The “Deeming Resolution”:
A Budget Enforcement Tool
Robert Keith
Specialist in American National Government
May 17, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL31443
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees 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 of four years 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.
For FY2005 and FY2007, the House and Senate again used deeming resolutions when they were
unable to reach final agreement on the budget resolutions for those fiscal years.
This report will be updated as developments warrant.
Congressional Research Service
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
Contents
Substantive Enforcement of the Budget Resolution ..................................................................... 1
The “Deeming Resolution” ......................................................................................................... 2
House and Senate Action on Deeming Resolutions ...................................................................... 3
Tardy Adoption of the Budget Resolution.............................................................................. 3
Failure to Adopt the Budget Resolution ................................................................................. 5
Actions for FY1999 ........................................................................................................ 8
Actions for FY2003 ........................................................................................................ 8
Actions for FY2005 ...................................................................................................... 11
Actions for FY2007 ...................................................................................................... 12
Waivers of Section 303 of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act .................................................. 14
Tables
Table 1. Dates of Final Adoption of Budget Resolutions: FY1976-FY2010................................ 4
Table 2. House and Senate Action on Deeming Resolutions for Fiscal Years 1999, 2003,
2005, and 2007 ........................................................................................................................ 6
Appendixes
Appendix. Text of Deeming Resolutions ................................................................................... 16
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 23
Congressional Research Service
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
eeming 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
“D 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 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, plus revisions to
the current fiscal year).
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 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
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: Historical Information, by Bill Heniff Jr. and Justin Murray.
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.
Congressional Research Service
1
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
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.3 Section
302(b) requires the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to subdivide their allocations
by subcommittee.4 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
multi-year 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 more recent years, however, the reconciliation process also
encompassed revenue reduction generally and spending increases in selected program areas. At
the beginning of the 110th Congress, the House and Senate adopted rules restricting the use of
reconciliation to deficit reduction.5
Reconciliation is a two-step process.6 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 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
3 If the budget aggregates for the fiscal year in progress (the “current year”) are revised in the budget resolution, then
the current-year spending allocations to committees are revised as well.
4 The 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.
5 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33818, Federal Budget Process Reform in the 110th Congress: A Brief
Overview, by Robert Keith.
6 Reconciliation procedures are discussed in detail in CRS Report RL33030, The Budget Reconciliation Process: House
and Senate Procedures, by Robert Keith and Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service
2
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
situation regarding budget enforcement for upcoming fiscal years. The multi-year 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. Changing economic and
technical factors over the past year, however, may have rendered the prior budget levels 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).7
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.
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 31 of the 35 fiscal years covering FY1976-FY2010, the House and Senate adopted at least
one budget resolution, as shown in Table 1. The House and Senate were not able to reach
agreement on budget resolutions for FY1999, FY2003, FY2005, and FY2007. In most of the 31
years for which a budget resolution was adopted, final agreement on the measure was reached in
April, May, or early June, allowing the House and Senate to bring the regular appropriations bills
and other budgetary legislation to the floor with little or no delay.
7 See “Brother, Can You Spare a Deem?” in the Senate Budget Committee (Republican Staff) Budget Bulletin of May
5, 2008 for a discussion of the status of enforcement procedures in the Senate in the absence of a budget resolution; it is
available online at http://www.senate.gov/~budget/republican/analysis/2008/bb06-2008.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
In some instances, however, the final budget resolution was not in place until late June, or even
until August or October. The general practice of the Senate in such years, particularly with regard
to the regular appropriations bills, was to consider legislation within the framework of the Senate-
passed budget resolution but not to adopt a deeming resolution. For example, spending levels
provided in the appropriations bills generally were consistent with the spending allocations to the
Senate Appropriations Committee and the spending suballocations thereunder that would have
been made had the Senate-passed levels become the final ones. Consideration of the measures
usually occurred by unanimous consent.
The tardy adoption of budget resolutions has been more of a problem for the House than the
Senate, especially because the House usually 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. 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.8 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.9 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 (the statutory limits expired at the end of FY2002).
Table 1. Dates of Final Adoption of Budget Resolutions:
FY1976-FY2010
Fiscal
Date
Fiscal
Date
Year
Adopted
Year
Adopted
1976 05-14-1975 1994 04-01-1993
1977 05-13-1976 1995 05-12-1994
1978 05-17-1977 1996 06-29-1995
1979 05-17-1978 1997 06-13-1996
1980 05-24-1979 1998 06-05-1997
1981 06-12-1980 1999 [none]
1982 05-21-1981 2000 04-15-1999
1983 06-23-1982 2001 04-13-2000
1984 06-23-1983 2002 05-10-2001
1985 10-01-1984 2003 [none]
1986 08-01-1985 2004 04-11-2003
8 See the new Section 603 of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act as added by Section 13111 of the BEA of 1990 (104
Stat. 1388-605).
9 See Section 302(a)(5) of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act as added by Section 10106 of the BEA of 1997 (111
Stat. 680-681).
Congressional Research Service
4
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
Fiscal
Date
Fiscal
Date
Year
Adopted
Year
Adopted
1987 06-27-1986 2005 [none]
1988 06-24-1987 2006 04-28-2005
1989 06-06-1988 2007 [none]
1990 05-18-1989 2008 05-17-2007
1991 10-09-1990 2009 06-05-2008
1992 05-22-1991 2010 04-29-2009
1993 05-21-1992 —
—
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
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
rules10 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.11
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.12 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.
Failure to Adopt the Budget Resolution
As stated previously, the House and Senate failed to adopt a budget resolution four times during
the past 35 years—in 1998 for FY1999, in 2002 for FY2003, in 2004 for FY2005, and in 2006 for
FY2007. House and Senate action on deeming resolutions for these years is summarized in Table
2 and discussed in more detail below. The Appendix sets forth the text of the deeming
resolutions.
10 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.
11 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.
12 See the remarks of Senator Robert C. Byrd in the Congressional Record of July 12, 1990, at pp. S9642-9643, in
which he explains the purpose of S.Res. 308 and the status of congressional action on the regular appropriations acts
for FY1991.
Congressional Research Service
5
Table 2. House and Senate Action on Deeming Resolutions for FY1999, FY2003, FY2005, and FY2007
House Deeming
Senate Deeming
Resolution
Resolution
Fiscal
Year
Congress
Type of Measure
Measure
Date
Measure
Date
Number
Adopted
Number
Adopted
1999
105th H.Res.
477 06-19-19
S.Re
98 s. 209
04-02-1998 House: The initial deeming resolution was Section 2 of H.Res. 477, a special rule providing
for the consideration of the Military Constructions Appropriations Act for FY1999. A
S.Res. 312
10-21-1998 follow-up measure in the next session was part of the opening-day rules package (Section
106th H.Res.
5
01-06-
— — 2(a) of H.Res. 5).
1999a
Senate: The two deeming resolutions were simple Senate resolutions directed solely to
that purpose.
2003
107th H.Res.
428
05-22-2002 [none] [none] House: The initial deeming resolution was Section 2 of H.Res. 428, a special rule providing
for the consideration of a supplemental appropriations act for FY2002 (H.R. 4775). A
108th H.Res.
5
01-07-
follow-up measure in the next session was part of the opening-day rules package (Section
2003a
3(a)(4) of H.Res. 5).
Senate: Actions to establish a deeming resolution were unsuccessful.
2005
108th H.Res.
649
05-19-2004 P.L.
108-287
07-22-2004 House: The initial deeming resolution was Section 2 of H.Res. 649, a special rule providing
for the consideration of the conference report on the FY2005 budget resolution
(H.R. 4613) (08-05-
(S.Con.Res. 95). A follow-up measure in the next session was part of the opening-day rules
2004)
package (Section 3(a)(4) of H.Res. 5).
109th H.Res.
5
01-04-
— — Senate: The deeming resolution was Section 14007 (118 Stat. 1014) of the Defense
2005a
Appropriations Act for FY2005 (H.R. 4613), which became Public Law 108-287.
2007
109th H.Res.
818
05-18-2006 P.L.
109-234 06-15-2006 House: The initial deeming resolution was Section 2 of H.Res. 818, a special rule providing
for the consideration of the Department of Interior Appropriations Act for FY2007(H.R.
(H.R. 4939)
5386)). A fol ow-up measure in the next session was part of the opening-day rules package
110th H.Res.
6
01-05-
— — (Section 511(a)(4) of H.Res. 6).
2007a
Senate: The deeming resolution was Section 7035 (120 Stat. 489-490) of the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane
Recovery for FY2006 (H.R. 4939), which became Public Law 109-234.
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
a. Deeming resolution provisions were included in the resolution establishing the House rules at the opening of the Congress.
CRS-6
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
As Table 2 shows, the House and Senate have followed different patterns in terms of action on
deeming resolutions. For each of the four fiscal years, the House used the same approach,
adopting a deeming resolution in May or June, a month or two after the prescribed date for
reaching final agreement with the Senate on a budget resolution.
The legislative vehicle for the deeming resolution in each instance was a special rule reported by
the House Rules Committee. Three of the special rules provided for the consideration of an
annual appropriations act (two regular appropriations acts and one supplemental appropriations
act) and the other provided for the consideration of a conference report on a budget resolution.
Each of the special rules contained a separate section setting forth the deeming resolution
provisions.
At the beginning of the next session (which started a new Congress), additional deeming
resolution provisions were adopted by the House as part of the opening-day rules package,
usually numbered H.Res. 5 (in 2007, the rules package was H.Res. 6, which was approved by a
separate vote on each title over the first two days). These actions were required because simple
House resolutions (such as special rules reported by the House Rules Committee) do not carry
over into a new Congress; thus, the initial deeming resolution had to be renewed by the adoption
of a new resolution.
The initial deeming resolution first used by the House, for FY1999, only provided spending
allocations to the House Appropriations Committee. In the other three years, the initial deeming
resolution had a broader application, putting into effect the entire budget resolution at its latest
stage of action (House passage or House agreement to the conference report). In the two most
recent instances, for FY2005 and FY2007, the deeming resolution blocked the automatic
engrossment of a joint resolution increasing the public debt limit, as provided for under House
Rule XXVII, forcing a debt-limit increase under regular legislative procedures.13
Subsequent deeming resolution provisions, included in the opening-day rules package for the
106th Congress and the 108th-110th Congresses, continued budget resolution policies and
procedures into the new Congress.
The Senate has employed more varied practices than the House with respect to deeming
resolutions. For FY1999, it adopted two simple resolutions for this purpose in a single session
(the first only provided spending allocations to the Senate Appropriations Committee, but the
second had a much broader application). In the following instance, for FY2003, the Senate did
not adopt a deeming resolution, despite several attempts to do so. In the last two instances, for
FY2005 and FY2007, the Senate included deeming resolution provisions in statute, including a
regular appropriations act (enacted in August) and a supplemental appropriations act (enacted in
June). These latter two deeming resolutions focused principally on establishing new allocations of
total discretionary spending to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and repealing or making
inapplicable appropriations caps for the pertinent fiscal years, included in the prior year’s budget
resolution, that were considered obsolete and too restrictive.
13 See CRS Report RS21519, Legislative Procedures for Adjusting the Public Debt Limit: A Brief Overview, by Bill
Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service
7
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
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.”14 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.”15 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 FY199 (H.R. 4059). 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 of a budget resolution.16 House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich
submitted the aggregates and allocations on February 25 and March 3, 1999.17
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 was heightened by anticipation of the expiration
toward the end of the session 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 were enforced by sequestration) and the Senate’s pay-as-you-
14 The text of S.Res. 209 is set forth on page S3160 of the Congressional Record of April 2, 1998.
15 The text of S.Res. 312, and the debate thereon, may be found in the Congressional Record of October 21, 1998, on
pages S12915 and S12916.
16 The text of Section 2(a) of H.Res. 5 is printed in the Congressional Record of January 6, 1999, on page H34.
17 See the remarks of Rep. Kasich in the Congressional Record of February 25 and March 3, 1999, on pages H809-H
810 and H949-H951, respectively.
Congressional Research Service
8
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
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.18
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).19 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.20
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 2003.21
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.22
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.23 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.24 The
amendment fell on a point of order that it was nongermane after cloture had been invoked.
18 For more information on these enforcement procedures, see (1) CRS Report RL31137, Sequestration Procedures
Under the 1985 Balanced Budget Act, by Robert Keith; CRS Report RS21378, Termination of the “Pay-As-You-Go”
(PAYGO) Requirement for FY2003 and Later Years, by Robert Keith; (3), CRS Report RL32835, PAYGO Rules for
Budget Enforcement in the House and Senate, by Robert Keith and Bill Heniff Jr.; and (4) CRS Report RS21316,
Budget Enforcement Procedures: Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule, by Bill Heniff Jr.
19 See the consideration of H.Res. 428 in the Congressional Record of May 22, 2002, at pages H2891-H2902.
20 See the remarks of Rep. Jim Nussle in the Congressional Record of May 22, 2002, at pages H2929-H2930.
21 See “Hastert Supports Renewal of Pay-Go But Expects No Action Until 2003,” by Bud Newman in BNA’s Daily
Report for Executives, October 4, 2002.
22 See S.Rept. 107-141; Committee reported S.Con.Res. 100 favorably by a vote of 12-10.
23 For the text and discussion of the Gregg-Feingold amendment, see pages S5005-S5015 in the Congressional Record
of June 5, 2002; for the text and discussion of the Santorum amendment, see pages S5018-S5021.
24 For 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.
Congressional Research Service
9
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
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
#3916.25 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.26
Majority Leader Daschle confirmed that the Senate would consider such legislation before
adjournment.27
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, 2003.28 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.29 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.30
25 For 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.
26 The letter, as well as the text of the resolution, is available online at http://www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/
budgetresFY03/resletter091902.pdf.
27 See “Daschle Promises Senate Will Debate Resolution Extending Budget Disciplines,” by Bud Newman in BNA’s
Daily Report for Executives, October 2, 2002.
28 See the consideration of S.Res. 304 in the Congressional Record of October 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, October 17, 2002.
29 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.
30 See the remarks of Rep. Jim Nussle in the Congressional Record of January 8, 2003, at pages H74-H75. Rep. Nussle
was elected chairman of the House Budget Committee on January 8 by virtue of the House’s adoption of H.Res. 24.
Congressional Research Service
10
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
On April 11, 2003, the House and Senate reached final agreement on a budget resolution for
FY2004 (H.Con.Res. 95).31 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 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, 2003.32
As of the end of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate did not renew the discretionary
spending limits and PAYGO requirement in statute that expired at the end of 2002.
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 did not consider it.
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.
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 could have occurred in 2004 only if
the Senate adopted the conference report on S.Con.Res. 95. Congress and the President enacted
legislation raising the debt limit (P.L. 108-415; November 19, 2004) under regular legislative
procedures. (In most instances, the House and Senate use other means to enact debt-limit
legislation.33)
31 See the conference report on H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 108-71 (April 10, 2003).
32 P.L. 108-11, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, was enacted into law on April 16,
2003.
33 See CRS Report RS21519, Legislative Procedures for Adjusting the Public Debt Limit: A Brief Overview, by Bill
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
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. Section 14007 (118 Stat. 1014) 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).
In 2005, the House took additional actions pertaining to budget enforcement for FY2005. On the
opening day of the 109th Congress (January 4, 2005), 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.34 Section 3(a)(4) made the conference report on the
FY2005 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 95), adopted by the House on May 19, 2004, but not
considered by the Senate, effective for purposes of budget enforcement in 2005, pending adoption
of a FY2005 budget resolution. The House’s deeming resolution also provided for the
continuation into the new Congress of the Section 302(a) allocations for FY2005, as made and
adjusted in the prior session.
Actions for FY2007
House and Senate actions on deeming resolutions for FY2007 were similar to the pattern that
occurred two years earlier.
The Senate Budget Committee initiated action on the budget resolution for FY2007 by reporting
S.Con.Res. 83 on March 10, 2006 (in lieu of a written report to accompany the measure, a
committee print was issued, S.Prt. 109-057, March 2006). Three weeks later, the House Budget
Committee reported its version of the FY2007 budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 376 (H.Rept. 109-
402, March 31, 2006). The Senate passed S.Con.Res. 83 on March 16, and the House passed
(...continued)
Heniff Jr.
34 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RS22021, House Rules Changes Affecting the Congressional
Budget Process in the 109th Congress (H.Res. 5), by Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service
12
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
H.Con.Res. 376 on May 18. Unlike the case for FY2005, however, the House and Senate did not
take any conference action on the FY2007 budget resolution.
Once again, the House included deeming resolution provisions in a special rule on an annual
appropriations act. On May 18, 2006, the House agreed to H.Res. 818 (H.Rept. 109-469, May 17,
2006), a special rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 5386, the Interior Appropriations Act
for FY2007; the House agreed to the measure by a vote of 218-192. Section 2 of H.Res. 818 put
into effect the budget policies embodied in the FY2007 budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 376, as
adopted by the House, as well as the procedures under Title III of the 1974 Congressional Budget
Act used to enforce them. In addition, Section 2 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. Congress and the President increased the debt limit in 2006 under regular legislative
procedures (P.L. 109-182, March 20, 2006).
Several weeks following House action on the deeming resolution provision, the Senate addressed
the matter as well. As had been the case two years earlier, Senate action on the regular
appropriations acts for FY2007 was subject to a cap established in the budget resolution for the
prior year that was judged to be too tight. The FY2007 budget resolution passed by the Senate, as
well as by the House, reflected a cap on appropriations for the fiscal year of $873 billion, but the
cap for that fiscal year established in the FY2006 budget resolution was $7 billion lower, at $866
billion. This situation raised the same problems that the Senate faced in 2004.
On June 15, 2006, the Senate resolved the matter by adopting the conference report on H.R. 4939,
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery for FY2006. President Bush signed the measure into law the same day, as
P.L. 109-234. Section 7035 (120 Stat. 489-490) of the act, which took effect upon enactment,
established the revised level of $873 billion as the allocation of new budget authority to the
Senate Appropriations Committee for purposes of Section 302(a) of the 1974 act (and made the
outdated limit of $866 billion in the prior year’s budget resolution inapplicable). Further, the $873
billion cap was made subject to provisions in the Senate-passed budget resolution pertaining to
limitations and adjustments applicable to emergency spending.
The following year, in 2007, the House took additional actions pertaining to budget enforcement
for FY2007. During the first two days of the 110th Congress, January 4 and 5, the House adopted
H.Res. 6, a measure setting forth its standing rules. Separate votes were taken on each title of the
measure (rather than a single vote on adoption of the measure in its entirety); the first two titles
were agreed to on January 4 and the remaining three titles were agreed to on January 5. Title V,
which dealt with various special orders and miscellaneous matters, was agreed to by a vote of
232-200.
Special orders pertaining to the budget process and other matters were set forth in Section 511 of
the resolution.35 Section 511(a)(4)(A) made the provisions of the FY2007 budget resolution
adopted in the preceding year (H.Con.Res. 376) effective for purposes of budget enforcement in
2007, pending adoption of a FY2008 budget resolution.
35 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RL34149, House Rules Changes Affecting the Congressional
Budget Process Made at the Beginning of the 110th Congress, by Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service
13
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
In addition, Section 511(a)(4)(B) of H.Res. 6 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 February 6, 2007, Representative John
Spratt, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, submitted the information required by
H.Res. 6.36
The House and Senate reached final agreement on the FY2008 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 21)
on May 17, 2007.37 In addition to recommending spending levels for FY2008-FY2012, the
measure revised the spending levels for FY2007. In the House, the revised spending levels for
FY2007 effectively superseded the levels established in the deeming resolution automatically
(because the deeming resolution was in effect only until the FY2008 budget resolution was
adopted). In the Senate, however, affirmative action had to be taken to terminate the deeming
resolution, thereby avoiding any conflict with the newly revised spending levels. Accordingly,
Section 208 of the FY2008 budget resolution stated that “Section 7035 of P.L. 109-234 shall no
longer apply in the Senate.”
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,38 as follows:
36 See the remarks of Rep. John Spratt in the Congressional Record of February 6, 2007, at p. H1234.
37 See Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, conference report to accompany S.Con.Res. 21,
H.Rept. 110-153 (May 16, 2007).
38 See the following archived reports, which are available from the author: (1) CRS Report 89-37, Senate Consideration
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
• 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
• 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 110th Congress, of the 14 budget resolutions that
were adopted, 10 were adopted in April or May; the remaining four were adopted in June. In
addition, in recent years the Senate sometimes has deferred the initial consideration of some of
the regular appropriations bills until late in the session due to political difficulties, or even
abandoned the consideration of individual appropriations bills in favor of consolidated
appropriations measures. Accordingly, in the 14 years during this period that budget resolutions
were adopted, the Senate Appropriations Committee was able to avoid the need for waivers of
Section 303(a).
During the four years in which the House and Senate failed to agree on a budget resolution,
regular appropriations bills generally were taken up by unanimous consent, without any efforts to
raise points of order under Section 303(a).
(...continued)
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.
Congressional Research Service
15
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
Appendix. Text of Deeming Resolutions
FY1999
▪ H.Res. 477, Section 2 (105th Congress)
Sec. 2. Pending the adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1999, the following allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 shall be considered as made to the Committee on Appropriations:
(1) New discretionary budget authority: $531,961,000,000.
(2) Discretionary outlays: $562,277,000,000.
(3) New mandatory budget authority: $298,105,000,000.
(4) Mandatory outlays: $290,858,000,000.
▪ H.Res. 5, Section 2(a)(1) (106th Congress)
Sec. 2. Separate Orders.
(a) Budget Enforcement—(1) Pending the adoption by the Congress of a concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999—
(A) the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, when elected, shall publish in the
Congressional Record budget totals contemplated by section 301 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 and allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of that Act for each of the fiscal
years 1999 through 2003;
(B) those totals and levels shall be effective in the House as though established under a
concurrent resolution on the budget and sections 301 and 302 of that Act; and
(C) the publication of those totals and levels shall be considered as the completion of
Congressional action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999.
▪ S.Res. 209 (105th Congress)
Resolved, That for the purposes of section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
the estimated allocation of the appropriate levels of budget totals for the Senate Committee on
Appropriations shall be—
For non-defense—
(1) $289,547,000,000 in total budget outlays, and
(2) $255,450,000,000 in total new budget authority;
Congressional Research Service
16
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
for defense—
(1) $266,635,000,000 in total budget outlays, and
(2) $271,570,000,000 in total new budget authority;
for violent crime reduction—
(1) $4,953,000,000 in total budget outlays, and
(2) $5,800,000,000 in total new budget authority;
for mandatory—
(1) $291,731,000,000 in total budget outlays, and
(2) $299,159,000,000 in total new budget authority; until a concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1999 is agreed to by the Senate and the House of Representatives
pursuant to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
FY1999—continued
▪ S.Res. 313 (105th Congress)
Resolved, That Senate Resolution 209, agreed to April 2, 1999 (105th Congress), is amended
by striking all after the resolving clause and inserting the following:
Section 1. Senate Budget Levels.
(a) In General.—For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and
section 202 of House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress), the following levels,
amounts, and allocations shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as a concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999 and including the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003:
(1) Federal Revenues.—The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $1,358,919,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $1,388,039,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,424,774,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,480,891,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,534,362,000,000.
(2) New Budget Authority.—The appropriate levels of new budget authority are as
follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $1,417,136,000,000.
Congressional Research Service
17
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
Fiscal year 2000: $1,453,654,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,489,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,517,259,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,577,949,000,000.
(3) Budget Outlays.—The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $1,402,185,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $1,438,029,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,473,660,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,484,272,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,548,914,000,000.
(4) Social Security Revenues.—The amounts of revenues of the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as
follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $441,749,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $460,115,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $477,722,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $497,290,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $518,752,000,000.
(5) Social Security Outlays.—The amounts of outlays of the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as
follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $321,261,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $330,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $344,041,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $355,614,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $368,890,000,000.
(b) Revisions.—
Congressional Research Service
18
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
(1) In General.—The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may file 1 set
of revisions to the levels, amounts, and allocations provided by this resolution and those
revisions shall only reflect legislation enacted in the 105th Congress and not assumed in
this resolution.
(2) Congressional Pay-Go Scorecard.—Upon making revisions pursuant to paragraph
(1) and for the purpose of enforcing section 202 of House Concurrent Resolution 67
(104th Congress), the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall reduce any
balances of direct spending and receipts for any fiscal year to zero.
(c) Effective Date and Expiration.—This resolution shall—
(1) take effect on the date that the Congress adjourns sine die or the date the 105th
Congress expires, whichever date is earlier; and
(2) expire on the effective date of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
1999 agreed to pursuant to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Sec. 2. Committee Allocations.
Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
file allocations consistent with this resolution pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
FY2003
▪ H.Res. 428, Section 2 (107th Congress)
Sec. 2. (a) Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2003,
the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 353, as adopted by the House, shall have force
and effect in the House as though Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution.
(b) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall submit for printing in the
Congressional Record—
(1) the allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, which shall be considered to be such allocations under a concurrent resolution on the
budget;
(2) ‘Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations,’ which shall be considered to be the
programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to section 301(b) of House Concurrent
Resolution 353; and
(3) an estimated unified surplus, which shall be considered to be the estimated unified
surplus set forth in the report of the Committee on the Budget accompanying House
Concurrent Resolution 353 referred to in section 211 of such concurrent resolution.
Congressional Research Service
19
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
(c) The allocation referred to in section 231(d) of House Concurrent Resolution 353 shall be
considered to be the corresponding allocation among those submitted by the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget under subsection (b)(1).
▪ H.Res. 5, Section 3(a)(4) (108th Congress)
Sec. 3. Separate Orders.
(a) Budget Matters.—
...
(4)(A) During the One Hundred Eighth Congress, pending the adoption of a concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2003, the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution
353 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress, as adopted by the House, shall have force and
effect in the House as though the One Hundred Eighth Congress has adopted such a
concurrent resolution.
(B) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget (when elected) shall submit for
printing in the Congressional Record—
(I) the allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 to accompany the concurrent resolution described in subparagraph (A),
which shall be considered to be such allocations under a concurrent resolution on the
budget;
(ii) “Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations”, which shall be considered
to be the programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to section 301(b) of
House Concurrent Resolution 353 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress, as adopted
by the House; and
(iii) an estimated unified surplus, which shall be considered to be the estimated
unified surplus set forth in the report of the Committee on the Budget accompanying
House Concurrent Resolution 353 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress referred to
in section 211 of such concurrent resolution.
(C) The allocation referred to in section 231(d) of House Concurrent Resolution 353
of the One Hundred Seventh Congress, as adopted by the House, shall be considered to
be the corresponding allocation among those submitted by the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget under subparagraph (B)(I).
FY2005
▪ H.Res. 649, Section 2 (108th Congress)
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—
Congressional Research Service
20
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
(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.
▪ H.Res. 5, Section 3(a)(4) (109th Congress)
Sec. 3. Separate Orders.
(a) Budget Matters.—
...
(4)(A) During the One Hundred Ninth Congress, until a concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2005 is adopted by the Congress, the provisions of the conference
report to accompany Senate Concurrent Resolution 95 of the One Hundred Eighth Congress
shall have force and effect in the House as though the One Hundred Ninth Congress has
adopted such conference report.
(B) The allocations of spending authority included in the conference report, as
adjusted during the 108th Congress, shall be considered the allocations contemplated by
section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
▪ P.L. 108-287, Section 14007 (118 Stat. 1014)
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.
Congressional Research Service
21
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
(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.
(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.
FY2007
▪ H.Res. 818, Section 2 (109th Congress)
Sec. 2. (a) Upon adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 376, and until a concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007 has been adopted by the Congress, the provisions of
House Concurrent Resolution 376 and its accompanying report shall have force and effect in the
House for all purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as though adopted by the
Congress.
(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to engage rule XXVII.
▪ H.Res. 6, Section 511(a)(4) (110th Congress)
Sec. 511. Separate Orders.
(a) Budget Matters.—
...
(4)(A) During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, pending the adoption of a concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008, the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution
376 of the One Hundred Ninth Congress shall have force and effect in the House as though
the One Hundred Tenth Congress has adopted such a concurrent resolution.
(B) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget (when elected) shall submit for
printing in the Congressional Record—
(I) the allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to accompany the concurrent resolution described in subparagraph (A), which shall
be considered to be such allocations under a concurrent resolution on the budget; and
(ii) “Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations”, which shall be considered to
be the program, projects, activities, or accounts referred to in section 401(b) of House
Concurrent Resolution 376 of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, as adopted by the
House.
Congressional Research Service
22
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
▪ P.L. 109-234, Section 7035 (120 Stat. 489-490)
Sec. 7035. 2007 Discretionary Limits. (a) In General.—For the purposes of section 302(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the allocations of the appropriate levels of budget totals
for the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate for fiscal year 2007 shall be—
(1) $872,778,000,000 in total new budget authority for general purposes discretionary;
and
(2) $577,241,000,000 in total new budget authority for mandatory; until a concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007 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 limits and adjustments provided in section 402 of
S.Con.Res. 83 (109th Congress), as passed the Senate, for fiscal year 2007 shall apply to
subsection (a).
(c) Application.—The section 302(a) allocations in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
allocations set forth in the joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, as though adopted by Congress, for all purposes
under titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Section 302(a)(4) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall not apply to this section.
(d) Exceptions.—The following provisions of H.Con.Res. 95 (109th Congress) shall not apply
in the Senate—
(1) Section 404; and
(2) until January 3, 2007, section 403(b)(2).
(e) Effective Date.—This section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
Author Contact Information
Robert Keith
Specialist in American National Government
rkeith@crs.loc.gov, 7-8659
Congressional Research Service
23