Order Code RL30343
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Continuing Appropriations Acts:
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Updated January 10, 2006
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
Traditionally, most of the operations of federal departments and agencies are
funded each year through separate enactment of several regular, annual
appropriations acts. Since these measures expire at the end of the fiscal year, the
regular, annual appropriations bills for the subsequent fiscal year must be enacted by
October 1. However, final action on one or more regular appropriations bills is
typically delayed beyond the deadline. When this occurs, the affected departments
and agencies are generally funded under temporary continuing appropriations acts
until the final funding decisions become law. Because continuing appropriations acts
typically are enacted in the form of joint resolutions, such acts are referred to as
continuing resolutions (or CRs).
CRs 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 past 35 years, the nature, scope, and duration of continuing resolutions
gradually expanded and, then, generally contracted. From the early 1970s through
1987, CRs gradually expanded from interim funding measures of comparatively brief
duration and length to measures providing funding through the end of the fiscal year.
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). Since 1988, continuing resolutions have generally been interim
funding measures with little substantive legislation.
Over the years, delay in the enactment of regular appropriations measures and
CRs 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.
The President and Congress completed action on three consecutive FY2006
continuing resolutions that together temporarily extended funding from October 1,
2005, through December 31, 2005. Continuing resolutions were needed because
final action on all 11 FY2006 regular appropriations bills was not completed until
three months (December 30, 2005) after the start of the fiscal year.

---

Contents
FY2006 Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Selected Content of Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
P.L. 109-77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
P.L. 109-105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
P.L. 109-128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Recent Practices Regarding Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
History and Recent Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Types of Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Substantive Legislative Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Funding Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Congressional Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Budget and Appropriations Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FY2005 Regular Appropriations Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
List of Tables
Table 1. Current Status of FY2006 Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by Deadline and Continuing
Resolutions (CRs), FY1977-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

---

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 several regular, annual
appropriations acts. Since these measures expire at the end of the fiscal year, the
regular, annual appropriations bills for the subsequent fiscal year must be enacted by
October 1.1 However, final action on one or more regular appropriations bills is
typically delayed beyond the deadline. When this occurs, the affected departments
and agencies are generally funded under temporary continuing appropriations acts
until the final funding decisions become law. Because continuing appropriations acts
are, for the most part, 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 and content of the FY2006 continuing resolutions. The second
segment provides information on the history of CRs; the nature, scope, and duration
of CRs during the past 35 years; the types of CRs that have been enacted; and an
overview of those instances when funding (or budget authority2) has lapsed and a
funding gap has resulted.
FY2006 Continuing Resolutions
Most Recent Developments
The President signed the last two FY2006 regular appropriations bills into law
on December 30, 2005,3 three months after the start of the fiscal year. Due to the
1 The fiscal year of the federal government begins on October 1 and ends the following
September 30.
2 Congress funds federal programs and activities by providing agencies budget authority,
instead of cash. Budget authority refers to authority provided by law to enter into financial
obligations requiring either immediate or future expenditures (or outlays) of government
funds. An appropriation is generally a type of budget authority that not only provides
authority to make financial obligations, but also provides authority to make payments from
the Treasury for those purposes.
3 The two bills were Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to
Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (P.L.
109-148); and Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-149).
The nine previously enacted bills were: (1) Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-97); (2)
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
delay in completing action on all 11 FY2006 regular appropriations bills, the
President and Congress completed action on three consecutive FY2006 continuing
resolutions that together temporarily extended funding from October 1, 2005, through
December 31, 2005.
The initial FY2006 continuing resolution (P.L. 109-77) set temporary spending
levels for the outstanding FY2006 regular appropriations bills, while the other two
CRs (P.L. 109-105 and P.L. 109-128) consecutively extended the expiration date of
the initial CR.
Selected Content of Continuing Resolutions
P.L. 109-77. The initial continuing resolution set different spending rates for
(1) activities funded by discretionary spending; and (2) those activities funded by
mandatory (or direct) spending and the Food Stamp Program.4 The spending levels
for the Food Stamp Program and mandatory spending activities, primarily entitlement
programs, were the amounts needed to maintain current program levels under
existing law. This was generally designed to provide additional funding, if needed,
to continue current services for eligible beneficiaries.
The funding levels for discretionary spending activities were based on formulas,
except for a few activities. There were separate formulas for regular appropriations
bills that both the House and Senate passed as of October 1, 2005, and for those bills
that only the House passed as of that date. In cases in which both chambers passed
their versions of a bill by October 1, each account5 was generally funded at the lower
3 (...continued)
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-103); (3) Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-
102); (4) Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-90); (5)
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
(P.L. 109-54); (6) Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-55); (7) Military
Construction, Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L.
109-114); (8) Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2006 (P.L. 109-108); and (9) Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development,
the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
(P.L. 109-115).
4 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). For
more information, see CRS Report 97-684, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An
Introduction, by Sandy Streeter.
5 See U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Apportionment of the Continuing
Resolution(s) for Fiscal Year 2006, OMB Bulletin No. 05-03 (Washington: Sept. 2005).
The basic unit of a regular appropriations act is the account. An account typically funds
several items within a lump-sum amount; in a few cases, an account funds a single item.
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
of the amounts: (1) provided in the House-passed version of the bill; (2) provided
in the Senate-passed version of the bill; or (3) used in FY2005.6 An account funded
by only one chamber was protected. The funding level was not zero, instead it was
the lower of the amount provided by the chamber or the FY2005 level. Accounts
funded in FY2005 that were not funded by either chamber for FY2006, however,
were not protected. No funding for these accounts was provided under the
continuing resolution.
The formula for bills the Senate did not pass by October 1, 2005, was the lower
of the amount provided in the House-passed bill or the amount used in FY2005. In
cases in which the House did not provide an appropriation for an account that was
funded in FY2005, funding was provided at the FY2005 level.
Under the initial CR, funding was available under terms and conditions
provided in the applicable FY2005 regular appropriations acts. For example, a
provision in an FY2005 regular appropriations act prohibiting the use of funds in an
account for a specified activity or project would generally be in effect.
P.L. 109-105. This act simply extended the initial continuing resolution from
November 19 through December 17, 2005.
P.L. 109-128. The final continuing resolution extended the initial CR from
December 18 through December 31, 2005.
For the current status of the FY2006 continuing resolutions, see Table 1.
5 (...continued)
Congress divides funding for each department and large independent agency into several
accounts, while it typically funds small agencies with a single account.
6 Technically, the continuing resolution stated the FY2005 amount would be at a rate of
operations not exceeding the current rate. This phrase refers to a net amount which, for
purposes of this FY2006 continuing resolution, OMB has instructed agencies to calculate
as follows. For each account, the agency is to add: (1) amount provided in the FY2005
regular appropriations act; (2) amount of supplemental appropriations that OMB designates
as recurring, ongoing supplemental funding (OMB excludes supplemental funding for one-
time, non-recurring activities); (3) amounts transferred among accounts, if the transfers were
mandated by law; and (4) any discretionary funds carried over into FY2005. (Congress
frequently provides appropriations for specified activities that are available for more than
one fiscal year.) Each agency is to subtract the following: (1) any discretionary funds still
available for obligation at the end of FY2005; and (2) any rescissions (such as the across-
the-board reductions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, P.L. 108-447).
(Rescissions cancel previously enacted budget authority and, like budget authority, must be
enacted into law.) U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Apportionment of the
Continuing Resolution(s) for Fiscal Year 2006.

---

CRS-4
Table 1. Current Status of FY2006 Continuing Resolutions
Conference
House
Senate
Report Approval
House
Adopted
Senate
Adopted
Conference
Measure
Report
(Vote)
Report
(Vote)
Report
House
Senate
Public law
09/29/05
09/30/05
09/30/05
H.J.Res. 68
—
—
—
—
—
348-65
voice vote
P.L. 109-77
11/17/05
11/18/05
11/19/05
H.J.Res. 72
—
—
—
—
—
413-16
voice vote
P.L. 109-105
12/17/05
12/17/05
12/18/05
H.J.Res. 75
—
voice votea
—
UCb
—
—
—
P.L. 109-128
a. The House adopted the measure under suspension of the rules.
b. 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.7 Traditionally,
most of the operations of federal departments and agencies are funded each year
through separate enactment of several regular, annual appropriations acts.8 Because
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, final action on
one or more regular appropriations bills is typically delayed beyond the deadline (for
data on the FY1977-FY2006 period, see Table 2). When this occurs, the affected
departments and agencies are generally funded under temporary continuing
appropriations acts until the final funding decisions are enacted. Because continuing
appropriations acts typically are enacted in the form of joint resolutions, such acts are
referred to as continuing resolutions (or CRs).
7 Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and 31 U.S.C. 1341. A major exception to this
concept is contract authority. Congress enacts legislation providing an agency with
authority to make obligations (budget authority). After the obligations are made, Congress
provides the appropriations providing the authority to make the payments in another law
(appropriations). Such appropriations are not considered budget authority.
8 For almost 40 years (FY1968-FY2005), Congress considered 13 regular appropriations
bills each year. Beginning with FY2006, the number of bills considered was reduced due
to separate reorganizations of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Now, the
House initially considers 11 regular bills and the Senate 12 bills.

---

CRS-5
History and Recent Trends
Continuing resolutions date from at least the late 1870s, and have been a regular
part of the annual appropriations process for over 50 years. In fact, with the exception
of three fiscal years, at least one continuing resolution has been enacted for each fiscal
year since FY1954.9 (Although all 13 FY1977 regular appropriations bills became
law on or by the deadline, two CRs were enacted. These CRs generally provided
funding for certain unauthorized activities that had not been included in the regular
appropriations acts.) From FY1978 through FY2006, Congress enacted on average
five continuing resolutions per year (for detailed information, see Table 2).
During the past 35 years, the nature, scope, and duration of continuing
resolutions expanded and, then, generally contracted. 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
2005, the continuing resolutions generally contracted into interim funding measures
that did not include the full text of the bills or much substantive legislation.
9 The three exceptions were FY1989, FY1995, and FY1997. In the first two instances, all
13 regular appropriations bills were enacted individually on or by the deadline. In the last
instance, the deadline was met by adding five regular bills to a sixth bill, forming an
omnibus appropriations act, and enacting seven bills individually.

---

CRS-6
Table 2. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by Deadline and
Continuing Resolutions (CRs), FY1977-FY2006
Party in Control
Regular
of Congress
Appropriations Bills
Approved by
Presidential
or on
Enacted in
CRs
FY
Administration
Senate
House
October 1
CRs
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
0b
13
1997
(13)c
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
0f
8
2004
3
0
5
2005
1
0
3
2006
2
0
3
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, 2nd session (Washington: GPO, 1995-2004).
a. Although all 13 FY1977 regular appropriations bills became law on or by the deadline, two CRs
were enacted. These CRs generally provided funding for certain unauthorized activities that had
not been included in the regular appropriations acts.
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 deadline was met by adding five regular bills to a sixth regular bill, forming an omnibus
appropriations act, and enacting seven bills individually.
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
were the majority in 2003, during which final action on the remaining 11 FY2003 regular bills
occurred.
f. One measure (P.L. 108-7) originated as a continuing resolution, but in conference it was converted
into an omnibus appropriations resolution.

---

CRS-7
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
sequestration)10 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 from FY1996 through FY2002, conflict within Congress and between Congress
and the President on funding and policy issues generally delayed action on regular
appropriations bills. In particular, there were significant conflicts between the
Democratic President and Republican Congress from FY1996 through FY2001.
10 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-8
Instead of resolving these differences in expanded continuing resolutions,
Congress and the Administration generally resolved them in omnibus regular
appropriations bills (or in separate appropriations bills). Omnibus regular
appropriations bills were generally developed by attaching outstanding regular
appropriations bills and substantive legislation to another regular appropriations bill
in conference. During this period, continuing resolutions, when needed, provided
interim funding for short periods of time and included little substantive legislation.
This practice has continued through FY2005.
The change in the type of vehicle for omnibus appropriations measures from full-
year continuing resolutions to regular appropriations bills was due, in part, to avoid
floor amendments to regular appropriations bills and 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 to 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 the 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.
Types of Continuing Resolutions
Continuing resolutions generally can be divided into two categories — interim
and full-year continuing resolutions.11
Interim (or partial) continuing resolutions provide temporary funding until a
specific date or until the enactment of the applicable regular appropriations acts, if
earlier. Since FY1988, they have remained fairly constant in form and structure.
They have typically set formulas or rates to calculate the funding level for each
account (and/or activities, project(s), or program(s) with each account). The initial
FY2006 continuing resolution (P.L. 109-77), for example, generally provided two
formulas. In the case of FY2006 regular bills passed by both the House and Senate
as of October 1st, the amount for each account was the lower of the House-passed bill
amount, Senate-passed bill amount, or the FY2005 spending level. For those bills
that the Senate did not pass as of October 1st, the amount for each account was the
lower of the House-passed amount or the FY2005 spending level The initial FY2002
continuing resolution (P.L. 107-44) provided a rate: the previous year's amount.
In most cases, the funding rate or formula have applied to all or almost all the
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).
11 For more information, see CRS Report RL32614, Duration of Continuing Resolutions in
Recent Years, by Robert Keith.

---

CRS-9
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 two types: (1) full text of the regular act; and (2) language
that incorporates regular acts by reference to the latest stage of congressional action
(usually the conference agreement, if one has been reached).
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 less than half a page).
Since FY1977, Congress has included across-the-board spending reductions in
a few full-year and interim continuing resolutions. The continuing resolutions
generally provided a specific percentage reduction for activities in the specified
regular appropriations bills. The FY1992 full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 102-
266), for example, required a 1.5% spending reduction in discretionary spending
activities in the only outstanding FY1992 regular appropriations bill. Another
example is the FY1982 interim continuing resolution (P.L. 97-92), that included a 4%
across-the-board reduction, with certain exceptions, for specified FY1982 regular
appropriations bills. A subsequent FY1982 full-year continuing resolution extended
this provision through the end of the fiscal year.
During consideration of the FY1996 continuing resolutions, Congress also used
a another type of continuing resolution: targeted appropriations. A single continuing
resolution traditionally 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.

---

CRS-10
House Rules XXI, Clause 2, and XXII, Clause 5, prohibit legislative provisions
or unauthorized appropriations12 in general appropriations measures, 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 that establish major new policies and amend permanent provisions of law,
such as omnibus crime control legislation (in FY1985). They have also included
narrower provisions focused on temporary or one-time problems, such as providing
a temporary extension of statutory authority to pay for travel and transportation
benefits for family members of military personnel injured during operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan (in FY2005). These provisions vary in length from less than one
page to more than 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.
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.”13
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.14
12 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, by Sandy Streeter).
13 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government
Operations, GAO/PAD-81-31, Mar. 3, 1981, p. i.
14 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Memorandum to the
President, Apr. 25, 1980, reprinted in Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government
(continued...)

---

CRS-11
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.15 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.”16
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). 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.
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.”17 The 1990 amendment, he maintained, basically served to confirm
the appropriateness of the 1981 opinion.
14 (...continued)
Operations, App. IV, pp. 63-67.
15 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.
16 P.L. 101-508 Section 13213(b), 31 U.S.C. 1342.
17 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
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 RL32614, Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years, by
Robert Keith.
CRS Report RL30619, Examples of Legislative Provisions in Omnibus
Appropriations Acts, by Robert Keith.
CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith.
CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, by Robert Keith.
CRS Report 97-865, Points of Order in the Congressional Budget Process, by James
V. Saturno.
CRS Report RL30339, Preventing Federal Government Shutdowns: Proposals for
an Automatic Continuing Resolution, by Robert Keith.

---

CRS-13
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.
Other Sources
U.S. Government Accountability 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.”

---