, Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government
Operations, GAO/PAD-81-31, Mar. 3, 1981, p. i.
22 U.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.
CRS-10
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.23
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.”24
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.25
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.”26 The 1990 amendment, he maintained, basically served to confirm
the appropriateness of the 1981 opinion.
23 For 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/OGC-92-13, Dec. 1992, pp. 6-92—6-99.
24 P.L. 101-508 Section 13213(b), 31 U.S.C. 1342.
25 See CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith.
26 U.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, Aug. 16, 1995.
CRS-11
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, prepared for the Task Force on the Budget Process by Allen Schick, 100th
Congress, 1st session. CP-3. Washington: GPO, 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.
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/PAD-81-31. March 3, 1981.
––. Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Vol. II, 2nd ed. GAO/OGC-92-13.
December1992, chap. 8, “Continuing Resolutions.”