Chapter 41, Deschler’s Precedents
Chapter 41
Deschler’s Precedents
Volume 18
[pp. 263-274]
E. Budgetary Enforcement in the Absence of a Budget Resolution
§ 18. Committee Allocations Pursuant to Section 302
As noted in Section 11, a key piece of the congressional budget framework is the allocation of specified amounts of budget authority to the committees of the House and the Senate. Such allocations form the basis for evaluating certain Congressional Budget Act points of order and are therefore crucial in keeping committees (and particularly subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations) within their specified budgetary limits. When Congress fails to adopt a concurrent resolution on the budget, those limits are unenforceable.
However, the House has on many occasions adopted ‘‘deeming’’ resolutions that establish section 302(a) allocations in the absence of a final budget resolution. Such allocations may be established as part of a broader ‘‘deemer’’ providing that an entire House-adopted budget resolution be considered as having been adopted by Congress for Budget Act purposes,[1] or they may be established in a more limited context (to provide, for example, a binding allocation for a single committee or even a single measure).[2] Section 302(a) allocations have also been established by separate order contained in an opening-day resolution adopting the standing rules of the House.[3]
In cases where Congress has adopted a concurrent resolution on the budget via amendments between the Houses rather than through a conference committee, neither a conference report nor a joint statement of managers is produced. Because the latter is the statutorily-prescribed location for the section 302(a) allocations, [4]Congress must take additional steps to formally establish binding section 302(a) levels—often a unanimous-consent request [p. 264] tto consider allocations printed in the Congressional Record as meeting the requirements of section 302(a).[5]
Finally, where technical or other errors are found in existing allocations, the House has provided that corrected allocations be considered as meeting the requirements of section 302(a). This has been done both by special order of business resolution[6] and unanimous consent.[7]
♦
Establishing Section 302(a) Allocations in the Absence of a Budget Resolution—By Special Order of Business
§ 18.1 The House has, on diverse occasions, used special orders of business to establish section 302(a) allocations as part of a temporary budgetary enforcement mechanism in the absence of a final concurrent resolution on the budget.
As documented above, ‘‘deeming’’ resolutions that provide temporary budget enforcement mechanisms in the absence of a final concurrent resolution on the budget have often provided either that the section 302(a) allocations printed in a specified document (such as a committee report) be considered as those required by section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act,[1] or specific authority (typically to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget) to establish binding section 302(a) allocations.[2]
♦
Establishing Section 302(a) Allocations in the Absence of a Budget Resolution—By Separate Order
§ 18.2 The House has required, via a separate order contained in an opening-day resolution adopting the standing rules for a Congress,[1] the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to submit [p. 265] binding section 302(a) allocations into the Congressional Record where the prior Congress had not completed action on a pertinent budget resolution.
On Jan. 6, 1999,[2] the House adopted an opening-day resolution establishing the standing rules for a Congress containing the following authority as a ‘‘separate order’’:
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.
♦
Establishing Section 302(a) Allocations in the Absence of a Budget Resolution—For One Committee Only
§ 18.3 The House has adopted a special order of business resolution reported by the Committee on Rules containing a separate section declaring that the allocation of spending and credit authority to the Committee on Appropriations[12]1 contained in a House report be considered as meeting the requirements of section 302(a) for that [p. 266] committee until final adoption by both Houses of a concurrent resolution on the budget.
On June 19, 1990,[2] the House adopted the following resolution:
waiving certain points of order during consideration of h.r. 5019, energy and water development appropriations act, 1991
Mr. [Butler] DERRICK [of South Carolina]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 413 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
h. res. 413
Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R. 5019) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991, and for other purposes, all points of order against the following provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXII are waived: beginning on page 4, line 1, through page 17, line 5; beginning on page 20, line 16, through page 22, line 10; beginning on page 24, line 1, through page 29, line 6; beginning on page 33, line 1, through line 12; beginning on page 38, line 3, through page 62, line 7; beginning on page 65, line 1, through page 68, line 11; and beginning on page 72, line 9, through page 74, line 19; and all points of order against the following provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 6 of rule XXII are waived: beginning on page 4, line 1, through page 11, line 5; beginning on page 14, line 1, through page 16, line 24; beginning on page 20, line 23, through page 21, line 8; beginning on page 25, line 1, through page 27, line 15; beginning on page 33, line 1, through line 12; beginning on page 53, line 1, through page 54, line 2; beginning on page 57, line 20, through page 58, line 11, and beginning on page 66, line 1, through page 68, line 11. It shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in section 2 of this resolution, and all points of order against the amendments for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI are hereby waived.
Sec. 2. (a) The amendment to be offered by Representative Skaggs of Colorado, or his designee:
On page 46, line 14, insert the following before the period: ‘‘: Provided, That no funds in this Act shall be available for the Plutonium Recovery Modification project until 30 days after the Secretary of Energy has provided to the Congress his review of the Department of Energy’s modernization report’’.
(b) The amendment to be offered by Representative Scheuer of New York, or his designee:
On page 47, line 25, insert the following before the period: ‘‘: Provided further, That $1,300,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be used to carry out the Reduced Enrichment in Research and Test Reactors Program’’.
Sec.3. (a) For purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended (Public Law 93–344, as amended by Public Law 99-177) as they apply to the Committee on Appropriations and consideration of general appropriation bills, amendments thereto or conference reports thereon, in the House of Representatives, the Congress shall be considered to have adopted H. Con. Res. 310, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, as adopted by the House on May 1, 1990. For purposes [p. 267] of this resolution, the allocations of spending and credit responsibility to the Committee on Appropriations printed in the star print of H. Rept. 101–455 shall be considered as allocations made pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended.
(b) This section shall cease to apply upon final adoption by the House and the Senate of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1991.
♦
Establishing Section 602(a)[1] Allocations Pursuant to Section 603
§ 18.4 Pursuant to the authority found in section 603[2] of the Congressional Budget Act, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget submitted a section 602(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations into the Congressional Record.
On Apr. 18, 1991,[3] the chairman of the Committee on the Budget submitted the following for publication in the Congressional Record:
communication from the chairman of the committee on the budget regarding the allocation for the appropriations committee for fiscal year 1992 pursuant to section 603 of the congressional budget act
The SPEAKER pro tempore.[4] Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. PANETTA] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. [Leon] PANETTA [of California]. Mr. Speaker, section 603 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, authorizes the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to submit to the House a spending allocation for the Committee on Appropriations if the Congress has not completed action on the budget resolution by April 15.
Although the House has now passed the budget resolution for fiscal year 1992, the Senate has not yet taken up the measure ordered reported by the Senate Budget Committee. Therefore, in order to allow the Appropriations Committee to begin work on its fiscal year 1992 spending bills in a manner consistent with the statutory spending caps, I hereby submit the section 602(a) allocation for that committee:
[p. 268]
[In millions of dollars] |
||
New budget
|
Outlays |
|
Mandatory programs……………………………………………… |
208,450 |
203,337 |
Discretionary programs…………………………………………… |
513,505 |
527,458 |
Total:………………………………………………………………………… |
721,955 |
730,795 |
As required by the act, the allocation is consistent with the discretionary spending limits contained in the President’s budget.
I am also attaching an explanation of these figures, prepared by the staff of the Committee on the Budget.
explanation of allocation under section 603 of the congressional budget act
The allocation meets the requirements of the Congressional Budget Act and Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
As required by Section 603, for all three categories of discretionary programs (defense, international, and domestic), the amount to be allocated is computed by starting with the caps as stated in the ‘‘preview report’’ prepared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and included in Part Five of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1992.
To those amounts are added the special budget authority allowances described in Sections 251(b)(2)(E)(i) and (ii) of Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
These amounts will, by law, cause an upward adjustment of the caps by the end of this session of Congress. By including them, the allocation will be consistent with the figures that will be used for fiscal year 1992 sequester calculations. (Also, it should be noted that the special budget authority adjustment is explicitly allowed to be included in budget resolutions under Section 606(d)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act.)
The special budget authority allowance is a specified percent of the total end-of-session caps, for all three categories over all three years (fiscal years 1991 through 1993).
The specified figure is 0.079 percent for the international category and 0.1 percent for the domestic category. The end-of-session caps to which these percents are applied are OMB’s start-of-session caps plus adjustments for: (1) the $172 million in new budget authority requested by the President for the IRS ‘‘hold harmless increment’’; (2) the $12,158 million in new budget authority for the IMF quota increase requested by the President for fiscal year 1992; and (3) enacted emergencies in H.R. 1281 and H.R. 1282.
The three items just listed cause an upward adjustment to the end-of-session caps; these ‘‘hold-harmless’’ are specified in Sections 251(b)(2)(A), (C), and (D), respectively, of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. While they are assumed for purposes of computing the caps against which the special budget authority allowance percents are to be applied, they are not directly included in this allocation because Section 606(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act hold harmless for these three items by providing that any such funding not be counted for purposes of the Congressional Budget Act.
This computation of the discretionary caps for purposes of the Congressional Budget Act was used by CBO in computing its current estimate of the maximum deficit amount and by both the House and Senate Budget Committees in computing the caps applicable to the fiscal year 1992 budget resolution.
As a matter of policy, H. Con. Res. 121 as adopted by the House provides $392 million less in discretionary new budget authority for the international category (and, [p. 269] therefore, the total allocation) than the amount of the cap included in this allocation.
The conference agreement on the budget resolution will establish the ultimate level of the total allocation.
For mandatory programs funded by the Appropriations Committee, the amount allocated equals CBO’s current estimate of the fiscal year 1992 baseline level of those programs.
♦
Establishing Section 302(a) Allocations Through Special Authority Provided in a Budget Resolution
§ 18.5 The House has adopted a conference report on a concurrent resolution on the budget containing a provision authorizing the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to file a report establishing binding section 302(a) allocations and considering such allocations to be those required to be in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on the budget resolution.
On June 23, 1987,[1] the House adopted a concurrent resolution on the budget containing the following provision:
conference report on house concurrent resolution 93, concurrent resolution on the budget—fiscal year 1988
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington] submitted the following conference report and statement on concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 93) setting forth the Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 1988, 1989, and 1990:
conference report (h. rept. 100–175)
[To accompany H. Con. Res. 93]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. Con. Res. 93) setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for the fiscal years 1988, 1989, and 1990, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following: . . .
section 302(a) allocation in the house
Sec. 13. The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives may file, not later than July 1, 1987, a report in the House containing the allocations required to be made pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The report shall be printed as, and considered to be, a report of the Committee on the Budget and such allocations made in that report shall be considered to be the [p. 270] allocations required to be in the joint explanatory statement accompanying this resolution.
On June 26, 1986,[2] the House adopted a concurrent resolution on the budget containing the following provision:
conference report on s. con. res. 120, concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal year 1987
Mr. [William] GRAY of Pennsylvania submitted the following conference report and statement on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 120) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989:
conference report (s. con. res. 120)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 120) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989, having met, after full and free conference, have been unable to agree on a conference report because the conference decisions have changed certain budget figures outside the scope of the conference. As set forth in the accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement, the conferees do propose a congressional budget incorporated in a further amendment for the consideration of the two Houses. . . .
joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 120) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989, report that the conferees have been unable to agree. This is a technical disagreement, necessitated by the fact that in some instances the conference decisions include figures which (for purely technical reasons) would fall outside the range between the corresponding House and Senate provisions. . . .
section 302(a) allocations
Sec. 13. The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives may file, not later than July 9, 1986, a report in the House containing the allocations required to be made pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The report shall be printed as, and considered to be, a report of the Committee on the Budget and such allocations made in that report shall be considered to be the allocations required to be in the joint explanatory statement accompanying this resolution.
♦
Establishing Section 302(a) Allocations Subsequent to Adoption of a Budget Resolution
§ 18.6 The House has, by unanimous consent, agreed to the insertion of a table of section 302(a) allocations (reflecting modifications to [p. 271] the conference agreement for the budget resolution) representing additional amounts in a House amendment adopted after a conference report in disagreement was not acted upon,[1] into the Congressional Record by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and to have such figures considered as meeting the requirements of section 302(a).
On June 4, 1979,[2] the following unanimous-consent requests were made in the House:
Mr. [Robert] GIAIMO [of Connecticut]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print in the RECORD the tables showing the crosswalk allocations to the House and Senate committees under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act, reflecting the agreements reached in conference on House Concurrent Resolution 107, the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1980, as modified by further amendment. In addition, I ask unanimous consent that these tables be considered as meeting the requirements of section 302(a) of the Budget Act.
The SPEAKER.[3] Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
Mr. [John] ROUSSELOT [of California]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, will the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget explain why this is necessary?
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, on May 21, 1979, the statement of managers on the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 107, appeared in the RECORD. However, subsequent to that, action was taken which affected primarily the function 500—education, training, employment, and social services—allocation totals, specifically the addition of $350 million in budget authority. Since, procedurally speaking, in adopting the first concurrent resolution for fiscal year 1980, the House adopted an amendment and not a conference report, it is necessary to include at this time a revised allocation of the appropriate levels of new budget authority and outlays among the various committees. This allocation will guide the Congress in scorekeeping spending measures mostly affecting fiscal year 1980 as they are considered over the next few months.
It should be noted that within certain committees, an allocation for new entitlement authority has been included. For purposes of section 401(b)(2) and section 302 of the Budget Act, this amount represents the appropriate allocation of new budget authority, [p. 272] as determined by the Budget Committee, to fund various new entitlement programs within the jurisdiction of a given committee over the next fiscal year.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, it is because this did not come back as a full conference report?
Mr. GIAIMO. If it had come back as a full conference report, the allocation would have been included in the conference report and this would have been taken care of then. But since, as we said, we did not come back with a full conference report, and since we have had a change after that in what was agreed to in the conference, as the gentleman will recall, whereby the Senate on its own added $350 million for educational programs, and we did the same here, it affected the allocation totals. This is the way in which we cure that and enable the committees of the House to proceed with their legislative entitlement and appropriating legislation under the allocation made to them, and it allows us to keep score properly under the Budget Act, as we are mandated to do.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
Mr. [James] CORMAN [of California]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to inquire of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget if he knows how much was allocated to the Committee on Ways and Means in function 500, if that is easily available?
Mr. GIAIMO. If the gentleman will yield, I am informed that it is $756 million.
Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
♦
Revising 302(a) Allocations—By Special Order of Business
§ 18.7 The House has adopted a special order of business resolution reported by the Committee on Rules containing a separate section ‘‘deeming’’ section 302(a) allocations reflected in a table of a House report to govern questions of order under the Congressional Budget Act.
On May 16, 2000,[1] the House adopted the following resolution:
providing for consideration of h.r. 4425, military construction appropriations act, 2001
Mr. [Thomas] REYNOLDS [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
h. res. 502
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee [p. 273] of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4425) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(c) of rule XIII are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendments the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. For purposes of enforcement of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in the House, the appropriate levels of total new budget authority and total budget outlays for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 prescribed by House Concurrent Resolution 290 pursuant to section 301(a)(1) of the Act shall be those reflected in the table entitled ‘‘Conference Report Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Resolution Total Spending and Revenues’’ on page 49 of House Report 106-577.
♦
Revising 302(a) Allocations—By Unanimous Consent
§ 18.8 The House has agreed to a unanimous-consent request to insert a table containing revised section 302(a) allocations into the Congressional Record to correct errors made in the allocations contained in the joint statement of managers accompanying the concurrent resolution on the budget, and to have such revised allocations be considered as meeting the requirements contained in both the Congressional Budget Act and the most recent concurrent resolution on the budget.
On June 23, 1982,[1] the following unanimous-consent request was agreed to in the House:
[p. 274]
permission to insert in congressional record corrected tables under section 302(a) of congressional budget act and section 9 of senate concurrent resolution 92
Mr. [Leon] PANETTA [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD tables showing the crosswalk allocations to the House committees under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act and section 9 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 92, as corrected, and ask unanimous consent that these tables be considered as meeting the requirements of section 302(a) of the Budget Act and section 9 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 92.
Mr. Speaker, this has been cleared by the leadership on the minority side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.[2] Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. [Delbert] LATTA [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, let me say that the gentleman has cleared this with our side. We have no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
♦
Authority to Revise Existing Section 302(a) Allocations to Reflect New Committee Organization
§ 18.9 The House adopted a resolution establishing the standing rules of the House on opening day of the 104th Congress containing separate authority for the chairman of the Committee on the Budget (when elected) to revise section 302(a) allocations to the committees of the House to reflect changes in the committee names and jurisdiction contemplated by such resolution.
On Jan. 4, 1995,[1] an opening-day resolution establishing the standing rules of the House for the 104th Congress, and containing the following provision, was adopted by the House:
Changes in Committee System
Sec. 202. . .
(c) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget, when elected, may revise (within the appropriate levels established in House Concurrent Resolution 218 of the One Hundred Third Congress) allocations of budget outlays, new budget authority, and entitlement authority among committees of the House in the One Hundred Fourth Congress to reflect changes in jurisdiction under clause 1 of rule X. He shall publish the revised allocations in the Congressional Record. Once published, the revised allocations shall be effective in the House as though made pursuant to sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
[1] See § 17, supra.
[2] See § 18.3, infra.
[3] See § 18.2, infra.
[4] 2 USC § 633(a).
[5] See § 18.6, infra.
[6] See § 18.7, infra.
[7] See § 18.8, infra.
[Editor’s Note: See § 17 and § 18 for these references.]
[1] See, e.g., § 17.2, supra.
[2] See, e.g., § 17.5, supra.
[Editor’s Note: See § 17 for these references.]
[1] Resolutions adopting the rules of the House are usually considered on opening day of a new Congress and typically contain ‘‘separate orders’’ that function as rules of the House for the duration of that Congress. In this case, the requirement for the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to submit section 302(a) allocations into the Congressional Record was exercised on Feb. 25, 1999. 145 Cong. Rec. 3117, 3118, 106th Cong. 1st Sess. This same authority has been included in other resolutions adopting the rules of the House at the outset of a Congress. See 157 Cong. Rec. H9 [Daily Ed.], 112th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 2011 (for corresponding submission to the Congressional Record, see 157 Cong. Rec. H1520–1 [Daily Ed.], 112th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 2011); 153 Cong. Rec. 23, 24, 110th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 2007 (for corresponding submission to the Congressional Record, see 153 Cong. Rec. 3160, 3161, 110th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 6, 2007); and 149 Cong. Rec. 10, 11, 108th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 7, 2003 (for corresponding submission to the Congressional Record, see 149 Cong. Rec. 180, 181, 108th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 8, 2003). In the case of the submission in 2003, an additional special order of business authorized a specific Member (the presumptive chairman of the Committee on the Budget) to make the submission prior to his election as chairman. 149 Cong. Rec. 172, 173, 108th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 8, 2003. For an example of a similar separate order ‘‘deeming’’ the allocations contained in the budget resolution conference report from the previous Congress (adopted by the House only) to be those contemplated by section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act, see 151 Cong. Rec. 44, 109th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 2005 (H. Res. 5, sec. 3).
[2] 145 Cong. Rec. 76, 106th Cong. 1st Sess.
[1] For another example of a special order establishing a section 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations only (in the absence of a final budget resolution), see 144 Cong. Rec. 12991, 105th Cong. 2d Sess., June 19, 1998 (H. Res. 477). For examples of special orders establishing an allocation to govern consideration of a particular bill reported by a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, see 142 Cong. Rec. 13637, 104th Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1996 (H. Res. 451); and 142 Cong. Rec. 14079, 104th Cong. 2d Sess., June 13, 1996 (H. Res. 453).
[2] 136 Cong. Rec. 14602, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
[1] The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 added a new title VI to the Congressional Budget Act. For the years in which such title was operative (1990–1998), the requirement to allocate budget authority and outlays to the legislative committees of the House was found in section 602. Section 603 authorized the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to publish a section 602(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations after April 15 if no concurrent resolution on the budget had been agreed to by that date, in order to allow the Committee on Appropriations to begin work on appropriation bills in the absence of a budget resolution. For parliamentary inquiries regarding the operation of section 603, see 142 Cong. Rec. 9141, 9142, 104th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 25, 1996. For more on the history of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and title VI of the Congressional Budget Act, see § 11, supra.
[2] Id.
[3] 137 Cong. Rec. 8581, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
[4] James Bacchus (FL).
[1] 133 Cong. Rec. 16879, 16885, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
[2] 132 Cong. Rec. 15740, 15745, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
[1] The conference report on the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1980 was filed in disagreement and differences between the Houses resolved through subsequent amendments between the Houses. Such amendments rendered the original section 302(a) allocations contained in the initial conference report obsolete. This unanimous-consent request established binding section 302(a) allocations based on the later compromise between the House and the Senate. For a similar unanimous-consent request regarding the second concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1980 (also adopted without recourse to a conference committee), see 126 Cong. Rec. 2149, 2150, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1980.
[2] 125 Cong. Rec. 13173, 13174, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
[3] Thomas O’Neill (MA).
[1] 146 Cong. Rec. 7917, 106th Cong. 2d Sess.
[1] 128 Cong. Rec. 14950, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. For similar unanimous-consent requests to correct section 302(a) allocations subsequent to the adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget, see 127 Cong. Rec. 10916, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., May 28, 1981; and 124 Cong. Rec. 14866, 14867, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., May 22, 1978. For an example of a unanimous-consent request to correct allocations contained in the joint statement of managers during consideration of the conference report, see 122 Cong. Rec. 13757, 13758, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., May 13, 1976.
[2] Dennis Eckart (OH).
[1] 141 Cong. Rec. 464, 467, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
§ 18. Committee Allocations Pursuant to Section 302 (pdf)
Deschler’s Precedents: Chapter 41 of Volume 18 (PDF Links)
Deschler-Brown-Johnson-Sullivan Precedents, Chapter 41, Volume 18, (H. Doc. 94-661), 112th Congress, 2013.
§ 17. ‘‘Deeming’’ Resolutions |
§ 19. Introduction |
Budget Counsel 