Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and
Brief Overview of Recent Practices
Sandy Streeter
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
October 1, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL30343
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

Summary
Most routine operations of federal departments and agencies are funded each year through the
enactment of 12 regular appropriations acts. Because these bills are annual, expiring at the end of
the fiscal year (September 30), regular appropriations bills for the subsequent fiscal year must be
enacted by October 1. Final action on most regular appropriations bills, however, is frequently
delayed beyond the start of the fiscal year. 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 generally enacted in
the form of joint resolutions, such acts are referred to as continuing resolutions (or CRs).
CRs may be divided into two categories based on duration—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, if earlier. Full-year continuing resolutions provide funding
in lieu of one or more regular appropriations bills through the end of the fiscal year.
Over the past 35 years, the nature, scope, and duration of continuing resolutions gradually
expanded. From the early 1970s through 1987, CRs gradually expanded from being used to
provide interim funding measures of comparatively brief duration and length to measures
providing funding through the end of the fiscal year. The full-year measures included, in some
cases, the full text of one or more 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 primarily been interim
funding measures, and included major legislation less frequently.
In certain years, delay in the enactment of regular appropriations measures and CRs has led to
periods during which appropriations authority has lapsed. Such periods generally are referred to
as funding gaps.
Congress did not enact any FY2011 regular appropriations acts by the deadline; therefore,
Congress completed and President Barack H. Obama signed the Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011 (H.R. 3081, 111th Congress), on September 30, 2010. This measure generally extends
funding for the outstanding regular bills at generally FY2010 enacted spending levels, through
December 3, 2010.
Congressional Research Service

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
FY2011 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 3081, 111th Congress) ....................................................... 1
Recent Practices Regarding Continuing Resolutions.................................................................... 3
Background .......................................................................................................................... 3
History and Recent Trends .................................................................................................... 5
Types of Continuing Resolutions by Duration ....................................................................... 8
Substantive Legislative Provisions ...................................................................................... 10
Funding Gaps...................................................................................................................... 11

Tables
Table 1. Action on FY2011 Continuing Appropriations................................................................ 2
Table 2. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by or on the Start of New Fiscal Year and
Continuing Resolutions, FY1977-FY2010................................................................................ 4

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 12

Congressional Research Service

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

Introduction
Most routine operations of federal departments and agencies are funded each year through
enactment of 12 regular appropriations acts.1 Since regular bills are annual, expiring at the end of
the fiscal year,2 regular appropriations bills for the subsequent fiscal year must be enacted by
October 1. Final action on most regular appropriations bills, however, is frequently delayed
beyond the start of the fiscal year. When this occurs, the affected departments and agencies are
generally funded under temporary continuing appropriations acts until the regular appropriations
bills 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 section provides the most recent information
on the FY2011 continuing resolution. The second segment focuses on the (1) history and recent
trends, including the nature, scope, and duration of CRs during the past 35 years; (2) CR types by
duration; (3) major substantive legislative provisions included in some CRs; and (4) funding
gaps.3
FY2011 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 3081,
111th Congress)
Congress did not enact any FY2011 regular appropriations acts by the deadline; therefore,
Congress completed and President Barack H. Obama signed the Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011 (FY2011 CR, H.R. 3081, 111th Congress), on September 30, 2010. This act generally
extends funding for the FY2011 outstanding regular bills at generally FY2010 enacted spending
levels, through December 3, 2010.
Congress did not originally consider the FY2011 CR as a separate measure, instead the Senate
adopted it in the form of a substitute amendment to another appropriations bill, Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010, as passed by the
House on July 9, 2010. On September 29, 2010, the Senate adopted the substitute amendment and
passed the amended measure;4 on September 30, 2010, the House passed the Senate-passed bill
without amendment (for action on the CR, see Table 1). Selected provisions in the CR follow.

1 The number of regular bills considered each year has recently ranged between 11 and 13. For almost 35 years (1971-
2004), Congress generally considered 13 regular appropriations bills each year. As a result of two reorganizations of
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in 2005 and, again, in 2007, the total number of bills changed
twice. Congress considered 11 regular acts for FY2006 and FY2007 and 12 regular bills for each fiscal year since
FY2007. (For more information, CRS Report RL31572, Appropriations Subcommittee Structure: History of Changes
from 1920-2007, by James V. Saturno.)
2 The fiscal year of the federal government begins on October 1 and ends the following September 30.
3 “The term ‘funding gap’ refers to a period of time between the expiration of an appropriation and the enactment of a
new one.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Vol. II, 3rd ed., GAO-
06-382SP (Washington: February 2006), p. 6-146. For more information, see CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding
Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith.
4 The Senate also adopted a second amendment changing the title of the bill to reflect the new text.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

Table 1. Action on FY2011 Continuing Appropriations
Vote Vo
Conference
te
Measure
Report or
Public
House
Senate
House Senate Amendment
Law
Exchange
H.R. 3081
——a 09/29/10

— 09/30/10
— 09/30/10
69-30b
228-194c
P.L. 111-
a. The House originally passed the bill as the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2010, on July 9, 2009.
b. The Senate (1) adopted a substitute amendment providing the text of the FY2011 CR and an additional
amendment to the House-passed Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2010; and (2) passed the amended bill. The second Senate amendment changed the title
of the bill to reflect the new text.
c. House agreed, without amendment, to the Senate-passed bill.
The FY2011 continuing resolution extends appropriations5 for accounts6 generally funded in the
FY2010 regular appropriations acts, through December 3, 2010, or until enactment of FY2010
regular measure(s), if earlier. Under the CR, funding is provided in the form of spending rates. In
contrast to regular and supplemental appropriations acts, CRs do not generally provide specific
amounts for each account. Most CRs, instead, provide spending (or funding) rates across accounts
in the regular appropriations bill(s) funded in the CR (for examples, see section “Types of
Continuing Resolutions by Duration” below). The CRs may also include funding adjustments for
specified accounts or activities.
Under the FY2011 continuing resolution, separate funding rates for discretionary and mandatory
spending are provided.7 It continues entitlements and other mandatory payments that were funded
in FY2010 appropriations acts as well as payments for activities under the Food and Nutrition Act
of 20088 at spending levels that would maintain existing program levels under current law. Such a
provision is designed to provide additional funding, if needed, to continue benefits for eligible
beneficiaries. Spending levels would be able accommodate, for example, increased costs due to
an unexpected increase in the number of beneficiaries.

5 Appropriations do not represent cash provided to or reserved for agencies, instead the term generally refers to
authority provided by federal law to (1) enter into contracts or other financial obligations that will result in immediate
or future outlays of federal funds, and (2) make payments from the Treasury for specified purposes. Another type of
appropriation only provides the statutory authority to make payments from the Treasury for specified purposes, not the
authority to make financial obligations. Most appropriations provided in annual appropriations measures, including
continuing resolutions, are the first type.
6 The basic unit of a regular or supplemental appropriations act is the account. Under these acts, funding for each
department and large independent agency is itemized for specific accounts. Each account, generally, includes similar
programs, projects, or items, such as a “research and development” account or “salaries and expenses” account. For
small agencies, a single account may fund all of the agency’s activities. These acts typically provide a lump-sum
amount for each account. A few accounts include a single program, project, or item, which the appropriations acts fund
individually.
7 Congress divides spending into two categories: discretionary and mandatory (or direct) spending. Discretionary
spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts, which are under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. Mandatory spending is controlled by legislative acts under the jurisdiction of the
authorizing committees. Funds for all discretionary spending (and some mandatory spending) are included in the
annual appropriations measures. For more information, see CRS Report 97-684, The Congressional Appropriations
Process: An Introduction, by Sandy Streeter.
8 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

Regarding discretionary spending, the CR extends spending for accounts across the board at
generally amounts provided in the applicable FY2010 regular appropriations acts. It also
continues certain supplemental appropriations, such as $29 billion for Defense Department war
operations, that was provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-2129); and
$0.129 billion for the United States Patent and Trade Office, which was provided in the United
States Patent and Trademark Office Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-22410).
Funding rates for selected programs and accounts are adjusted. The Senate Appropriations
Committee advises that the act, for example, provides an additional $0.624 billion regarding the
Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START) and $0.965 billion for the Foreign Military Financing
(FMF) Program to continue certain security assistance to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.11
Additionally, the CR reduces funding for Census programs by approximately $6 billion and for a
certain Defense Department base closure account by approximately $5 billion.12
The CR also extends authorizations or agency authority for certain programs. Examples provided
by the House Appropriations Committee, include (1) extending Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) and related programs through the expiration date of the CR (December 3,
2010); and (2) “allowing the National Cord Blood inventory, the Interagency Council on
Homelessness, and the Commission on Public Diplomacy to continue operations.”13
Recent Practices Regarding Continuing Resolutions
This portion of the report focuses on the history and recent trends, including the nature, scope,
and duration of CRs during the past 35 years; CR types by duration; substantive legislative
provisions included in some CRs; and certain funding gaps.
Background
Under the U.S. Constitution, no funds may be drawn from the U.S. Treasury unless appropriated
by law, giving Congress the “power of the purse.”14 The so-called Antideficiency Act
strengthened the application of this section by, in part, explicitly prohibiting federal government
employees and officers from making contracts or other obligations in advance of an
appropriation, unless authorized by law; and providing administrative and criminal sanctions for
those who violate the act.15

9 Chapter 3 of Title I of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-212; 124 Stat. 2302, 2305).
10 124 Stat. 2385.
11 For information on the Foreign Military Financing Program, see CRS Report R40213, Foreign Aid: An Introduction
to U.S. Programs and Policy, by Curt Tarnoff and Marian Leonardo Lawson.
12 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Senate Passes Continuing Resolution, press release, September
29, 2010, at http://appropriations.senate.gov/.
13 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Continuing Resolution, press release, September 29, 2010, at
http://appropriations.house.gov/.
14 Article I, Section 9, clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.
15 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341(a)-1342 and 1349-1350.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

As mentioned previously, most routine operations of federal departments and agencies are funded
each year through the enactment of several regular annual appropriations acts. There are 12
regular appropriations acts for FY2010.16 Since regular bills expire at the end of the fiscal year,
regular bills for the subsequent fiscal year must be enacted by October 1. If new funds are not
provided, the affected departments and agencies can not make contracts or other obligations, and
must promptly begin an orderly shutdown. Certain agency activities, however, are exempt, such
as those involving the safety of human life or protection of property. Final action on most regular
appropriations bills is usually delayed beyond the start of the new fiscal year (for data on the past
34 years, FY1977 through FY2010, see Table 2). To address this problem, Congress typically
enacts temporary continuing resolutions, extending funding for affected departments and agencies
until the regular bills become law.
Table 2. Regular Appropriations Bills Enacted by or on the Start of New Fiscal Year
and Continuing Resolutions, FY1977-FY2010
Majority Party
Regular Appropriations Bills
Fiscal
Presidential
CRs
Year
Administration
Enacted
Senate
House
Approved by or
on October 1
Enacted in CRs
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
3
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

16 Regular bills may become law as separate acts, or two or more regular bills may be combined in a single act. A
package of several regular bills is referred to as an omnibus (or consolidated) appropriations act.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

Majority Party
Regular Appropriations Bills
Fiscal
Presidential
CRs
Year
Administration
Enacted
Senate
House
Approved by or
on October 1
Enacted in CRs
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
2007


1
9
4
2008
Democrats Democrats
0
0
4
2009


(3)g
0g 2
2010 Barack
H.
Obama

1
0
2
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, 1995-2006).
a. Although all 13 FY1977 regular appropriations bills became law on or before the start of the fiscal year, two
CRs were enacted. These CRs general y 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 ful -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).
c. This number reflects six regular acts being combined to form an omnibus appropriations act, and enacting
the other 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.
g. Three regular appropriations bills were packaged into a single act that also included the initial FY2010 CR
(P.L. 110-329).
History and Recent Trends
CRs date from at least the late 1870s, and have been a regular part of the annual appropriations
process for more than 50 years. In fact, with the exception of three fiscal years (FY1989, FY1995,
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

and FY1997),17 at least one continuing resolution has been enacted for each fiscal year since
FY1955. (It is important to note that while Congress enacted two FY1977 CRs, these acts did not
temporarily fund any FY1977 regular appropriations bills since all the bills became law on or by
the start of the new fiscal year.)18
During the past 35 years, the nature, scope, and duration of CRs expanded. From the early 1970s
through 1987, CRs gradually expanded from interim funding measures of comparatively brief
duration and length to measures providing funding in lieu of one or more regular appropriations
bills through the end of the fiscal year. These measures included, in some cases, the full text of
one or more regular appropriations bills, and sometimes contained substantive legislation as well
(i.e., provisions under the jurisdiction of committees other than the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees). Since 1988, continuing resolutions have tended to be interim
funding measures with less substantive legislation.19
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, conflicts between the President and Congress over major budget
priorities, triggered in part by rapidly increasing deficits, greatly increased the difficulty of
reaching final agreements on regular appropriations acts, even after the start of the fiscal year was
shifted from July 1 to October 1;20 these conflicts often led to protracted delays in their
enactment. The view of continuing resolutions as “must-pass” measures because of the
constitutional and statutory imperatives was given increased urgency due to the 1980 Department
of Justice opinion prohibiting agencies from continuing all but minimal activities when funds
were not available.21 The result was that continuing resolutions became a major battleground for
the resolution of budgetary conflicts and sometimes other policy conflicts as well. Consequently,
the nature, scope, and duration of CRs 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,
CRs became vehicles for substantive legislative provisions unrelated to interim funding, as it
became clear that in some years CRs 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, CRs effectively
became omnibus appropriations measures for the federal government, incorporating all of the

17 In the first two instances, all 13 regular appropriations bills were enacted individually on or by the start of the fiscal
year. In the last case, five of the regular bills were added to a sixth regular bill, forming an omnibus appropriations act;
and seven other bills were enacted individually.
18 The FY1977 CRs, instead, generally funded specific unauthorized activities that had been stricken from the
applicable regular appropriations bills.
19 Since 1988, there have been only two full-year CRs. An FY1992 continuing resolution provided full-year funding for
one regular appropriations bill, and the FY2007 full-year measure continued funding for nine of the 11 regular bills.
20 The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344, 88 Stat. 297) shifted the date of the
start of the fiscal year.
21 For more information, see “Funding Gaps” section below.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

regular appropriations acts for the entire fiscal year as well as a host of substantive legislation
covering a broad range of policy areas.22
From FY1989 through FY1995, Congress and the President generally operated under multi-year
deficit reduction agreements achieved through budget summits, and beginning with FY1991,
separate enforcement of appropriations measures through discretionary spending ceilings.23 With
relative agreement on overall budget priorities, conflicts over appropriations measures were
generally narrower. CRs were typically more limited in scope, contained less substantive
legislation, and were used mainly to provide interim funding for relatively brief periods. The only
exception was FY1992, when Congress provided full-year funding in a CR for one FY1992
regular appropriations act, Foreign Operations.24
Significant budgetary conflict resumed in 1995. The conflicts over spending priorities occurred
between Congress and the Administration, within Congress, and within the political parties as
well. Due, in part, to these differences, there were two partial government shutdowns in the
winter of 1995-1996; the first lasted for five days and the second, 21 days.25 Instead of resolving
the FY1996 conflicts in the form of one or more continuing resolutions, Congress created an
omnibus measure for FY1996.26
Since FY1997, conflicts over outstanding regular bills have generally been resolved in omnibus
appropriations measures, rather than full-year continuing resolutions. The only exception was
FY2007; for that year nine of 11 FY2007 regular bills were funded for the entire fiscal year in a
continuing resolution.27 During the FY1997-FY2009 period, omnibus regular appropriations bills
were generally developed by attaching the language of outstanding regular appropriations bills, as
well as substantive legislation, to the conference report on another regular appropriations bill.
The change in the type of legislative vehicle from full-year continuing resolutions to omnibus
appropriations measures created at the conference stage of the legislative process was based on

22 P.L. 99-591, 100 Stat. 3341; and P.L. 100-202, 101 Stat. 1329.
23 Increased focus on enforcement began with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L.
99-177, 99 Stat. 1037,1038) and Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (P.L.
100-119, 101 Stat. 754), which were, in part, designed to balance the budget by FY1991 and FY1993, respectively.
Both provided an automatic across-the-board reduction in selected spending if the deficit targets provided for each
fiscal year covered by the acts were exceeded. Under the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990 (P.L. 101-508, 104
Stat. 1388-573, 1388-574), the deficit reduction procedures above were effectively replaced by two other procedures
affecting legislation considered by Congress that would increase spending and/or decrease revenues. The BEA (1) set
separate discretionary spending limits for FY1991 through FY1995 enforced through across-the-board reductions in
discretionary spending; and (2) required increases in mandatory spending and/or decreases in revenues to be offset so
that the net deficit was not increased, enforceable by across-the-board reduction in selected mandatory spending. The
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312, 683) extended these procedures through
FY1998 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251) extended them through FY2002.
24 P.L. 102-266, 106 Stat. 92.
25 During a partial government shutdown, departments and agencies funded in outstanding regular appropriations bills
must begin to shut down, while those funded in regular bills that have already become law continue their normal
operations. During the second partial government shutdown, departments and agencies covered under six FY1996
regular bills shut down and furloughed employees, while those agencies under the seven regular bill continued their
activities. It is important to note that there are exceptions to the shutdown requirement for certain activities, such as
protecting life or property, as described in CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert
Keith, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith.
26 P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321.
27 P.L. 110-5, 121 Stat. 8.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

political and procedural considerations. Combining uncompleted appropriations bills, or even
including those that had received no floor consideration in one or both chambers, into a single
conference report, for example, made it possible to avoid floor consideration of certain
controversial floor amendments to regular appropriations bills.28 Creating an omnibus
appropriations bill at the conference stage could also be used to expedite completion of the
outstanding regular bills by reducing the number of votes and the number of opportunities for a
presidential veto.29
It is important to note that during the FY1996 conflict Congress began using a new type of
provision in CRs: targeted appropriations. It separated some specific activities from the six
outstanding regular bills and distributed them among three FY1996 continuing resolutions.30
Some of the activities were funded for the full year, whereas others were temporarily funded. A
single continuing resolution traditionally provides funding for all activities in each regular
appropriations bill it funds. Although CRs sometimes have provided a separate expiration date for
activities funded in one or more regular appropriations bills, each date applied to all activities in
the applicable regular appropriations bill.
Types of Continuing Resolutions by Duration
Continuing resolutions may be classified as “interim” or “full-year continuing resolutions.”31 CRs
typically include an expiration date and provide that funding shall be extended for each regular
appropriations bill covered, until that date, or until enactment of each regular appropriations bill,
if earlier. A full-year continuing resolution expires at the end of the fiscal year, while an interim
CR expires earlier.
Interim continuing resolutions provide temporary funding to a specific date, providing more time
to resolve final spending decisions. They have remained fairly constant in form and structure in
recent years. In contrast to regular and supplemental appropriations acts, interim continuing
resolutions do not generally provide specific amounts for each account, although they have done
so for selected accounts and activities. Interim CRs generally provide spending (or funding) rates
across accounts in regular appropriations bill(s) covered in the CR.
Spending rates have been provided in various forms. For example, they have provided funding
across accounts at levels available in the previous fiscal year, providing no increase from the prior
year. CRs have also provided spending, by contrast, at levels that maintained the existing program
levels under current law. This rate could have the effect, for example, of increasing the spending
level from the previous year to pay additional costs due to inflation as well as an increase in the
number of beneficiaries. In some cases, the spending rate has been a formula. Some CRs, for
example, have provided that the funding level for each account is the lower of the amounts

28 In certain years, selected regular bills were never considered on the floor or consideration was not completed. Since
both House and Senate standing rules prohibit amendments to conference reports, some controversial amendments that
might have been offered during initial floor consideration of an appropriations bill were never considered.
29 To ensure all the FY1997 regular appropriations bills became law by the start of the fiscal year on October 1, for
example, five FY1997 regular bills were attached to a sixth FY1997 regular bill in conference. This action obviated the
need for a continuing resolution.
30 See, for example, P.L. 104-91, 110 Stat. 7; P.L. 104-92, 110 Stat. 16; and P.L. 104-94, 110 Stat. 25.
31 For more information, see CRS Report RL32614, Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years, by Jessica
Tollestrup.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

provided in the (1) House-passed version of the applicable regular bill, (2) Senate-passed version,
or (3) regular appropriations act for the previous fiscal year. CRs have also provided certain
funding exceptions to the spending rate for specific accounts and/or activities, often providing a
specific amount.
Within a single CR, Congress has sometimes provided more than one spending rate. First, interim
continuing resolutions have recently set different funding rates for discretionary and mandatory
spending. Second, a single CR may provide different discretionary spending rates for selected
regular bills covered.
Recently, the spending rate for entitlements and other mandatory spending (as well as the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)32 funded in the regular bills covered have generally
remained constant. CRs have extended funding at spending levels that maintained existing
program levels under current law. This spending rate is designed to provide sufficient funding to
continue benefits for all eligible beneficiaries. The resulting spending levels could reflect an
increase necessary to accommodate, for example, increased costs due to an increase in the
number of beneficiaries.
The spending rates for discretionary spending, by contrast, may vary within a single CR,
providing different rates for selected regular bills as well as among fiscal years.
Not only have CRs continued funding within the same session of Congress in which the CRs
became law, but they have extended spending into the following session or, in years in which the
Congress adjourned sine die, into the next Congress. In the latter instances, a new bill to provide
regular appropriations for the remainder of the fiscal year must be introduced in the new
Congress, since all measures from the previous Congress will have died.
The initial temporary continuing resolution has language establishing a spending rate and the
expiration date, among other provisions. Once it becomes law, further CRs may be sequentially
enacted to extend the expiration date. These subsequent continuing resolutions may sometimes
change the spending rates as well as other provisions. From FY1978 through FY2009, on
average, four CRs became law per fiscal year. (For detailed information, see Table 2; these data
include full-year as well as interim CRs.)
Full-year continuing resolutions provide funding in lieu of one or more regular appropriations
bills through the end of the fiscal year. (Table 2 provides the number of regular bills funded in
each of the 13 full-year CRs enacted during the FY1978-FY2009 period.) Full-year funding rates
have generally been provided in three forms; they have included (1) full text of the regular act;
(2) language that incorporates regular acts by cross reference to the latest stage of congressional
action (such as the conference agreement, if one has been reached); or (3) spending rates. Full-
year CRs have also included various combinations of the three types.
From a functional perspective, full-year CRs that only include the full text of the regular act(s) or
the full text by cross-reference may be considered by some as the equivalent of omnibus
appropriations acts, rather than full-year CRs, even though these measures are entitled an act
“making continuing appropriations” or “making further continuing appropriations.” For purposes

32 This program was formerly referred to as the Food Stamp Program.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

of this report, they are characterized as full-year CRs, since at the time the measures became law,
they were referred to as full-year continuing resolutions.
Full-year continuing resolutions effectively replace 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
typically included in regular acts.33 Consequently, they may be hundreds of pages in length,
whereas interim resolutions have recently ranged from less than half a page (in the case of a
simple extension of a previous resolution, for example) to 11 pages.
Some CRs have provided both interim and full-year funding. In these cases, typically, one regular
bill was funded through the end of the fiscal year (September 30), while the other outstanding
regular bills were provided temporary funding.34
Substantive Legislative Provisions
Substantive legislative provisions (i.e., provisions under the jurisdiction of committees other than
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees) covering a wide range of subjects also have
been included in some continuing resolutions. Continuing resolutions are attractive vehicles for
such provisions because they are considered must-pass legislation on which the President and
Congress eventually must reach agreement. Such provisions have been included both in interim
and full-year continuing resolutions.
House Rules XXI, Clause 2, and XXII, Clause 5, prohibit legislative provisions or unauthorized
appropriations35 in general appropriations measures (including amendments or conference report
to such measures),36 but these restrictions do not apply to continuing resolutions. Comparable
Senate restrictions, in Senate Rule XVI, prohibit amendments, either on the Senate floor or
amendments between the houses, that include legislative provisions or unauthorized
appropriations. This rule does apply in the case of CRs.
Substantive provisions in continuing resolutions have included language that established major
new policies and amended permanent provisions of law, such as the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of 1984.37 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.38 These provisions vary in length from a small paragraph to more than 200
pages (in the case, for example, of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984). With the
advent of omnibus appropriations acts, there have been fewer examples of major policy initiatives
in CRs.

33 See, P.L. 100-202, section 101, 101 Stat. 1329; and P.L. 99-591, section 101, 100 Stat. 3341.
34 For an example, see P.L. 97-276, 96 Stat. 1186.
35 Unauthorized appropriations are funds in an appropriations measure for agencies or programs whose authorization
has expired or not been enacted, 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).
36 House Rule XXI, cl. 2, prohibits such language in general appropriations measures and applicable amendments.
House Rule XXII, cl. 5, in effect, generally extends the House Rule XXI, cl. 2, prohibition to conference reports.
37 FY1985 continuing resolution, P.L. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837.
38 FY2005 continuing resolution, P.L. 108-309, 118 Stat. 1137.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

Funding Gaps
Over the years, delay in the enactment of regular appropriations measures by the start of a new
fiscal year, and continuing resolutions at the start, or during, that fiscal year has led to periods
during which agency appropriations authority has lapsed. Such periods are referred to as funding
gaps.39 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.
From FY1977 through FY2008, there have been 17 funding gaps.40 Most funding gaps occurred
during the first half of this period; 15 funding gaps occurred between FY1977 and FY1992.
During the latter half, there were only two funding gaps, the two partial government shutdowns in
the winter of 1995-1996.
Prior to 1980, 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 waiting for the applicable regular appropriations bill or a CR to
become law.41 On April 25, 1980, however, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a formal
opinion clarifying that maintaining nonessential operations in the absence of appropriations was
not permitted under the Antideficiency Act,42 and that the Justice Department would enforce the
criminal sanctions provided for under the act against future violations.43
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.44 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.”45
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

39 “The term ‘funding gap’ refers to a period of time between the expiration of an appropriation and the enactment of a
new one.” These gaps most commonly occur when a regular appropriations bill has not been completed by the start of
the fiscal year and a continuing resolution has not become law. The term also refers to instances in which an individual
appropriation has been exhausted prior to the end of the fiscal year. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Principles
of Federal Appropriations Law: Vol. II, 3rd ed., GAO-06-382SP (Washington: February 2006), p. 6-146.
40 The source of this data is CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith. The
enactment of a CR on the day after appropriations authority had expired is not counted as a funding gap.
41 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government Operations, GAO/PAD-81-
31, March 3, 1981, p. 2.
42 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a).
43 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Memorandum to the President, April 25, 1980, reprinted
in Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government Operations, App. IV, pp. 63-67.
44 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Memorandum to the President, January 16, 1981,
reprinted in Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government Operations, App. VIII, pp. 72-92.
45 31 U.S.C. 1342.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

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.”46 The 1990 amendment, he maintained, basically served
to confirm the appropriateness of the 1981 opinion.47
Since 1981, whenever delay in the appropriations process has led to periods of lapsed
appropriations, affected federal agencies and departments lacking appropriations have begun to
shut down their agencies. A shutdown involves the curtailment of non-excepted activities and
immediate furlough of employees performing such activities (although provisions of law have
been enacted to ratify obligations and pay employees retroactively).48 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 they were not caused because of a failure to enact initial continuing resolutions, but
because of delay in enacting a further extension. As mentioned previously, during the winter of
1995-1996, there were two funding gaps—one lasting five days and the other lasting 21 days. No
funding gaps have occurred since 1996.

Author Contact Information

Sandy Streeter

Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
sstreeter@crs.loc.gov, 7-8653



46 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, August 16, 1995.
47 Interim CRs may also impact agency operations, see CRS Report RL34700, Interim Continuing Resolutions (CRs):
Potential Impacts on Agency Operations, by Clinton T. Brass.
48CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects, by Clinton T. Brass.
Congressional Research Service
12

---