Order Code RL30343
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Updated January 13, 2003
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 2002, 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 through the end of the 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 through the end of the 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.
Legislative action on 11 of the 13 FY2003 regular appropriations bills has not
been completed. Therefore, six FY2003 continuing resolutions have been enacted
that together have extended funding from October 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003.
On January 8, 2003, the House adopted another FY2003 continuing resolution,
H.J.Res. 2, which would also extend funding through January 31, 2003. The Senate
is expected to amend this measure and use it as the vehicle for final funding
provisions of the 11 outstanding FY2003 regular appropriations bills.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments: FY2003 Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Recent Practices Regarding Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
History and Recent Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Types of Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Substantive Legislative Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Funding Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Congressional Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Budget and Appropriations Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FY2003 Regular Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

---

Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
This report is divided into two segments. The first segment provides the most
recent developments regarding the FY2003 continuing resolutions. The second
segment 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 authority1 has
lapsed and a funding gap has resulted.
Most Recent Developments: FY2003 Continuing
Resolutions
Legislative action on 11 of the 13 FY2003 regular appropriations bills has not
been completed.2 Therefore, six FY2003 continuing resolutions have been enacted
that together have extended funding from October 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003.
On January 8, 2003, the House adopted another FY2003 continuing resolution,
H.J.Res. 2, which would also extend funding through January 31, 2003. The Senate
is expected to amend this measure and use it as the vehicle for final funding
provisions of the 11 outstanding FY2003 regular appropriations bills. (For more
details on congressional and presidential action on these continuing resolutions, see
Table 1.)
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 FY2003 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 On October 23, 2002, the President signed into law two FY2003 regular appropriations
bills: Defense and Military Construction.

---

CRS-2
Table 1. Current Status of FY2003 Continuing Resolutions
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conference
Measure
Public Law
Report
Adoption
Report
Adoption
Action
09/26/02
09/26/02
09/30/02
H.J.Res. 111
—
—
Vote: 370-1
Vote: UCa
—
P.L. 107-229
10/03/02
10/03/02
10/04/02
H.J.Res. 112
—
—
Vote: 404-7
Vote: UCa
—
P.L. 107-235
10/10/02
10/10/02
10/11/02
H.J.Res. 122
—
—
Vote: 272-144
Vote: UCa
—
P.L. 107-240
10/16/02
10/16/02
10/18/02
H.J.Res. 123
—
—
Vote: 228-172
Vote: UCa
—
P.L. 107-244
11/13/02
11/19/02
11/23/02
H.J.Res. 124
—
—
—
Vote: 270-143
Vote: 92-2
P.L. 107-294
01/08/03
01/09/03
01/10/03
H.J.Res. 1
—
—
Vote: Voice
Vote: UCa
—
P.L. 108-2
01/08/03
H.J.Res. 2
—
Vote: Voice
a. 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.
The initial resolution, 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 provides additional exceptions.
P.L. 107-229 provides a funding level for each purpose at generally the total
amount of budget authority 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. (Congress frequently provides budget authority that is available
for more than one fiscal year3 for specified purposes.) Funds available for obligation
in FY2002 include the net amount appropriated for FY2002, such as adding
supplemental appropriations and subtracting rescissions.4
It also includes the level of budget authority enacted before FY2002 that was
available and used in FY2002, with an important exception. Half of the $40 billion
provided in the FY2001 supplemental appropriations act immediately responding to
the September 11th attacks is specifically excluded (P.L. 107-38; approved
September 18, 2001). This 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
3 Appropriations measures provide funding by fiscal year, instead of calendar year. Fiscal
years begin on Oct. 1 and end the following Sept. 30. For example, fiscal year 2003 (or
FY2003) began on Oct. 1, 2002.
4 Rescissions cancel previously enacted budget authority.

---

CRS-3
billion.5 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 (mentioned above).
Regarding a related issue, P.L. 107-229 provides funding for the 11 regular
appropriations bills under terms and conditions provided in the applicable FY2002
regular appropriations acts. For example, a provision in an FY2002 regular
appropriations act that was applied to one account, which prohibited funds for a
specified activity or project would generally remain in effect.
The fifth continuing resolution (P.L. 107-294) allows the secretary of the new
Department of Homeland Security, with the approval of OMB, to reallocate (or
transfer) up to $500 million appropriations for unforeseen homeland security
requirements. It also allows OMB to reallocate up to $140 million of certain unused
budget authority that is still available for establishing the new department.
Both H.J.Res. 1 and H.J.Res. 2 modify P.L. 107-229. With one exception, all
the provisions in H.J.Res. 1 and H.J.Res. 2 are identical. H.J.Res. 2 includes one
additional provision.
H.J.Res. 2 is expected to be amended in the Senate and used as the vehicle for
final funding provisions for the outstanding FY2003 regular appropriations bills.
One of the modifications to P.L. 107-229 that is included in both continuing
resolutions would increase funding for start-up expenses to the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board.
H.J.Res. 2 would allow the secretary of the Department of Defense, with the
approval of OMB, to reallocate up to $2.5 billion of certain appropriations to meet
unforeseen requirements associated with the global war on terrorism.
The seven 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 modified and extended the initial continuing resolution for
another week, through October 18, 2002;
! P.L. 107-244 continued provisions in the previous continuing resolutions
through November 22, 2002;
! P.L. 107-294 extended provisions in the previous continuing resolutions
through January 11, 2003 and provides a few additional provisions;
5 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-4
! H.J.Res. 1, modifies and extends funding through January 31, 2003; and
! H.J.Res. 2, would also modify and extend funding through January 31, 2003.
Recent Practices Regarding Continuing Resolutions
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.6 Normally,
most of the operations of federal departments and agencies are funded each year
through the separate enactment of 13 regular appropriations acts.7 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).
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 3 fiscal years,8 at least one continuing resolution has been
enacted for each fiscal year since FY1954. From FY1977 through 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.9 From the early 1970s through 1987, continuing resolutions gradually
expanded from interim funding measures of comparatively brief duration and length
to measures providing funding through the end of the fiscal year (referred to as full-
6 See Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and 31 U.S.C. 1341.
7 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.
8 The exceptions were FY1989; FY1995; and FY1997.
9 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.,
CP-3 (Washington: GPO, 1987).

---

CRS-5
year continuing resolutions). 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,10 except during 1995 and 1996.11
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.
10 There were no continuing resolutions for FY1995 and FY1997.
11 During this period, expanded FY1996 continuing resolutions were enacted.

---

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 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-7
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.12
From FY1988 through FY1995, Congress and the President generally operated
under multi-year deficit reduction agreements achieved through budget summits.
For the FY1991-FY1995 period, an enforcement mechanism (referred to as
sequestration) was established.13 From FY1988 through FY1995, there was a period
of relative agreement on overall budget priorities and, therefore, agreements 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.
While the multi-year agreements and enforcement mechanisms remained in
effect through FY2002,14 the President and Congress were in conflict over the 1995
balanced budget plan and spending and policy priorities in the FY1996
appropriations measures in 1995 and 1996. As a result, two funding gaps15 occurred;
14 FY1996 continuing resolutions were enacted; and action was not completed on
all 13 FY1996 regular appropriations bills until almost seven months into the fiscal
year. The final continuing resolution provided funding through the end of the fiscal
year for the five regular appropriations bills, incorporating the full text of each bill,
and included substantive legislation.
Since FY1997, budgetary conflicts have continued between the President and
Congress. Instead of resolving these differences in expanded continuing resolutions,
they have generally been resolved in omnibus regular appropriations bills. During
conference on a regular appropriations bill, other outstanding regular appropriations
bills and substantive legislation have been attached to the bill—creating an omnibus
12 See P.L. 99-591 and P.L. 100-202.
13 The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508) established spending ceilings for
each fiscal year (FY1991-FY1995) for funding provided in appropriations measures and
controlled by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees (referred to as discretionary
spending). If appropriations measures were enacted that in total exceeded the spending
ceilings, the Act provided for an automatic across-the-board reduction in discretionary
spending to eliminate the additional spending (referred to as sequestration).
14 The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66) extended the discretionary
spending ceilings through FY1998 and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33)
extended the discretionary spending ceilings through FY2002.
15 For information on funding gaps, see Funding Gaps below.

---

CRS-8
regular appropriations bill.16 During this period, continuing resolutions, when
needed, have provided interim funding for short periods of time and included little
substantive legislation.
The change in the type of vehicle for omnibus appropriations measures from
continuing resolutions to regular appropriations bills was due, in part, to avoid floor
amendments to regular appropriations bills17 and to expedite completion of the
regular bills.18
Types of Continuing Resolutions
Continuing resolutions generally can be divided into two categories—interim
and full-year continuing resolutions.
Interim (or 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.
They have typically established formulas or rates that have provided funding levels
for agencies and activities. For example, the initial FY1991 continuing resolution
(P.L. 101-403) generally provided a formula for specified regular bills. The funding
level for a purpose in a regular bill was the lower of the amounts provided in the
House- and Senate-passed versions of the regular bill. The initial FY2002 continuing
resolution (P.L. 107-44) provided a rate: the previous year’s amount. Since FY1998,
this rate, plus various formulas for specified purposes, has been use.
In most cases, the funding method has applied to all or almost all programs or
activities covered by a particular regular appropriations act. However, such funding
methods 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).
Once a temporary continuing resolution is enacted, additional interim
resolutions, if necessary, are enacted to extend the deadline. These subsequent
continuing resolutions sometimes change the funding methods.
Full-year continuing resolutions provide continuing appropriations through the
end of the fiscal year. (Table 2 provides the number of regular bills funded through
the end of the fiscal year in continuing resolutions.) Recently, full-year funding
provisions have generally been one of two types: (1) provisions that incorporate
16 During this 6-year period, all 13 regular appropriations bills were enacted separately twice
(FY1998 and FY2002).
17 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.
18 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-9
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 appropriations 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 and Section 101 of P.L. 99-591).
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).
Since FY1977, Congress has included across-the-board spending reductions in
at least one full-year continuing resolution and one temporary continuing resolution,
which was subsequently extended through the end of the fiscal year. The continuing
resolutions provided a specific percentage reduction for each purpose in specified
regular appropriations bills. The FY1992 full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 102-
266) required a 1.5% spending reduction in discretionary spending purposes in the
only outstanding FY1992 regular appropriations bill. An FY1982 temporary
continuing resolution (P.L. 97-92) provided a 4% across-the-board reduction, with
certain exceptions, for specified FY1982 regular appropriations bills. A subsequent
FY1982 full-year continuing resolution extended this provision through the end of
the fiscal year.
During consideration of the FY1996 continuing resolutions, Congress also used
a another type of continuing resolution—targeted appropriations. Traditionally, a
single continuing resolution provides funding for all activities in the outstanding
regular appropriations and generally provides the same expiration date for all these
bills. In January 1996, Congress separated activities from the six outstanding regular
bills and distributed them among three FY1996 continuing resolutions (P.L. 104-91,
P.L. 104-92, and P.L. 104-94). Some of the activities were full-year funded, while
others were temporarily funded.
Substantive Legislative Provisions. Substantive legislative provisions
(i.e., provisions under 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 rules19 that prohibit the consideration of general appropriations measures
containing legislative provisions or unauthorized appropriations20 do not apply to
19 House Rules XXI, Clause 2, and XXII, Clause 5.
20 Unauthorized appropriations are funds in an appropriations measure for agencies or
programs whose authorization has expired or was never granted, or whose budget authority
(continued...)

---

CRS-10
continuing resolutions (though the House typically adopts special rules restricting
amendments to continuing resolutions, in part for this reason). Comparable Senate
restrictions21 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.22 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.23 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.”24
20 (...continued)
exceeds the ceiling authorized (for more information, see CRS Report 97-684, The
Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction).
21 Senate Rule XVI.
22 For numerous examples, see CRS Report RL30619, Examples of Legislative Provisions
in Omnibus Appropriations Acts, by Robert Keith.
23 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.
24 U.S. General Accounting Office, Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government
Operations, GAO/PAD-81-31, Mar. 3, 1981, p. i.

---

CRS-11
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.25
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.26
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.”27
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.28
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
25 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.
26 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.
27 P.L. 101-508 Section 13213(b), 31 U.S.C. 1342.
28 See CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith.

---

CRS-12
appropriations.”29 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, prepared for the Task Force on the Budget Process by Allen Schick, 100th
Congress, 1st session. CP-3. Washington: GPO, 1987.
CRS Reports
Budget and Appropriations Process.
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.
29 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-13
FY2003 Regular Appropriations.
CRS Report RL31309. Appropriations for FY2003: Commerce, Justice, and State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, by Susan B. Epstein, Coordinator.
CRS Report RL31313. Appropriations for FY2003: District of Columbia, by Eugene
Boyd, Coordinator.
CRS Report RL31307. Appropriations for FY2003: Energy and Water
Development, by Carl Behrens and Marc Humphries, Coordinators.
CRS Report RL31311. Appropriations for FY2003: Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs, by Larry Nowels.
CRS Report RL31306. Appropriations for FY2003: Interior and Related Agencies,
by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren, Coordinators.
CRS Report RL31303. Appropriations for FY2003: Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, by Paul M. Irwin.
CRS Report RL31312. Appropriations for FY2003: Legislative Branch, by Paul E.
Dwyer.
CRS Report RL31310. Appropriations for FY2003: Military Construction, by
Daniel H. Else.
CRS Report RL31308. Appropriations for FY2003: Transportation and Related
Agencies, by David Randall Peterman and John Frittelli, Coordinators.
CRS Report RL31302. Appropriations for FY2003: Treasury, Postal Service,
Executive Office of the President, and General Government, by Sharon S.
Gressle, Coordinator.
CRS Report RL31301. Appropriations for FY2003: U.S. Department of Agriculture
and Related Agencies, by Ralph M. Chite, Coordinator.
CRS Report RL31304. Appropriations for FY2003: VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies, by Dennis W. Snook and Richard Bourdon, Coordinators.
CRS Report RL31305. Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003: Defense, by
Stephen Daggett and Amy Belasco.
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.”

---