Order Code RL30343
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Updated February 25, 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 interim (or temporary) funding and those that provide funds through the end
of the fiscal year. Interim continuing resolutions provide 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 was not
completed until February 20, 2003; over four and half months into the fiscal year.
Therefore, eight interim FY2003 continuing resolutions became law that together
extended funding from October 1, 2002, through February 20, 2003.
Another FY2003 continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 2, became the vehicle to
complete final funding decisions on the 11 remaining regular bills. Although the
House-passed version was an interim resolution extending funding through January
31, 2003, the Senate converted the bill into an FY2003 omnibus appropriations
measure providing the full-text of each of the outstanding regular bills. On February
13, 2003, the House and Senate adopted the conference report to H.J.Res. 2, which
provides the final funding decisions for the outstanding FY2003 regular
appropriations bills. President George W. Bush signed the measure, the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, 2003, on February 20, 2003.
Contents
Most Recent Developments: FY2003 Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (H.J.Res. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Discretionary Spending Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Across-the-Board Discretionary Spending Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Interim Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Summary of All Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Recent Practices Regarding Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
History and Recent Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Types of Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Substantive Legislative Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Funding Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Congressional Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Budget and Appropriations Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
FY2003 Regular Appropriations Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Tables
Table 1. Current Status of FY2003 Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Congressional Budget Office’s FY2003 Discretionary Spending
Estimatesof Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by Deadline and
Continuing Resolutions (CRs), FY1977-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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 bills2 was not
completed until February 20, 2003; over four and half months into FY2003, which
began October 1, 2002. Therefore, eight interim FY2003 continuing resolutions
became law that together extended funding from October 1, 2002, through February
20, 2003.
Another FY2003 continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 2, became the vehicle to
complete final funding decisions on the 11 remaining regular bills. Although the
House-passed version was an interim resolution extending funding through January
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. In addition to providing an
agency with legal authority to make obligations, appropriations permit the agency to make
the payments.
2 The 11 outstanding FY2003 regular appropriations bills are: Agriculture; Commerce-
Justice-State-the Judiciary; District of Columbia; Energy and Water Development; Foreign
Operations; Interior; Labor-Health and Human Services-Education; Legislative Branch;
Transportation; Treasury-General Government; and Veterans Affairs-Housing and Urban
Development-Independent Agencies.
On October 23, 2002, the President signed into law two FY2003 regular appropriations
bills: Defense and Military Construction.
CRS-2
31, 2003, the Senate converted the bill into an FY2003 omnibus appropriations
measure,3 providing the text of each of the 11 outstanding regular appropriations
bills.
On February 13, 2003, the House and Senate adopted the conference report to
H.J.Res. 2, which provides the final funding decisions for the 11 outstanding FY2003
regular appropriations bills. President George W. Bush signed the measure, the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, on February 20, 2003. (For more
details on congressional and presidential action on all the FY2003 continuing
resolutions, see Table 1.)
Table 1. Current Status of FY2003 Continuing Resolutions
Conference
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conference
Measure
Report Approval
Public Law
Report
Passed
Report
Passed
Report
House
Senate
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
01/23/03
02/13/03
02/13/03
02/13/03
02/20/03
H.J.Res. 2
—
—
Vote: Voice
Vote: 69-29
H.Rept. 108-10 Vote: 338-83 Vote: 76-20
P.L. 108-7
01/28/03
01/29/03
01/31/03
H.J.Res. 13
—
—
Vote: Voice
Vote: UCa
—
—
—
P.L. 108-4
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/07/03
H.J.Res. 18
—
—
Vote: Voice
Vote: UCa
—
—
—
P.L. 108-5
a. The continuing resolution was passed by unanimous consent. That is, a unanimous consent request was proposed to pass the measure and since
no Senator objected, the resolution was passed.
3 An omnibus appropriations measure provides funding through the end of a fiscal year for
several regular appropriations measures. They typically include the full text of each regular
appropriations bill or enact by reference the full text of or conference report to individual
regular bills. In FY2001, two so-called “mini-omnibus” bills became law. One covered two
regular bills and the other covered three regular bills.
CRS-3
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (H.J.Res. 2)
Both the conference report version (H.Rept. 108-10) and the Senate-passed
version of H.J.Res. 2 provide funding for the 11 outstanding regular appropriations
bills, which are not defense regular appropriations bills. Discretionary spending4 is
provided for each regular bill and mandatory (or direct) spending4 is provided for
some of the regular bills. (For the text, see Divisions A-K of both versions of
H.J.Res. 2.)
In addition, the conference report and the Senate-passed measure provide
additional discretionary funding for: defense; election reform; wildland fire
emergency; and fisheries. Both provide across-the-board reductions of most FY2003
discretionary budget authority in order to offset part of the cost of the measure. (For
the defense text see Division M of both versions and, for the other discretionary
spending and offsets, see Division N of both versions.)
The Senate Appropriations Committee estimates the total discretionary spending
provided in the conference report is $397.855 billion. This includes both FY2003
budget authority as well as advance appropriations.5
Both the conference report and the Senate-passed version provide additional
mandatory spending for emergency agricultural assistance and Medicaid revisions.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the FY2003 budget authority for
emergency agricultural assistance is $3.1 billion and for Medicaid revisions is $1.2
billion. (For the text, see Division N of both versions.)
Discretionary Spending Distribution. The discretionary spending levels
provided below are those calculated by CBO for certain scorekeeping purposes under
the congressional budget process.6 CBO compares the funding available for the
fiscal year of an appropriations measure, in this case FY2003, to the House and
Senate appropriations subcommittees’ spending ceilings for that fiscal year. Funding
provided in the appropriations measure that does not become available in FY2003 is
excluded, while funding enacted previously that first becomes available in FY2003
is included. Most of the FY2003 budget authority discussed below was provided in
H.J.Res. 2. CBO bases its estimates on specified scorekeeping conventions.
4 Congress has divided budget authority and outlays into two categories: discretionary and
mandatory spending. Discretionary spending is budget authority (and the resulting outlays)
provided and controlled in annual appropriations acts. Mandatory spending is budget
authority (and the resulting outlays) controlled in non-appropriations acts.
5 Appropriations measures generally make budget authority available for obligation at the
start of the fiscal year covered by the measure. However, there are exceptions. For
example, advance appropriations becomes available one or more fiscal years after the fiscal
year covered by the act. An advance appropriation in an FY2002 appropriations act could
have provided that the budget authority for specified activities would not become available
until Oct.1, 2002— the start of FY2003—or later.
6 For information on this process, see CRS Report 97-684, The Congressional
Appropriations Process: An Introduction, by Sandy Streeter.
CRS-4
Table 2 provides the total net FY2003 discretionary spending estimates of both
versions of the consolidated appropriations resolution. Under the Senate-passed
version, CBO estimates a total net FY2003 discretionary spending level of $387
billion, of which $392 billion is for the 11 regular bills, $6 billion is for the additional
discretionary spending, and -$11 billion from the across-the-board reduction. Under
the conference report, the estimate of the total net FY2003 discretionary spending
level is $398 billion, of which $388 billion is for the 11 regular bills, $12 billion is
for the additional discretionary spending, and -$3 billion is from the across-the-board
reduction. (The totals may not equal due to rounding.)
The table also provides CBO’s estimates of the total net FY2003 discretionary
spending that includes H.J.Res 2 funding plus spending in the two previously enacted
FY2003 regular appropriations bills: defense and military construction. The total
amount of the Senate-passed version of H.J.Res. 2 and the previously enacted regular
bills is $752 billion in FY2003 discretionary spending. The total amount of the
conference report and the previously enacted bills is $763 billion in FY2003
discretionary spending, a net increase of $11 billion over the Senate-passed total.
Table 2 indicates two additional funding shifts. First, the conference report
reduces the across-the-board discretionary spending reduction. Both the conference
report and the Senate-passed measure provide across-the-board percentage reductions
of most FY2003 discretionary budget authority in order to partly offset the cost of
the legislation. The conference report reduces the across-the-board percentage
reduction in the Senate-passed bill from 2.852%, to 0.65%. CBO estimates that this
will result in a $9 billion reduction in offsets.
Second, the conference report increases defense discretionary spending by $6
billion. The defense spending provided in both the conference and the Senate-passed
measure were requested by the Bush administration.
Across-the-Board Discretionary Spending Reduction. Division N of
the conference report provides a 0.65% across-the-board reduction of most FY2003
discretionary spending. CBO estimates the reduction will offset the cost of the
conference report by $3 billion.
CRS-5
Table 2. Congressional Budget Office’s FY2003 Discretionary Spending Estimates
of Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003
(in billions of dollars)
Senate
Conference
Regular Bill/Other Funding
Difference
Passed
Report
Consolidated Resolution — Regular Bill
Agriculture
18.350
17.995
-0.355
Commerce-Justice-State-the Judiciary
41.505
41.387
-0.118
District of Columbia
0.512
0.512
—
Energy and Water Development
26.164
26.164
—
Foreign Operations
16.429
16.300
-0.129
Interior
18.952
19.057
0.105
Labor-Health and Human Services-Education
136.519
133.399
-3.120
Legislative Brancha
3.362
3.362
—
Transportation
21.574
21.200
-0.374
Treasury-General Government
18.220
18.326
0.106
Veterans Affairs-Housing and Urban Development-Independent
Agencies
90.349
90.350
0.001
Subtotal — Regular Bills
391.936
388.052
-3.884
Additional Discretionary Spending
Defense
3.895
10.000
6.105
Election Reform
1.500
1.500
—
Wildland Fire Emergency
0.825
0.825
—
Fisheries
0.100
0.100
—
Across-the-Board Reduction
-11.392
-2.622
8.770
Total — Consolidated Resolution
386.864
397.855
10.991
Defense Appropriations Act
354.830
354.830
Military Construction Appropriations Act
10.499
10.499
Total — Discretionary Spending
752.193
763.184
10.991
Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Scorekeeping Unit, Jan. 27, 2003, and Feb. 14, 2003, and summary tables.
a. The Senate-passed version provided $2 million for the U.S.-China Trade Review Commission under the Legislative Branch bill,
while the conference report provided the $2 million separately. It is included under the Legislative Branch in this table.
CRS-6
The across-the-board reduction applies to certain discretionary budgetary
resources provided for FY2003 in the conference report as well as certain
discretionary budget authority provided for FY2003, which was previously enacted.
The cut applies to discretionary spending budget authority and obligation limitations7
provided in the 11 regular appropriations bills in the conference report. It also
applies to contract authority8 provided for FY2003 previously enacted that is
associated with the obligation limitations. And, it applies to advance appropriations
for FY2003 that were provided in previously enacted appropriations measures.
The across-the-board reduction does not apply to the Additional Discretionary
Spending in Table 2, such as the $10 billion in defense spending. The conference
report also provides specific exemptions for four activities funded under the regular-
bills portion of the conference report, the activities are: Head Start; medical care
under the Veterans Affairs Department; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) under the Agriculture Department; and the
shuttle program under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The 0.65% reduction applies proportionally to each account,9 and each program,
project, or activity within each account.
For more detailed information on each of the FY2003 regular appropriations
bills, see the CRS reports listed below, For Additional Reading, FY2003 Regular
Appropriations Bills.
Interim Continuing Resolutions
Of the eight FY2003 interim continuing resolutions, the initial resolution, P.L.
107-229, set forth a general spending rate for the various purposes covered in the 11
outstanding regular appropriations bills, with certain exceptions. The third interim
resolution, P.L. 107-240, modified this general rate. (Subsequent interim resolutions
continued the general rate and, in some cases, provided a few individual exceptions.)
P.L. 107-229 provided 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
7 An obligation limitation sets a ceiling on the amount of budget authority that can be
obligated; thereby, precluding the obligation of budget authority that would otherwise be
available for obligation.
8 Contract authority is a type of budget authority. It provides an agency with the authority
to make government commitments prior to obtaining appropriations for the purpose.
Subsequently, appropriations are enacted to pay for the obligations.
9 An account is the basic unit of each regular appropriations bills. Similar activities are
combined and a lump-sum amount is provided. Most of the regular appropriations bills
include numerous accounts.
CRS-7
for more than one fiscal year for specified purposes.) Funds available for obligation
in FY2002 included the net amount appropriated for FY2002, such as adding
supplemental appropriations and subtracting rescissions.10
It also included 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 11 attacks was specifically excluded (P.L. 107-38; approved
September 18, 2001). This continuing resolution included the remaining $20 billion,
which was not available for obligation until January 10, 2002.
P.L. 107-240 excluded funding for activities that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) had identified as one-time non-recurring activities totaling $16
billion.11 The general purpose of continuing resolutions is to fund on-going projects
or activities until the regular appropriations bills are enacted. OMB stated that the
activities listed were not on-going activities, instead they were 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 provided 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 generally remained in effect.
Summary of All Continuing Resolutions
The nine 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;
! P.L. 108-2 modified and extended funding through January 31, 2003,
! P.L. 108-4 extended funding through February 7, 2003;
! P.L. 108-5 continued funding through February 20, 2003; and
! P.L. 108-7 is the consolidated appropriations resolution.
10 Rescissions cancel previously enacted budget authority.
11 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-8
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 (Article I,
Section 9 of the Constitution, and 31 U.S.C. 1341). Traditionally, most of the
operations of federal departments and agencies are funded each year through the
separate enactment of 13 regular appropriations acts. 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-
FY2003 period, see Table 3). 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, at least one continuing resolution has been
enacted for each fiscal year since FY1954. (The exceptions were FY1989; FY1995;
and FY1997.) From FY1977 through FY2003, Congress enacted on average five
continuing resolutions per year (for detailed information, see Table 3).
Over the last 30 years, the nature, scope, and duration of continuing resolutions
have varied. 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-
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 2003, the nature, scope, and
duration generally contracted, except during 1995-1996 and 2002-2003. During each
period, an expanded continuing resolution was enacted.
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 interim funding at a minimum, formulaic level, and contained
few provisions unrelated to the interim funding.
CRS-9
Table 3. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by Deadline and Continuing Resolutions (CRs), FY1977-FY2003
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
Republicans 0
0
8
2003
Republicanse
0
11
9
CRS-10
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.
e. The Democrats were the majority in the Senate in 2002, during initial consideration of the 13 FY2003 regular appropriations bills and final action on two of the regular bills. The Republicans are the
majority in 2003, during which final action on the remaining 11 FY2003 regular bills occurred.
CRS-11
Beginning in the early 1970s, conflict between the President and Congress over
major budget priorities, triggered in part by rapidly increasing deficits, greatly
increased the difficulty of reaching final agreement on regular appropriations acts.
This conflict led to protracted delay in their enactment. Continuing resolutions,
because they historically have been viewed as “must-pass” measures in view of the
constitutional and statutory imperatives, became a major battleground for the
resolution of budgetary and other conflicts. Consequently, the nature, scope, and
duration of continuing resolutions began to change.
Continuing resolutions began to be used to provide funds for longer periods, and
occasionally for an entire fiscal year, when agreement on one or more regular acts
could not be reached. Further, continuing resolutions became vehicles for
substantive legislative provisions unrelated to interim funding, as it became clear that
in some years continuing resolutions would be the most effective means to enact such
provisions into law. These trends culminated in FY1987 and FY1988, following a
period of persistently high deficits and sustained conflict over how to deal with them.
For those two years, continuing resolutions effectively became omnibus
appropriations measures for the federal government, incorporating all of the regular
appropriations acts for the entire fiscal year as well as a host of substantive
legislation covering a broad range of policy areas (see P.L. 99-591 and P.L. 100-202).
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
sequestration12) was established. 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.
Although the multi-year agreements and enforcement mechanisms remained in
effect through FY2002, the President and Congress were in conflict from FY1996
through FY2002. As a result of disagreements over the 1995 balanced budget plan
and spending and policy priorities in the FY1996 appropriations measures, two
funding gaps occurred in 1995-1996; 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 outstanding regular
appropriations bills, incorporating the full text of each bill, and included substantive
legislation. (For information on funding gaps, see Funding Gaps below.)
12 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).
CRS-12
From FY1997 through FY2002, 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 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 measures from
continuing resolutions to regular appropriations bills was due, in part, to avoid floor
amendments to regular appropriations bills and to expedite completion of the regular
bills. 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
the amendments was avoided. To ensure all FY1997 regular appropriations bills
became law by the October 1 deadline, five FY1997 regular bills were attached to a
sixth FY1997 regular bill in conference. This action obviated the need for a
continuing resolution.
Budgetary conflict continued during consideration of the FY2003 regular
appropriations bills. Final action on the 11 outstanding FY2003 regular bills was not
completed until over four and half months into the fiscal year. A significant reason
for the conflict and delay was the absence of agreed spending ceilings.
Congress used an omnibus continuing resolution to complete action on the 11
outstanding regular appropriations bills. Under a closed rule,13 the House adopted
a temporary continuing resolution that continued funding through January 31, 2003.
The Senate subsequently converted the resolution into a full-year, omnibus
resolution. One of the procedural effects of this approach was to prohibit floor
amendments in one chamber, while allowing them in the other. Attaching the
outstanding regular bills to a bill in conference would have prohibited floor
amendments in both chambers.
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 temporary 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
13 A closed rule is a special rule reported by the House Rules Committee that prohibits floor
amendments to specific measure. After the House adopts the special rule, it considers the
measure.
CRS-13
(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 general rate, with specific modifications, has been used.
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 3 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 of three types: (1) full text of the regular act; (2)
language that incorporates regular acts by reference to the latest stage of
congressional action (usually the conference agreement, if one has been reached); and
(3) language that incorporates by reference a new, compromise version of the regular
acts.
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 interim 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 two full-year continuing resolutions and one interim continuing resolution,
which was subsequently extended through the end of the fiscal year. The continuing
resolutions generally provided a specific percentage reduction for each purpose in the
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
interim 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. For a discussion of the across-the-board reduction in the
FY2003 full-year resolution, see Across-the-Board Discretionary Spending
Reduction above.
During consideration of the FY1996 continuing resolutions, Congress also used
a another type of continuing resolution—targeted appropriations. Traditionally, a
CRS-14
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 interim and full-year continuing resolutions.
House Rules XXI, Clause 2, and XXII, Clause 5, prohibit the consideration of
general appropriations measures containing legislative provisions or unauthorized
appropriations,14 but these restrictions do not apply to continuing resolutions. (The
House typically adopts special rules restricting amendments to continuing
resolutions, in part for this reason.) Comparable Senate restrictions, in Senate Rule
XVI, on legislative provisions and unauthorized appropriations do apply in the case
of continuing resolutions.
Substantive provisions in continuing resolutions have included comprehensive
measures, such as omnibus crime control legislation (in FY1985) and foreign affairs
reform and restructuring assistance legislation (in FY1999), that establish major new
policies and amend permanent provisions of law. They have also included narrower
provisions focused on temporary or one-time problems, such as special House and
Senate procedures for considering certain presidential requests for funding,
temporary increases in the statutory limit on the public debt, and 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. 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.
14 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).
CRS-15
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.”15
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.16
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.17
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.”18
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.
15 U.S. General Accounting Office, Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government
Operations, GAO/PAD-81-31, Mar. 3, 1981, p. i.
16 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.
17 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.
18 P.L. 101-508 Section 13213(b), 31 U.S.C. 1342.
CRS-16
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.”19 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.
19 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-17
CRS Report 98-844. Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Effects, and
Process, by Sharon S. Gressle.
FY2003 Regular Appropriations Bills.
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.
CRS-18
––. Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Vol. II, 2nd ed. GAO/OGC-92-13.
December1992, chap. 8, “Continuing Resolutions.”