Order Code RS21035
Updated July 17, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Emergency Spending: Statutory and
Congressional Rules
James V. Saturno
Specialist on the Congress
Government and Finance Division
Summary
The designation of spending as emergency had significance in both procedural and
budgetary terms. The Budget Enforcement Act (BEA; 1990-2002) placed statutory
limits (caps) on the level of federal discretionary spending, enforced by across-the-board
spending cuts, known as a sequester.
If, however, spending were designated as
emergency by both the President and Congress, it would not trigger a sequester, because
the caps would be adjusted automatically by an amount equal to the emergency
spending. Although the spending caps established under the BEA have expired,
additional limitations adopted by the House and Senate in their respective rules
concerning the use of emergency designations continue to be in force. In particular, the
budget resolution for FY2004 (H.Con.Res. 95, 108th Congress) provides a point of order
in the Senate against the use of emergency designations. This report will be updated to
reflect any changes in the rules concerning the use of emergency designations.
Control of the process for initiating, considering, and enacting appropriations for
unanticipated or emergency purposes has been a longstanding concern within the federal
budget process. For example, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act
of 1974 included a requirement that the budget resolution include an allowance for
“contingencies”1; similarly, the President’s budget was required to include:
an allowance for additional estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for
the ensuing fiscal year, and an allowance for unanticipated uncontrollable
expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year.2
No explicit limitations, however, were placed on either branch with regard to their
prerogative to request or enact spending for any purpose, including supplemental
appropriations. As part of presidential-congressional budget summit agreements in 1987
and 1989, appropriations caps were enacted, and the two branches agreed not to initiate
1 P.L. 93-344, Section 301(a)(2), 88 Stat. 306.
2 P.L. 93-344, Section 604, 88 Stat. 324.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
supplemental spending above these amounts “except in the case of a dire emergency.”
In neither agreement was there a definition for a dire emergency, or a requirement that any
supplemental spending be offset.3
The Budget Enforcement Act
With the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990,4 the process for enacting emergency
spending became more formalized. The Act generally shifted the focus of budgetary
control mechanisms from the projected deficit to the spending or revenue effect of current
legislation, by providing for the direct enforcement of statutory discretionary spending
limits and a limitation on changes to entitlement spending and revenues known as “pay-
as-you-go” or PAYGO.5 In addition to specifying the spending limit, the Act also
provided for several required adjustments, including emergency appropriations. The Act
provided that:
If, for any fiscal year, appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that the
President designates as emergency requirements and that the Congress so designates
in statute, the adjustment shall be the total of such appropriations in discretionary
accounts designated as emergency requirements and outlays flowing in all fiscal years
from such appropriations.6
There is currently no statutory spending caps for discretionary spending.7 A similar
provision of the Act specified that enforcement of PAYGO excluded emergency
provisions as well.8 However, almost all of the spending designated as emergency under
the Act was for discretionary spending accounts.9
The BEA provided that either the President or Congress could initiate the emergency
spending designation. The President could initiate emergency spending by designating
the spending as emergency in his request, which would then have to be similarly
designated by Congress in statutory language. Congress could also initiate emergency
spending by making the designation in statutory language. When doing so, it usually
3 William G. Dauster, “Budget Emergencies,” Journal of Legislation, Vol. 18, no. 2, 1992, pp.
249-315.
4 Title XIII of P.L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388-573-1388-630. This act amended the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, P.L. 100-119.
5 For more on the federal budget process, see CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal
Budget Process, by Robert Keith and Allen Schick.
6 Section 251(b)(2)(A). The current language was enacted in 1997 in Title X of P.L. 105-33 and
appears at 111 Stat. 699.
7 There are spending caps for conservation programs in six subcategories that remain in effect
through FY2006, but there is no mechanism in law at this time to enforce them.
8 Section 252(d)(4)(B) excludes from the PAYGO process estimates of amounts for emergency
provisions, as designated under Section 252(e). The current language was enacted in 1997 in
Title X of P.L. 105-33 and appears at 111 Stat. 703.
9 To date, only two emergencies have been designated under the PAYGO process, Section 6 of
P.L. 103-6, and Section 3309(c) of P.L. 105-206.

---

CRS-3
made the availability of such funds for obligation contingent on the President designating
them as well.
In addition, section 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 provides for an
adjustments of aggregates set forth in the budget resolution, as well as allocations made
pursuant to those aggregates, to reflect the amount of spending carrying emergency
designations under the BEA. By making this adjustment apply while a bill or amendment
was under consideration, it effectively exempted the provision from certain points of
order under the Congressional Budget Act.10
The Act did not define or place limits on the use of the emergency designation, other
than the requirement that it be so designated by both the President and Congress. This
provided a maximum degree of flexibility, but also led to criticism from some Members
of Congress that the emergency designation could be applied to non-emergency spending,
and thus be used as a means for circumventing budgetary discipline. This resulted in
additional rules concerning the consideration of emergency spending legislation in both
the House and the Senate. Although the statutory provisions concerning the use of
emergency designations has expired, these additional rules continue to have an impact on
House and Senate procedure.
House Rules
In January 1995, the House added a new provision to its rules, House Rule XXI,
Clause 2(e), to prevent non-emergency spending from being added to an appropriations
bill designated as providing emergency spending.11 The rule provides that:
A provision other than an appropriation designated as an emergency under section
251(b)(2) or section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act, a rescission of budget authority, or a reduction in direct spending an amount for
a designated emergency may not be reported in an appropriation bill or joint
resolution containing an emergency designation under section 252(b)(2) or section
252(e) of such Act and may not be in order as an amendment thereto.12
The expiration of statutory spending limits on spending in 2002 meant that the
designation of spending as emergency no longer provided for an automatic adjustment of
aggregates set forth in the budget resolution, as well as allocations made pursuant to those
aggregates. In response, section 502(b) of the FY2004 budget resolution13 included a
provision specifying that:
10 In particular, points of order under sections 311 and 302 enforcing the aggregate spending
amount and committee allocations, respectively. For more on points of order, see: CRS Report
97-865, Points of Order in the Congressional Budget Process, by James V. Saturno.
11 Representative Gerald Solomon, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, Vol. 141,
January 4, 1995, p. 475.
12 Although the referenced sections of the Act have expired, and, thus, are not themself
enforceable, this provision remains a part of House Rules in the 108th Congress.
13 H.Con.Res. 95 (108th Congress).

---

CRS-4
... any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report [designated as an
emergency requirement] shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 311, and
401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Senate Rules
The Senate has taken a different approach to limiting the use of emergency
designations. In 1999, the Senate first adopted a point of order to prohibit consideration
of legislation containing an emergency designation.14 This mechanism was designed so
that a point of order could be raised against any emergency designation in a measure,
which would then be stricken from the measure without further action. The point of order
could be waived, however, by a vote of three-fifths of the Senate. The result of this was
effectively to require that any emergency designation be supported by three-fifths of the
Senate, in order to insure that it would remain as part of the measure. If a waiver was not
granted, the emergency designation would be stricken, but the spending could remain in
the measure subject to any other applicable budgetary limits. This provision also included
language providing guidelines for justifying an emergency designation, but these
guidelines were not binding. This point of order was readopted in modified form in
2000,15 including a provision establishing that it does not apply against an emergency
designation for a provision making discretionary appropriations for defense spending.16
In the 108th Congress, the Senate included an updated version of this point of order.17
Under this section:
When the Senate is considering a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference
report, if a point of order is made by a Senator against an emergency designation in
that measure, that provision making such a designation shall be stricken from the
measure and may not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
As in the House, section 502(c) of the FY2004 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95;
108th Congress) provides that in the Senate any spending in a measure or amendment with
an emergency designation shall not count for purposes of enforcing sections 302, 303,
311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act, and additionally sections 504 and 505 of
the FY2004 budget resolution. As with previous versions of this point of order, it does
not apply to discretionary spending for defense accounts, and it may be waived by a vote
of three-fifths of the Senate.
14 Section 206(b) of H.Con.Res. 68 (106th Congress).
15 Section 205(b) of H.Con.Res. 290 (106th Congress).
16 Section 205(g) of H.Con.Res. 290 (106th Congress).
17 Section 502(c) of H.Con.Res. 95 (108th Congress).

---