Order Code RL30343
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Updated October 1, 2004
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.
Only one of the 13 FY2005 regular appropriations bills has become law.
Therefore, on September 29, 2004, both the House and Senate adopted H.J.Res. 107,
which continues funding for the 12 outstanding FY2005 regular appropriations bills
through November 20, 2004. The President signed the measure on September 30.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments: FY2005 Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Recent Practices Regarding Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
History and Recent Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Types of Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Substantive Legislative Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Funding Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Congressional Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Budget and Appropriations Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
FY2005 Regular Appropriations Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
List of Tables
Table 1. Current Status of FY2005 Continuing Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by Deadline and Continuing
Resolutions (CRs), FY1977-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

---

Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Traditionally, most of the operations of federal departments and agencies are
funded each year through separate enactment of 13 regular appropriations acts, which
are scheduled to be enacted by October 1. All 13 regular bills are rarely enacted by
the deadline. When this occurs, the affected departments and agencies are typically
funded under continuing appropriations acts until the regular bills become law, either
individually or packaged in omnibus acts. Because continuing appropriations acts
typically are enacted in the form of joint resolutions, such acts are referred to as
continuing resolutions (or CRs).
This report is divided into two segments. The first segment provides the most
recent developments regarding the FY2005 CR. The second segment provides
information on the history of CRs; 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:
FY2005 Continuing Resolutions
Only one of the 13 FY2005 regular appropriations bills has become law.2
Therefore, on September 29, 2004, the House and Senate adopted H.J.Res. 107,
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 President signed into law the FY2005 Defense Appropriations Act on August 5, 2004
(P.L. 108-287).

---

CRS-2
which continues funding for the 12 outstanding FY2005 regular appropriations bills3
through November 20, 2004. The President signed the measure on September 30.
The CR also continues funding for miscellaneous and supplemental
appropriation acts (supplementals) that were enacted in FY2004,4 the FY2004
emergency supplemental for defense and Iraq reconstruction (P.L. 108-106) and
FY2004 emergency supplemental providing assistance after Hurricanes Charley and
Frances and other disasters (P.L. 108-303).
H.J.Res. 107 sets different spending rates for discretionary and mandatory (or
direct) spending activities.5 Under the CR, the discretionary spending level is
generally the total amount of budget authority available in FY2004 for each purpose.
The spending rate excludes the funds that may be needed to fund additional costs,
such as the increased costs of supplies due to inflation. This may result in less
services provided under the activity, for the duration of the continuing resolution.
In contrast, the mandatory spending level is the amount needed to maintain
FY2004 program levels under current law. The CR provides sufficient funds for
direct spending programs to pay for all costs.
H.J.Res. 107 also extends funding for the outstanding bills under terms and
conditions provided in the applicable FY2004 regular appropriations acts. For
example, a provision in an FY2004 regular appropriations act, which applied to a
single account, prohibiting funds for a specified activity or project would generally
remain in effect.
The Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, Representative C.W.
Bill Young, explained other provisions in the CR, some of which are mentioned here.
It includes provisions that allow for the continuation of programs and fee
collections that would otherwise expire, such as entitlements under the food
stamp program, Medicare part B premium assistance, certain child nutrition
programs, the WIC program, and certain SBA loan programs.6
3 The outstanding bills are: Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary; District
of Columbia; Energy and Water Development; Foreign Operations; Homeland Security;
Interior; Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; Legislative Branch; Military
Construction; Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies; and Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies.
4 FY2004 is from Oct. 1, 2003, through Sept. 30, 2004.
5 Congress divides budget authority and the resulting outlays into two categories:
discretionary and mandatory (or direct) spending. Appropriations measures include both
types of spending. Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts,
which are under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Mandatory spending is controlled by legislative acts under the jurisdiction of the authorizing
committees (principally the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees).
6 Rep. C.W. Bill Young, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, available at
[http://www.congress.gov/], visited Sept. 30, 2004.

---

CRS-3
The CR extends certain Department of Defense authorities that expire on September
30, such as authority to pay for travel and transportation benefits for family members
of military personnel injured during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and authority
to provide prepaid phone cards to all of our troops in certain combat zones. H.J.Res.
107 reallocates certain Iraq reconstruction funds in response to a request from the
Secretary of State. It ensures sufficient funding for the Election Assistance
Commission and for presidential transition staff, if necessary, which would be
available immediately following the presidential election.7
For the current status on the FY2005 continuing resolution, see Table 1.
Table 1. Current Status of FY2005 Continuing Resolution
House
Senate
Conference
House
Senate
Conference
Measure
Adopted
Adopted
Report Approval
Public Law
Report
Report
Report
(Vote)
(Vote)
House
Senate
09/29/04
09/29/04
09/30/04
H.J.Res. 107
—
—
—
—
—
(389-32)
(UCa)
a. The Senate adopted the continuing resolution by unanimous consent. That is, a unanimous consent request was proposed to adopt the
measure and since no Senator objected, the resolution was adopted.
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 1. 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-
FY2004 period, see Table 2). When this occurs, affected departments and agencies
usually are funded under continuing appropriations acts. Because continuing
appropriations acts typically are enacted in the form of joint resolutions, such acts are
referred to as continuing resolutions (or CRs).
History and Recent Trends
Continuing resolutions date from at least the late 1870s, and have been a regular
part of the annual appropriations process in the post-World War II period. In fact,
with the exception of three fiscal years, at least one continuing resolution has been
7 Ibid.

---

CRS-4
enacted for each fiscal year since FY1954. (The exceptions were FY1989; FY1995;
and FY1997.) From FY1977 through FY2004, Congress enacted on average five
continuing resolutions per year (for detailed information, see Table 2).
Over the last 30 years, the nature, scope, and duration of continuing resolutions
have varied. 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 2004, the nature, scope, and
duration generally contracted, except during 1995-1996 and 2002-2003. During each
period, an expanded continuing resolution was enacted.

---

CRS-5
Table 2. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by Deadline and
Continuing Resolutions (CRs), FY1977-FY2004
Party in Control of
Congress:
Regular Appropriations Bills:
Fiscal
Presidential
Enacted in
Continuing
Year
Administration
Approved by or
Continuing
Resolutions
Senate
House
on 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
2004
3
0
5
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 - 108th
Congress, 1st session (Washington: GPO, 1995-2003).
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-6
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.
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
sequestration8) 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 Democratic President and newly elected Republican
Congress were in conflict from FY1996 through FY2000. A major conflict occurred
in the first year. 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
8 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-7
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.)
From FY2001 through FY2004, budgetary conflicts continued within Congress
and 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 a 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.
An example of using an omnibus appropriations measure to expedite
consideration occurred during consideration of the FY1997 regular appropriations
bills. 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.
An exception to this recent practice occurred in 2003. Congress used an
FY2003 omnibus continuing resolution to complete action on the 11 outstanding
regular appropriations bills. Under a closed rule,9 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
9 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-8
earlier. They have remained fairly constant in form and structure in recent years.
They have typically established formulas or rates that have provided funding levels
for agencies and activities. For example, the initial FY1991 continuing resolution
(P.L. 101-403) generally provided a formula for specified regular bills. The funding
level for a purpose in a regular bill was the lower of the amounts provided in the
House- and Senate-passed versions of the regular bill. The initial FY2002 continuing
resolution (P.L. 107-44) provided a rate: the previous year’s amount. Since FY1998,
this 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 2 provides the number of regular bills funded through
the end of the fiscal year in continuing resolutions.) 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. The FY2003
full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 108-7) generally required a 0.65% reduction in
discretionary spending provided in the 11 outstanding regular appropriations bills
included in the act. 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.

---

CRS-9
During consideration of the FY1996 continuing resolutions, Congress also used
a another type of continuing resolution — targeted appropriations. Traditionally, a
single continuing resolution provides funding for all activities in the outstanding
regular appropriations and generally provides the same expiration date for all these
bills. In January 1996, Congress separated activities from the six outstanding regular
bills and distributed them among three FY1996 continuing resolutions (P.L. 104-91,
P.L. 104-92, and P.L. 104-94). Some of the activities were full-year funded, while
others were temporarily funded.
Substantive Legislative Provisions. Substantive legislative provisions
(i.e., provisions under the jurisdiction of committees other than the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees) covering a wide range of subjects also have been
included in some continuing resolutions. Continuing resolutions are attractive
vehicles for such provisions because they are considered must-pass legislation on
which the President and Congress eventually must reach agreement. Such provisions
have been included both in 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,10 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
10 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-10
be enacted, a funding gap can affect either a few departments or agencies or most of
the federal government.
Funding gaps are not a recent phenomenon. In fact, by the 1960s and 1970s,
delay in the enactment of appropriation acts, including continuing resolutions,
beyond the beginning of the fiscal year had become almost routine. Notably,
according to a 1981 GAO report, “most Federal managers continued to operate
during periods of funding gaps while minimizing all nonessential operations and
obligations, believing that Congress did not intend that agencies close down while
the appropriations measures were being passed.”11
On April 25, 1980, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a formal opinion
which stated in general that maintaining nonessential operations in the absence of
appropriations was not permitted under the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341), and
that the Justice Department would enforce the criminal sanctions provided for under
the act against future violations.12
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.13
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.”14
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
11 U.S. General Accounting Office, Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government
Operations, GAO/PAD-81-31, Mar. 3, 1981, p. i.
12 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.
13 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.
14 P.L. 101-508 Section 13213(b), 31 U.S.C. 1342.

---

CRS-11
not caused because of a failure to enact an initial continuing resolution, but because
of delay in enacting a further extension.
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.”15 The 1990 amendment, he maintained, basically served to confirm
the appropriateness of the 1981 opinion.
For Additional Reading
Congressional Document
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.
15 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-12
CRS Report RL30339. Preventing Federal Government Shutdowns: Proposals for
an Automatic Continuing Resolution, by Robert Keith.
CRS Report 98-844. Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Effects, and
Process, by Sharon S. Gressle.
FY2005 Regular Appropriations Bills.
CRS Report RL32309, Appropriations for FY2005: Commerce, Justice, State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies, by Ian F. Fergusson and Susan B. Epstein,
Coordinators.
CRS Report RL32302, Appropriations for FY2005: Department of Homeland
Security, by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto.
CRS Report RL32313, Appropriations for FY2005: District of Columbia, by Eugene
Boyd, Coordinator.
CRS Report RL32307, Appropriations for FY2005: Energy and Water Development,
by Carl Behrens, Coordinator.
CRS Report RL32311, Appropriations for FY2005: Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs, by Larry Nowels.
CRS Report RL32306, Appropriations for FY2005: Interior and Related Agencies,
by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren, Coordinators.
CRS Report RL32303, Appropriations for FY2005: Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, by Paul M. Irwin.
CRS Report RL32312, Appropriations for FY2005: Legislative Branch, by Paul E.
Dwyer.
CRS Report RL32310, Appropriations for FY2005: Military Construction, by Daniel
H. Else.
CRS Report RL32308, Appropriations for FY2005: Transportation, Treasury, Postal
Service, Executive Office of the President, General Government, and Related
Agencies, by David Randall Peterman and John Frittelli, Coordinators.
CRS Report RL32301, Appropriations for FY2005: U.S. Department of Agriculture
and Related Agencies, by Ralph M. Chite, Coordinator.
CRS Report RL32304, Appropriations for FY2005: VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies, by Richard Bourdon and Paul Graney, Coordinators.
CRS Report RL32305, Authorization and Appropriations for FY2005: Defense, by
Stephen Daggett and Amy Belasco.

---

CRS-13
Other Sources
U.S. General Accounting Office. Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government
Operations. GAO/PAD-81-31. March 3, 1981.
——. Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Vol. II, 2nd ed. GAO/OGC-92-13.
December1992, chap. 8, “Continuing Resolutions.”

---