The "Deeming Resolution": A Budget Enforcement Tool

The “Deeming Resolution”:
A Budget Enforcement Tool
Updated November 14, 2008
Robert Keith
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division



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.



Contents
Substantive Enforcement of the Budget Resolution.......................1
The “Deeming Resolution”..........................................3
House and Senate Action on Deeming Resolutions........................4
Tardy Adoption of the Budget Resolution...........................4
Failure to Adopt the Budget Resolution............................6
Actions for FY1999........................................9
Actions for FY2003.......................................10
Actions for FY2005.......................................13
Actions for FY2007.......................................15
Waivers of Section 303 of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act.............17
Appendix. Text of Deeming Resolutions...............................19
FY1999 ....................................................19
FY2003 ....................................................21
FY2005 ....................................................22
FY2007 ....................................................23
List of Tables
Table 1. Dates of Final Adoption of Budget Resolutions: FY1976-FY2009....5
Table 2. House and Senate Action on Deeming Resolutions for Fiscal Years

1999, 2003, 2005, and 2007......................................7



The “Deeming Resolution”:
A Budget Enforcement Tool
“Deeming resolution” is a term that refers to legislation which is deemed to
serve as an annual budget resolution for purposes of establishing enforceable budget
levels for a budget cycle. A deeming resolution is used when the House and Senate
are late in reaching final agreement on a budget resolution or fail to reach agreement
altogether. Either chamber may initiate its own budget enforcement procedures by
adopting a “deeming resolution” in the form of a simple resolution. This report
describes substantive enforcement procedures associated with the budget resolution,
explains the concept of a “deeming resolution,” discusses House and Senate action
on deeming resolutions, and provides information on a related topic, waiving a bar
against the consideration of budgetary legislation for a fiscal year before a budget
resolution for that fiscal year has been adopted.
Substantive Enforcement of the Budget Resolution
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344,th
as amended) requires the adoption by April 15 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


1 In its original form, the 1974 Congressional Budget Act required the annual adoption of
two budget resolutions — one in the spring and one in the fall. The two required budget
resolutions were adopted each year for the first seven years of the congressional budget
process (FY1976-FY1982). Beginning with FY1983, however, the House and Senate
adopted the practice of acting on only one budget resolution a year. For more information,
see CRS Report RL30297, Congressional Budget Resolutions: Selected Statistics and
Information Guide, by Bill Heniff Jr.

policies.2 Of course, points of order are not self-enforcing and may be waived with
a sufficient majority, thereby allowing legislation in violation of budget resolution
policies to be considered. In the Senate, most of the points or order pertaining to
budget enforcement require the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the membership (60
votes, if no seats are vacant) in order to be waived.
With regard to the substantive enforcement of the budget resolution (i.e.,
enforcement of budgetary levels), the major points of order under the 1974
Congressional Budget Act are found in Sections 311 and 302, which deal with the
enforcement of budget aggregates and committee spending allocations, respectively.
House and Senate rules and practices differ somewhat with regard to these two points
of order.
Section 311(a) generally bars the consideration of any spending measure that
would violate the aggregate budget authority and outlays levels for the first fiscal year
covered by the budget resolution, and any revenue measure that would violate the
aggregate revenue level for the first fiscal year or the sum of all fiscal years covered
by the budget resolution.
Section 302(a) generally requires that the aggregate amounts of spending
recommended in the annual budget resolution be allocated by committee; the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees receive an allocation for only one fiscal year,
but the remaining House and Senate committees receive allocations for all of the
years covered by the budget resolution.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


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.
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.

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 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 them7
to make the required spending suballocations under Section 302(b).
Consequently, when the House and Senate have been presented with such
situations, they have resorted to the use of deeming resolutions to provide a basis for
updated enforcement. The term “deeming resolution” is not officially defined, nor
is there any specific statute or rule authorizing such legislation. Instead, the use of
a deeming resolution simply represents the House and Senate employing regular
legislative procedures to deal with the issue on an ad hoc basis.


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.
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
[ ht t p: / / www.senat e .gov/ ~ budget / r epubl i c an/ a nal ysi s/ 2008/ bb06-2008.pdf ] .

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 30 of the 34 fiscal years covering FY1976-FY2009, 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 30 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.
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-FY2009
Fiscal Dat e Fiscal Dat e
Year Adopted Year Adopted
1976 05-14-1975 1993 05-21-1992
1977 05-13-1976 1994 04-01-1993
1978 05-17-1977 1995 05-12-1994
1979 05-17-1978 1996 06-29-1995
1980 05-24-1979 1997 06-13-1996
1981 06-12-1980 1998 06-05-1997

1982 05-21-1981 1999 [none]


1983 06-23-1982 2000 04-15-1999
1984 06-23-1983 2001 04-13-2000
1985 10-01-1984 2002 05-10-2001

1986 08-01-1985 2003 [none]


1987 06-27-1986 2004 04-11-2003

1988 06-24-1987 2005 [none]


1989 06-06-1988 2006 04-28-2005

1990 05-18-1989 2007 [none]


1991 10-09-1990 2008 05-17-2007

1992 05-22-1991 2009 06-05-2008


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).

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 34 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.
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.


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 explains the purpose of S.Res. 308 and the status of
congressional action on the regular appropriations acts for FY1991.

CRS-7
Table 2. House and Senate Action on Deeming Resolutions for Fiscal Years 1999, 2003, 2005, and 2007
House Deeming ResolutionSenate DeemingResolution
scalCongressType of Measure
Year Measu re Date Measu re Date
Nu mb er Adopted Nu mb er Adopted

1999105thH.Res. 47706-19-1998S.Res. 20904-02-1998House: 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 follow-up
iki/CRS-RL31443measure in the next session was part of the opening-day rulesS.Res. 31210-21-1998
g/wpackage (Section 2(a) of H.Res. 5).
s.or
leakSenate: The two deeming resolutions were simple Senate106thH.Res. 501-06-1999a — —
://wikiresolutions directed solely to that purpose.
http2003107thH.Res. 42805-22-2002[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
follow-up measure in the next session was part of the opening-day
rules package (Section 3(a)(4) of H.Res. 5).108thH.Res. 501-07-2003a


Senate: Actions to establish a deeming resolution were
unsuccessful.

CRS-8
House Deeming ResolutionSenate DeemingResolution
scalCongressType of Measure
Year Measu re Date Measu re Date
Nu mb er Adopted Nu mb er Adopted

2005108thH.Res. 64905-19-2004P.L. 108-28707-22-2004House: The initial deeming resolution was Section 2 of H.Res.


(H.R. 4613)(08-05-2004)649, a special rule providing for the consideration of the
conference report on the FY2005 budget resolution (S.Con.Res.
95). A follow-up measure in the next session was part of the
opening-day rules package (Section 3(a)(4) of H.Res. 5).tha
iki/CRS-RL31443109H.Res. 501-04-2005 — —
g/wSenate: The deeming resolution was Section 14007 (118 Stat.
s.or1014) of the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2005 (H.R. 4613),
leakwhich became Public Law 108-287.
://wiki2007109thH.Res. 81805-18-2006P.L. 109-23406-15-2006House: The initial deeming resolution was Section 2 of H.Res.
http(H.R. 4939)818, a special rule providing for the consideration of the
Department of Interior Appropriations Act for FY2007(H.R.
5386)). A follow-up measure in the next session was part of the
opening-day rules package (Section 511(a)(4) of H.Res. 6).
thH.Res. 601-05-2007a — —
Senate: The deeming resolution was Section 7035 (120 Stat. 489-110
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.
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
ing resolution provisions were included in the resolution establishing the House rules at the opening of the Congress.



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.
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.


13 See CRS Report RS21519, Legislative Procedures for Adjusting the Public Debt Limit,
by Bill Heniff Jr.

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-go point of order and three-fifths vote


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-H810 and H949-H951, respectively.



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


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.

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.
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


23 For the text and discussion of the Gregg-Feingold amendment, see pages S5005-5015 in
the Congressional Record of June 5, 2002; for the text and discussion of the Santorum
amendment, see pages S5018-S5021.
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.
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
(continued...)

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
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


28 (...continued)
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.
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.

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)
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


33 See CRS Report RS21519, Legislative Procedures for Adjusting the Public Debt Limit:
A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith and Bill Heniff Jr.

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 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


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.

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.

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 Public law

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


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).

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:
!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).


38 See the following archived reports, which are available from the author: (1) CRS Report
89-37, Senate Consideration of Regular Appropriations Bills Under Waivers of Section

303(a) of the 1974 Budget Act, by Robert Keith; and (2) CRS Report 89-76, Waivers of theth


1974 Budget Act Considered in the Senate During the 100 Congress, by Robert Keith.



Appendix. Text of Deeming Resolutions
FY1999
P 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.
P 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.
P 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;
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
P 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.
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. —
(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
P 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.
(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).
P 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
P 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 —
(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.
P 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 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.
(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
P 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.
P 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.
P 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.