GOVERNMENT INSIGHTS
Continuing resolution translates into less money for federal government The federal government did not grind to a halt on Oct. 1 as many had feared, but not because all 13 of the appropriations bills needed to keep the government running were enacted by Congress and signed by the president by that date. Far from it. None of them had been signed into law. And the government is now operating under the auspices of a continuing resolution that expires Nov. 15. That in itself is not unusual. Congress has had to pass one or more continuing resolutions to provide blanket spending authority for federal departments and agencies for a set amount of time every year since 1954, with two exceptions. In both 1988 and 1994, Congress managed to enact all 13 appropriations bills before the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year. The record for continuing resolutions was set in 1990 when five were needed to keep the government operating until all the appropriations bills for fiscal 1991 were enacted. Congress did, in fact, pass six continuing resolutions in 1990. But President Bush vetoed one of them, and the federal government actually did shut down for three days in October that year. In prior years, continuing resolutions followed the same general pattern. An agency was funded at one of three levels—its previous-year funding, the amount provided for it by the House, or the amount provided by the Senate, whichever was lower. But this year a new twist has been added to the continuing resolution hammered out between the White House and Congress. That twist is designed, says Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to "help guarantee that neither the legislative nor the executive branch will prefer continuation of this resolution to the enactment of the regular fiscal 1996 appropriations bills." The current continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 108, provides that if both the House and the Senate had passed 20
OCTOBER 16,1995 C&EN
their appropriations bills by Oct. 1, an agency would be funded at the average of the amount provided in both bills, less 5%. This provision applies, for example, to the National Science Foundation. The House provided NSF with a total of $3.16 billion, the Senate provided $3.20 billion. That averages out to $3.18 billion. Subtracting 5% leaves NSF with $3.02 billion to spend on a prorated basis. It had $3.36 billion to spend in fiscal 1995. If only one house of Congress had acted on its appropriation by Oct. 1, an agency's funding would continue either at a level provided by that bill or the level it received in fiscal 1995, whichever is lower, less 5%. The National Institutes of Health falls into this category. NIH's fiscal 1995 budget was $11.3 billion. The House provided it with $11.9 billion for fiscal 1996. The Senate Appropriations Committee allotted $11.6 billion for NIH, but the full Senate did not act on the agency's budget before the Oct. 1 deadline. So NIH is now taking a cut that neither house intended. Its funding under the continuing resolution is $10.7 billion. Under the continuing resolution, if an agency or program is slated either for termination or a substantial re-
duction in funding in fiscal 1996, it will continue to be funded at 90% of its fiscal 1995 budget. The Department of Commerce's Advanced Technology Program falls into this category. "This resolution is drafted so that there is very little incentive to extend it for a longer time," Hatfield explained on the Senate floor, pointing out that it provides only the most limited funding for the continuation of ongoing projects and activities and does not allow for the start of any new projects or activities. What the resolution does do, he said, is "give us some breathing room for addressing some fundamental differences between the executive and legislative branches." These differences are very fundamental. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, described just one. Among the bills that President Clinton has expressed his intention to veto is the Defense Appropriation Bill, "which, in the president's view," Byrd said, "provides several billion dollars above what he and the Pentagon agree is necessary in defense spending for fiscal 1996. The president rightly believes that this excess defense spending could be more wisely used to ease the dramatic reductions that are contained in a number of the other 1996 appropriations bills. One can see that there remains a great deal of work to be done before all 13 of the regular 1996 appropriations bills can be signed into law," Byrd concluded. However, even if the White House and congressional leaders reach agreement on these issues—which now seems quite unlikely—there is no guarantee that all of Congress will go along with those decisions. The House has already taken the just about unheard of step of rejecting the agreements reached by House-Senate conferees on two appropriations bills, sending both the Defense and Interior appropriations bills back to the conference committee for more work. It may take a number of continuing resolutions to keep the government operating. In the meantime, the federal government is on an obligatory, enforced diet. Janice Long
