Order Code RL31443
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The “Deeming Resolution”:
A Budget Enforcement Tool
Updated August 9, 2004
Robert Keith
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

The “Deeming Resolution”:
A Budget Enforcement Tool
Summary
“Deeming resolution” is a term that refers to legislation deemed to serve as an
annual budget resolution for purposes of establishing enforceable budget levels for
a budget cycle. A deeming resolution is used when the House and Senate are late in
reaching final agreement on a budget resolution or fail to reach agreement altogether.
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the annual adoption of a budget
resolution establishing aggregate levels of revenues, spending, the debt limit, and the
surplus or deficit, as well as allocations of spending. Enforcement of the budget
resolution relies primarily upon points of order and reconciliation procedures. With
regard to the enforcement of budget aggregates and committee spending allocations,
the major points of order are found in Sections 311 and 302 of the act, respectively.
The term “deeming resolution” is not officially defined, nor is there any specific
statute or rule authorizing such legislation. Instead, the use of a deeming resolution
simply represents the House and Senate employing regular legislative procedures to
deal with the issue on an ad hoc basis.
The form and content of a deeming resolution is not prescribed, so it may be
shaped to meet the particular needs at hand. For example, the House and Senate have
used simple resolutions as the legislative vehicle in the past, but a deeming resolution
may be incorporated into a bill, such as an annual appropriations act, as a single
provision. At a minimum, deeming resolutions provide new spending allocations to
the Appropriations Committees, but they also may set new aggregate budget levels,
provide revised spending allocations to other House and Senate committees, or
provide for other related purposes.
For FY1999, the first year that the two chambers failed to reach final agreement
on a budget resolution, the Senate adopted two deeming resolutions (S.Res. 209 on
April 2, 1998, and S.Res. 312 on October 21, 1998) and the House included deeming
provisions in two resolutions dealing with other subjects as well (H.Res. 477,
adopted on June 19, 1998, and H.Res. 5, adopted on January 6, 1999).
In the absence of a budget resolution for FY2003, the House on May 22, 2002
adopted a deeming provision in H.Res. 428, a special rule for H.R. 4775, a
supplemental appropriations act. The Senate did not adopt a deeming resolution
during the session. In a related action, the Senate extended certain expiring budget
enforcement provisions by adopting S.Res. 304 on October 16, 2002.
On May 19, 2004, the House adopted the conference report on the FY2005
budget resolution. A special rule providing for consideration of the conference
report, H.Res. 649, adopted earlier that day, included a “deeming resolution”
provision in Section 2 that put the budget policies in the conference report into effect.
A “deeming resolution” provision for the Senate was included as Section 14007 in
the conference report on H.R. 4613, the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2005,
which President Bush signed into law on August 5, 2004, as P.L. 108-287.

---

Contents
Substantive Enforcement of the Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The “Deeming Resolution” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
House and Senate Action on Deeming Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Tardy Adoption of the Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Failure to Adopt the Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Actions for FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Actions for FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Actions for FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Waivers of Section 303 of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

---

The “Deeming Resolution”:
A Budget Enforcement Tool
“Deeming resolution” is a term that refers to legislation which is deemed to
serve as an annual budget resolution for purposes of establishing enforceable budget
levels for a budget cycle. A deeming resolution is used when the House and Senate
are late in reaching final agreement on a budget resolution or fail to reach agreement
altogether. Either chamber may initiate its own budget enforcement procedures by
adopting a “deeming resolution” in the form of a simple resolution. This report
describes substantive enforcement procedures associated with the budget resolution,
explains the concept of a “deeming resolution,” discusses House and Senate action
on deeming resolutions, and provides information on a related topic, waiving a bar
against the consideration of budgetary legislation for a fiscal year before a budget
resolution for that fiscal year has been adopted.
Substantive Enforcement of the Budget Resolution
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344,
as amended) requires the adoption by April 15th of each year of a concurrent
resolution on the budget.1 The annual budget resolution sets forth aggregate levels
of revenues, spending, the debt limit, and the surplus or deficit, as well as allocations
of spending (both budget authority and outlays) by each of 20 major functional
categories of the budget. The congressional budget process was first implemented
in 1975 for FY1976, with full implementation of the process occurring the following
year. Over the years, the time frame of the budget resolution has lengthened from
one fiscal year to at least five fiscal years (and sometimes as many as 10 fiscal years).
Enforcement of the budget resolution relies primarily upon points of order and
reconciliation procedures. Point-of-order provisions contained in the 1974
Congressional Budget Act, which sometimes are supplemented by point-of-order
provisions carried in annual budget resolutions, allow any Member in either chamber
to prevent the consideration of legislation that would violate budget resolution
1 In its original form, the 1974 Congressional Budget Act required the annual adoption of
two budget resolutions — one in the spring and one in the fall. The two required budget
resolutions were adopted each year for the first seven years of the congressional budget
process (FY1976-FY1982). Beginning with FY1983, however, the House and Senate
adopted the practice of acting on only one budget resolution a year. For more information,
see CRS Report RL30297, Congressional Budget Resolutions: Selected Statistics and
Information Guide, by Bill Heniff Jr.

---

CRS-2
policies.2 Of course, points of order are not self-enforcing and may be waived with
a sufficient majority, thereby allowing legislation in violation of budget resolution
policies to be considered. In the Senate, most of the points or order pertaining to
budget enforcement require the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the membership (60
votes, if no seats are vacant) in order to be waived.
With regard to the substantive enforcement of the budget resolution (i.e.,
enforcement of budgetary levels), the major points of order under the 1974
Congressional Budget Act are found in Sections 311 and 302, which deal with the
enforcement of budget aggregates and committee spending allocations, respectively.
House and Senate rules and practices differ somewhat with regard to these two points
of order.
Section 311(a) generally bars the consideration of any spending measure that
would violate the aggregate budget authority and outlays levels for the first fiscal year
covered by the budget resolution, and any revenue measure that would violate the
aggregate revenue level for the first fiscal year or the sum of all fiscal years covered
by the budget resolution.
Section 302(a) generally requires that the aggregate amounts of spending
recommended in the annual budget resolution be allocated by committee; the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees receive an allocation for only one fiscal year,
but the remaining House and Senate committees receive allocations for all of the
years covered by the budget resolution. Section 302(b) requires the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees to subdivide their allocations by subcommittee.3
Section 302(f) generally bars the consideration of any spending measure that would
violate the committee spending allocations made under Section 302(a) or the
Appropriations Committees’ suballocations of spending made under Section 302(b).
In view of the different time frames for making committee spending allocations, the
spending levels are enforceable for one year in the case of the Appropriations
Committees but are enforceable for a multiyear period in the case of the other House
and Senate committees.
The purpose of the budget reconciliation process is to change substantive law
so that revenue and mandatory spending levels are brought into line with budget
resolution policies. Reconciliation generally has been used to reduce the deficit
through spending reductions or revenue increases, or a combination of the two. In
recent years, however, the reconciliation process also has encompassed revenue
reduction generally and spending increases in selected program areas.
Reconciliation is a two-step process. Under the first step, reconciliation
instructions are included in the budget resolution, directing one or more committees
in each House to develop legislation that changes spending or revenues (or both) by
2 For a listing of the points of order, see CRS Report 97-865, Points of Order in the
Congressional Budget Process, by James V. Saturno.
3The spending allocations to committees usually are included in the joint explanatory
statement on the budget resolution; the spending suballocations made by the Appropriations
Committees are set forth in House or Senate reports, as appropriate.

---

CRS-3
the amounts specified in the budget resolution. If more than one committee in each
House is given instructions, each instructed committee submits reconciliation
legislation to its respective Budget Committee, which incorporates all submissions,
without any substantive revision, into a single, omnibus budget reconciliation
measure. Under the second step, the omnibus budget reconciliation measure is
considered in the House and Senate under expedited procedures (for example, debate
time in the Senate on a reconciliation measure is limited to 20 hours and amendments
must be germane). The process culminates with enactment of the measure, thus
putting the policies of the budget resolution into effect.
The “Deeming Resolution”
When the House and Senate do not reach final agreement on a budget resolution
in a timely manner (or fail to reach final agreement altogether) during a session, they
are faced with a mixed situation regarding budget enforcement for upcoming fiscal
years. The multiyear budget levels in the prior year’s budget resolution remain in
effect and provide some basis for enforcing points of order with respect to revenue
and mandatory spending legislation. However, changing economic and technical
factors over the past year may have rendered the prior budget levels badly out of date,
thereby undermining their value as a realistic basis for enforcement of present
policies. Further, the House and Senate must adopt a new budget resolution each
year in order for the enforcement of annually appropriated spending levels to be
continuous. If a budget resolution is not adopted for a fiscal year, there is no
allocation of spending made to the Appropriations Committees under Section 302(a)
and no basis for them to make the required spending suballocations under Section
302(b).
Consequently, when the House and Senate have been presented with such
situations, they have resorted to the use of deeming resolutions to provide a basis for
updated enforcement. The term “deeming resolution” is not officially defined, nor
is there any specific statute or rule authorizing such legislation. Instead, the use of
a deeming resolution simply represents the House and Senate employing regular
legislative procedures to deal with the issue on an ad hoc basis.
Inasmuch as the form and content of a deeming resolution is not prescribed, its
form and content may be shaped to meet the particular needs at hand. For example,
the House and Senate have used simple resolutions as the legislative vehicle in the
past, but a deeming resolution may be incorporated into a bill, such as an annual
appropriations act, as a single provision. At a minimum, deeming resolutions
provide new spending allocations to the Appropriations Committees, but they also
may set new aggregate budget levels, provide revised spending allocations to other
House and Senate committees, or provide for other related purposes. A deeming
resolution may even declare that a budget resolution (in its entirety), passed earlier
in the session by one chamber, is deemed to have the force and effect as if adopted
by both chambers.

---

CRS-4
House and Senate Action on Deeming Resolutions
Both the House and Senate have acted on several deeming resolutions in the
past. For purposes of this review, a distinction is drawn between instances in which
the budget resolution was adopted in a tardy manner and instances in which no
budget resolution was adopted at all.
Tardy Adoption of the Budget Resolution
For 27 of the 30 fiscal years covering
Figure 1. Date Budget
FY1976-FY2005, the House and Senate adopted
Resolution Finally Adopted:
at least one budget resolution, as shown in Figure
FY1976-2005
1. (In 1998 and 2002, the House and Senate were
not able to reach agreement on budget resolutions
Fiscal year
Date adopted
for FY1999 and FY2003, respectively; further, no
1976
05-14-1975
budget resolution for FY2005 has yet been agreed
1977
05-13-1976
to in 2004.) In most of the 27 years for which a
1978
05-17-1977
budget resolution was adopted, final agreement
1979
05-17-1978
on the measure was reached in April, May, or
1980
05-24-1979
early June, allowing the House and Senate to
1981
06-12-1980
bring the regular appropriations bills and other
1982
05-21-1981
budgetary legislation to the floor with little or no
1983
06-23-1982
delay.
1984
06-23-1983
1985
10-01-1984
In a handful of instances, however, the final
1986
08-01-1985
budget resolution was not in place until late June,
1987
06-27-1986
or even until August or October. The general
1988
06-24-1987
practice of the Senate in such years, particularly
1989
06-06-1988
with regard to the regular appropriations bills,
1990
05-18-1989
was to consider legislation within the framework
1991
10-09-1990
of the Senate-passed budget resolution but not to
1992
05-22-1991
adopt a deeming resolution. For example,
1993
05-21-1992
spending levels provided in the appropriations
1994
04-01-1993
bills generally were consistent with the spending
1995
05-12-1994
allocations to the Senate Appropriations
1996
06-29-1995
Committee and the spending suballocations
1997
06-13-1996
thereunder that would have been made had the
1998
06-05-1997
Senate-passed levels become the final ones.
1999
[none]
Consideration of the measures usually occurred
2000
04-15-1999
by unanimous consent.
2001
04-13-2000
2002
05-10-2001
The tardy adoption of budget resolutions has
2003
[none]
been more of a problem for the House than the
2004
04-11-2003
Senate, especially because the House usually
2005
[none yet]
begins the consideration of the regular
appropriations bills at an earlier point in the
session. In 1990, the House made a procedural change to allow the consideration of
the regular appropriations acts to begin if the budget resolution was not finalized in
a timely manner. The Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990 (Title XIII of P.L.

---

CRS-5
101-508, as amended) added a temporary provision to the 1974 Congressional
Budget Act authorizing the chairman of the House Budget Committee to issue a
provisional spending allocation to the House Appropriations Committee (consistent
with the statutory limits on discretionary spending set by the BEA) if the budget
resolution were not agreed to by the April 15 deadline.4 In 1997, the Budget
Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1997 (Title X of P.L. 105-33) repealed Section 603 (and
all of the other sections in Title VI of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act), but
incorporated a modified version of the provision into Section 302 as a permanent part
of procedure.5 The modification requires the allocation to the House Appropriations
Committee to be consistent with the most recently agreed to budget resolution rather
than the statutory limits on discretionary spending.
Notwithstanding the authority established in 1990 for making provisional
spending allocations to the House Appropriations Committee based on prior budget
resolutions, the House on several occasions has adopted deeming resolutions so that
consideration of regular appropriations acts could proceed under more updated
spending allocations. In 1990, 1995, and 1996, several special rules6 on regular
appropriations bills included provisions that deemed a House-passed budget
resolution to be in effect (until superseded by final House-Senate agreement on a
budget resolution), or that deemed a particular spending allocation to be in effect.7
In 1990, when the final adoption of the budget resolution for FY1991 was
delayed until October 9 (while extensive negotiations were conducted in a budget
summit between the administration and Congress), the Senate adopted a deeming
resolution to allow consideration of the regular appropriations acts for that year to
proceed. S.Res. 308, which set forth FY1991 allocations of $680.512 billion in new
budget authority and $690.606 billion in outlays to the Senate Appropriations
Committee “for purposes of section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974,” was adopted by the Senate on July 12, 1990, by unanimous consent.8 Under
the terms of S.Res. 308, the spending allocations were effective pending final
agreement on the budget resolution or the agreement to different spending levels in
the budget summit negotiations.
4See the new Section 603 of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act as added by Section 13111
of the BEA of 1990 (104 Stat. 1388-605).
5See Section 302(a)(5) of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act as added by Section 10106
of the BEA of 1997 (111 Stat. 680-681).
6 A special rule is a simple House resolution (i.e., numbered “H.Res.”) reported by the
House Rules Committee that sets the parliamentary terms for the consideration of one or
more specified measures.
7 See H.Res. 413 (Section 3), adopted on June 19, 1990; H.Res. 167 (Section 2), adopted on
June 16, 1995; and H.Res. 451 (Section 2) and 453, adopted on June 11 and 13, 1996,
respectively.
8 See the remarks of Senator Robert C. Byrd in the Congressional Record of July 12, 1990,
at pp. S9642-9643, in which explains the purpose of S.Res. 308 and the status of
congressional action on the regular appropriations acts for FY1991.

---

CRS-6
Failure to Adopt the Budget Resolution
As stated previously, the House and Senate failed to adopt a budget resolution
twice during the past 30 years — in 1998 for FY1999 and in 2002 for FY2003 — and
have not adopted a FY2005 budget resolution so far in 2004.
Actions for FY1999. Overall budget policy for FY1999 had been outlined
the previous year, in 1997, under the terms of a five-year agreement reached between
Congress and President Clinton. Although each chamber passed a budget resolution
in 1998, they could not reach agreement on a final version.
In order to impose a binding restraint on annual appropriations acts and other
budgetary legislation for that year, the House and Senate followed similar
approaches. The Senate passed its version of the FY1999 budget resolution,
S.Con.Res. 86, on April 2, 1998. Anticipating an impasse with the House, the Senate
also that day agreed to S.Res. 209, a measure setting forth spending allocations to the
Senate Appropriations Committee “until a concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1999 is agreed to by the Senate and the House of Representatives.”9 On
October 21, 1998, several weeks after FY1999 had begun, the Senate agreed to
S.Res. 312, informally referred to as the “deeming budget resolution.”10 The measure
amended S.Res. 209 by incorporating budget aggregates for FY1999-FY2003 and
authorizing the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to file committee spending
allocations consistent with them. The budget aggregates included in S.Res. 312
reflected the policies of the previous budget resolution updated for enacted legislation
and revised economic and technical assumptions and provided the basis for
enforcement under Section 302, Section 311, and other sections of the 1974
Congressional Budget Act.
On June 19, 1998, the House adopted H.Res. 477, a special rule providing for
the consideration of the Military Constructions Appropriations Act for FY1999.
Section 2 of the resolution set forth spending allocations to the House Appropriations
Committee for FY1999.
On January 6, 1999, at the beginning of the next session, the House adopted
H.Res. 5, a measure setting forth its standing rules. Section 2(a) of the resolution
directed the chairman of the House Budget Committee to publish budget aggregates
and committee spending allocations for FY1999-FY2003 in the Congressional
Record and stated that these levels should provide the basis for enforcement in lieu
9 The text of S.Res. 209 is set forth on page S3160 of the Congressional Record of Apr. 2,
1998.
10 The text of S.Res. 312, and the debate thereon, may be found in the Congressional Record
of Oct. 21, 1998, on pages S12915 and S12916.

---

CRS-7
of a budget resolution.11 House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich submitted
the aggregates and allocations on February 25 and March 3, 1999.12
Actions for FY2003. As the prospect of a second instance without final
agreement of the House and Senate on a budget resolution became more likely, both
chambers turned to deeming resolutions as an enforcement alternative. Concern
about budget discipline also has been heightened by the expiration on September 30,
2002, of statutory budget enforcement mechanisms under the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (i.e., the discretionary spending limits and
pay-as-you-go requirement, which are enforced by sequestration) and the Senate’s
pay-as-you-go point of order and three-fifths vote requirement in the Senate for
waivers of certain points of order under the 1974 Congressional Budget Act.13
The House adopted a budget resolution for FY2003, H.Con.Res. 353, on March
20, 2002. About two months later, on May 22, and with the Senate not having
considered a budget resolution on the floor, the House included a deeming provision
in a special rule, H.Res. 428, on a supplemental appropriations act for FY2002 (H.R.
4775).14 Section 2 of the special rule provided that the budget resolution passed in
March by the House, H.Con.Res. 353, “shall have force and effect in the House as
though Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution.” Additionally, the
chairman of the House Budget Committee was directed to have the committee
spending allocations and other budgetary information printed in the Congressional
Record. House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle submitted the required
information that same day.15
With regard to the extension of expiring budget enforcement mechanisms, the
House Budget Committee held a hearing on the matter on April 25, 2002.
Representative John Spratt, ranking minority member of the House Budget
Committee, introduced H.R. 5502, the Restoring Budget Disciplines Act of 2002, on
September 30, 2002. His bill would have extended the discretionary spending limits
and pay-as-you-go requirement for five fiscal years, through FY2007. The House did
not take any action on such legislation. In early October, Speaker Dennis Hastert
indicated that the House might not act on such legislation until 2003.16
11 The text of Section 2(a) of H.Res. 5 is printed in the Congressional Record of Jan. 6,
1999, on page H34.
12 See the remarks of Rep. Kasich in the Congressional Records of Feb. 25 and Mar. 3,
1999, on pages H809-H810 and H949-H951, respectively.
13For more information on these enforcement procedures, see CRS Report RL31137,
Sequestration Procedures Under the 1985 Balanced Budget Act, by Robert Keith, and CRS
Report RS21316, Budget Enforcement Procedures: Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule,
by Bill Heniff Jr.
14 See the consideration of H.Res. 428 in the Congressional Record of May 22, 2002, at
pages H2891-H2902.
15 See the remarks of Rep. Jim Nussle in the Congressional Record of May 22, 2002, at
pages H2929-H2930.
16See “Hastert Supports Renewal of Pay-Go But Expects No Action Until 2003,” by Bud
(continued...)

---

CRS-8
The Senate Budget Committee reported a budget resolution for FY2003,
S.Con.Res. 100, on April 11, 2002, but it was not considered on the Senate floor
during the session.17
During June 2002, several efforts were made in the Senate to amend legislation
with provisions serving as a “deeming resolution” or otherwise extending certain
budget enforcement procedures. On June 5, during consideration of an emergency
supplemental appropriations act (H.R. 4775), the Senate rejected Gregg-Feingold
amendment #3687, which would have extended certain budget enforcement
procedures through FY2007, and Santorum amendment #3765, which would have
deemed the budget resolution reported earlier by the Senate Budget Committee to be
in effect.18 The Gregg-Feingold amendment fell on a point of order after a motion
to waive the point of order was rejected on a 49-49 vote (rollcall vote #133). The
Santorum amendment was tabled by a 96-0 vote (rollcall vote #134). The next day,
on June 6, Daschle amendment #3764, an extension of certain budget enforcement
procedures through FY2007, also failed.19 The amendment fell on a point of order
that it was nongermane after cloture had been invoked.
On June 20, during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (S.
2514), the Senate rejected Feingold amendment #3915, as perfected by the modified
Reid-Conrad amendment #3916.20 The Feingold amendment, as perfected, would
have extended the discretionary spending limits through FY2004 and certain other
budget enforcement procedures through FY2007. It fell on a point of order when a
motion to waive the point of order was rejected on a 59-40 vote, one short of the
required 60 affirmative votes (rollcall vote #159).
On September 18, 2002, Senators Kent Conrad and Pete Domenici, the
chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the Senate Budget
Committee, sent a letter to Majority Leader Daschle urging action on a resolution
extending the Senate’s pay-as-you-go point of order and the three-fifths vote
requirement for certain waivers of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act.21 Majority
16(...continued)
Newman in BNA’s Daily Report for Executives, Oct. 4, 2002.
17See S.Rept. 107-141; the Committee reported S.Con.Res. 100 favorably by a vote of 12-10.
18For the text and discussion of the Gregg-Feingold amendment, see pages S5005-5015 in
the Congressional Record of June 5, 2002; for the text and discussion of the Santorum
amendment, see pages S5018-S5021.
19For the text and discussion of the Daschle amendment, see pages S5015-S5022 and S5114-
S5120 in the Congressional Record of June 5 and 6, 2002, respectively.
20For the text of the Feingold amendment, as perfected by the modified Reid-Conrad
amendment, and its discussion, see pages S5808-S5821 in the Congressional Record of June
20, 2002.
21The letter, as well as the text of the resolution, is available online at
[http://www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/budgetresFY03/resletter091902.pdf ]

---

CRS-9
Leader Daschle confirmed that the Senate would consider such legislation before
adjournment.22
On October 16, the Senate considered S.Res. 304, a measure introduced earlier
in the session encouraging the Senate Appropriations Committee to report the regular
appropriations bills for FY2003 by July 31, 2002. The Senate agreed to the
resolution by unanimous consent, after adopting by unanimous consent Conrad
amendment #4886, a substitute amendment extending the Senate’s pay-as-you-go
point of order and the three-fifths vote requirement for certain waivers of the 1974
Congressional Budget Act through April 15, 2003.23 The resolution did not address
extension of the discretionary spending limits and pay-as-you-go requirement in
statute.
The following year, in 2003, the House and Senate took additional actions
pertaining to budget enforcement for FY2003. On the opening day of the 108th
Congress, January 7, 2003, the House adopted H.Res. 5, a measure setting forth its
standing rules. Separate orders pertaining to the budget process and other matters
were set forth in Section 3 of the resolution.24 Section 3(a)(4) made the provisions
of the FY2003 budget resolution adopted in 2002 (H.Con.Res. 353) effective for
purposes of budget enforcement in 2003, pending adoption of a FY2003 budget
resolution.
In addition, Section 3(a)(4) of H.Res. 5 directed the chairman of the House
Budget Committee, when elected, to have the committee spending allocations and
other budgetary information printed in the Congressional Record. On the next day,
January 8, the House adopted H.Res. 14. Section 2 of that resolution authorized
Representative Jim Nussle of Iowa, the prospective chairman of the House Budget
Committee, to submit the spending allocations and other information required by
H.Res. 5, which he did later that day.25
On April 11, 2003, the House and Senate reached final agreement on a budget
resolution for FY2004 (H.Con.Res. 95).26 In addition to setting forth the appropriate
budgetary levels for FY2004-FY2013, the budget resolution also established
budgetary levels for FY2003. The FY2004 budget resolution also included certain
22See “Daschle Promises Senate Will Debate Resolution Extending Budget Disciplines,” by
Bud Newman in BNA’s Daily Report for Executives, Oct. 2, 2002.
23See the consideration of S.Res. 304 in the Congressional Record of Oct. 16, 2002, at pages
S10527-S10531 and page S10553. Also, see “In Late Deal, Senate Approves by Voice Vote
Renewing Expiring Budget Enforcement Rules,” by Bud Newman in BNA’s Daily Report
for Executives, Oct. 17, 2002.
24 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RL31728, House Rules Changes
Affecting the Congressional Budget Process in the 108th Congress (H.Res. 5), by Bill Heniff
Jr.
25 See the remarks of Rep. Jim Nussle in the Congressional Record of Jan. 8, 2003, at pages
H74-H75. Rep. Nussle was elected chairman of the House Budget Committee on Jan. 8 by
virtue of the House’s adoption of H.Res. 24.
26 See the conference report on H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 108-71 (Apr. 10, 2003).

---

CRS-10
procedural requirements applicable to FY2003. In particular, Section 421 directed
the chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees to make appropriate
revisions in spending allocations to accommodate any supplemental appropriations
for FY2003 enacted into law before May 1, 2003.27
Actions for FY2005. The Senate Budget Committee initiated action on the
budget resolution for FY2005 by reporting S.Con.Res. 95 on March 5, 2004 (in lieu
of a written report to accompany the measure, a committee print was issued, S.Prt.
108-365, March 2004). Two weeks later, the House Budget Committee reported its
version of the FY2005 budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 393 (H.Rept. 108-441, March
19, 2004). The Senate passed S.Con.Res. 95 on March 12, and the House passed
H.Con.Res. 393 on March 25.
At the end of March, both chambers agreed to go to conference on S.Con.Res.
95. A conference report on the measure was filed in the House on May 19 (H.Rept.
108-498). The House agreed to the conference report on May 19, but the Senate has
not considered it so far.
The House considered the conference report on the FY2005 budget resolution
under the terms of a special rule, H.Res. 649 (H.Rept. 108-500, May 19, 2004); the
special rule was adopted on May 19 by a vote of 220-204. In anticipation of the
possibility that final Senate approval of the budget resolution might be delayed, or
might not occur at all, a “deeming resolution” provision was included in Section 2
of H.Res. 649, which reads as follows:
Sec. 2. (a) Upon adoption in the House of the conference report to
accompany Senate Concurrent Resolution 95, and until a concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal year 2005 has been adopted by the Congress —
(1) the provisions of the conference report and its joint explanatory
statement shall have force and effect in the House; and
(2) for purposes of title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
the conference report shall be considered adopted by the Congress.
(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to engage rule XXVII.
By adopting H.Res. 649, the House put into effect the budget policies embodied
in the conference report on S.Con.Res. 95 as adopted by the House, as well as the
procedures under Title III of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act used to enforce
them. Accordingly, in the House regular appropriations acts for FY2005 and other
budgetary measures are subject to aggregate spending ceilings and revenue floors, as
well as allocations of spending to committees.
Section 2(b) of H.Res. 649 barred the automatic engrossment of a measure
raising the debt limit by the amount recommended in the budget resolution, an action
otherwise required under House Rule XXVII whenever a budget resolution is finally
agreed to by the House and Senate. Consequently, the automatic engrossment of
such a measure can occur in 2004 only if the Senate adopts the conference report on
27 P.L. 108-11, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, was
enacted into law on Apr. 16, 2003.

---

CRS-11
S.Con.Res. 95. (In most instances, the House and Senate use other means to enact
debt-limit legislation.28)
For the two months following House action on the deeming resolution
provision, the Senate did not consider the conference report on the FY2005 budget
resolution nor act on a deeming resolution. During this period, however, Senate
action on the regular appropriations acts for FY2005 was subject to a ceiling of $814
billion on total appropriations for that year included in the prior year’s budget
resolution, which remained in effect.
The $814 billion ceiling for FY2005 presented the Senate with two problems.
First, the conference agreement on the FY2005 budget resolution revised the
recommended level of appropriations for that fiscal year upward by $7 billion to a
new total of $821 billion. In order for the Senate to consider regular appropriations
acts for FY2005 at a level comparable to House action, the $7 billion difference
would have to be accommodated through a procedure such as designating an
equivalent amount of appropriations to be emergency spending, a course of action
that was considered less desirable. Second, the $814 billion ceiling applied to total
appropriations only; it did not provide a basis for the enforcement of spending levels
during the consideration of individual acts (unless all 13 of the individual acts were
packaged together into a single, omnibus act).
On July 22, 2004, the Senate resolved these problems by adopting the
conference report on H.R. 4613, the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2005.
President Bush signed the measure into law on August 5, 2004, as P.L. 108-287 (118
Stat. 951 et. seq.). Section 14007 of the act, which took effect upon enactment,
established the revised level of $821 billion as the allocation of new budget authority
to the Senate Appropriations Committee for purposes of Section 302(a) of the 1974
act (and repealed the outdated limit of $814 billion in the prior year’s budget
resolution). The section reads as follows:
SEC. 14007. 2005 Discretionary Limits. (a) IN GENERAL — For the purposes
of section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the allocation of the
appropriate levels of budget totals for the Senate Committee on Appropriations
for fiscal year 2005 shall be —
(1) for total discretionary spending —
(A) $821,419,000,000 in total new budget authority; and
(B) $905,328,000,000 in total budget outlays; and
(2) for mandatory —
(A) $460,008,000,000 in total new budget authority; and
(B) $445,525,000,000 in total budget outlays;
until a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 is agreed to by the
Senate and the House of Representatives pursuant to section 301 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) ADJUSTMENTS AND LIMITS — The following limits and
adjustments provided in S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress) shall apply to
subsection (a):
(1) Sections 311 and 403 for fiscal year 2005.
28 See CRS Report RS21519, Legislative Procedures for Adjusting the Public Debt Limit:
A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith and Bill Heniff Jr.

---

CRS-12
(2) Sections 312 and 402 which shall apply to both fiscal years 2004 and
2005.
(c) DEFINITION — In this section, the term `total discretionary spending’
includes the discretionary category, the mass transit category, and the highway
category.
(d) REPEAL — Section 504 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress) is repealed.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE — This section shall take effect on the date of enactment
of this Act.
Waivers of Section 303 of the
1974 Congressional Budget Act
The tardy adoption of a budget resolution, or the failure to adopt it at all, leads
to another enforcement problem, but one that involves timing issues rather than
substantive enforcement. Under Section 303(a) of the 1974 Congressional Budget
Act, the House and Senate generally may not consider spending or revenue
legislation for a fiscal year until the budget resolution for that fiscal year has been
adopted.
The section poses less of a problem for the House than it does for the Senate.
First, Section 303(b) provides an exception in the House for general appropriations
bills considered after May 15, but this exception does not apply in the Senate.
Second, the House may include waivers of the Section 303(a) point of order in
special rules governing the consideration of individual measures.
Section 303(c) also bars the consideration of appropriations measures in the
Senate until the spending allocation to the Senate Appropriations Committee required
by Section 302(a) has been made. Unlike many other points of order under the 1974
act, waivers of Section 303(a) only require a simple majority vote in the Senate.
Over the years, the Senate has waived Section 303(a) dozens of times for
various types of budgetary legislation. In many years, however, the Senate has
chosen not to waive Section 303(a) with respect to the consideration of regular
appropriations bills. Instead, the Senate Appropriations Committee in these instances
generally delayed action on its bills until after the budget resolution had been
adopted. Data collected from the 94th-100th Congresses show that, with respect to
regular appropriations bills, Section 303(a) waivers were granted in only 13 cases,29
as follows:
! FY1984, for three bills considered in June 1983 (the FY1984 budget
resolution was adopted on June 23);
! FY1985, for eight bills considered June-September 1984 (the FY1985 budget
resolution was adopted on October 1); and
29See (1) CRS Report 89-37, Senate Consideration of Regular Appropriations Bills Under
Waivers of Section 303(a) of the 1974 Budget Act, by Robert Keith; and (2) CRS Report 89-
76, Waivers of the 1974 Budget Act Considered in the Senate During the 100th Congress,
by Robert Keith.

---

CRS-13
! FY1986, for two bills considered in July-August 1985 (the FY1986 budget
resolution was adopted on August 1).
In most of these 13 cases, the waiver was obtained under a successful motion
directed specifically to waiving Section 303(a). In several other instances, the waiver
was obtained under a unanimous consent request. The use of the waiver motions or
unanimous consent requests in these cases attested to the consensus regarding the
need to consider the regular appropriations bills. After all, such motions are subject
to extended debate, and any Senator can raise an objection to a unanimous consent
request. An extended debate on a motion, and an objection to a unanimous consent
request, occurred only once (both occurred in August 1984 in connection with the
Agriculture appropriations bill for FY1985). The extended debate on the waiver
motion began on August 1 and was brought to a close on August 8, when the Senate
voted 68-34 to invoke cloture. The subsequent vote to approve the waiver motion
(63-34) was the only rollcall vote taken on such motions; the others were approved
by voice vote.
In more recent years, the budget resolution has been adopted in a fairly timely
manner. During the period covering the 102nd Congress through the first session of
the 108th Congresses, nine of the 12 budget resolutions were adopted in April or May;
the remaining three were adopted in June. Accordingly, in these years the Senate
Appropriations Committee has been able to avoid the need for waivers of Section
303(a). During the 1998 session, when the House and Senate failed to agree on a
budget resolution for FY1999, regular appropriations bills were taken up by
unanimous consent, apparently without any effort to raise points of order under
Section 303(a).

---