A continuing resolution (CR) is a joint resolution enacted by the United States Congress to provide temporary budget authority for federal agencies and programs, enabling government operations to persist in the absence of completed regular appropriations acts by the fiscal year's start on October 1.[1][2] CRs typically extend funding at levels from the prior fiscal year, often with specified anomalies for certain activities, but generally prohibit new spending initiatives or significant program expansions to maintain fiscal continuity without full congressional deliberation.[3][4]Enacted since the mid-20th century, CRs have become a routine mechanism amid persistent delays in passing the 12 annual appropriations bills, with an average of five such resolutions per fiscal year from FY1998 through FY2025, sometimes extending interim funding for over 100 days before full appropriations are finalized.[5][2] This frequency underscores structural challenges in the congressional budget process, where partisan disagreements over spending priorities frequently stall negotiations, leading to reliance on these stopgap measures rather than on-time enactment of comprehensive budgets grounded in zero-based reviews or long-term fiscal planning.[6]While CRs avert immediate lapses in funding that could trigger partial government shutdowns—events that have occurred 21 times since 1976 due to funding gaps—their prolonged use imposes operational constraints on agencies, limiting flexibility for emerging needs, hiring, or contract awards, and perpetuating baseline budgeting that entrenches prior expenditures without rigorous justification.[3][7] Critics argue this pattern reflects congressional incentives favoring short-term political maneuvering over disciplined appropriations, as evidenced by instances where CRs serve as vehicles for policy riders or debt limit extensions, further complicating causal links between budgetary authority and accountable governance.[2]
Fundamentals of Continuing Resolutions
Definition and Core Mechanism
A continuing resolution (CR) is a form of appropriations legislation enacted by the United States Congress to provide temporary funding for federal agencies and programs in the absence of completed regular annual appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year on October 1.[8] Typically structured as a joint resolution, a CR extends funding for discretionary spending categories at levels derived from the prior fiscal year's appropriations acts, often specified as a "rate for operations" to pro-rate obligations over the interim period.[8]CRs apply exclusively to discretionary spending, which constitutes the portion of the federal budget requiring annual congressional appropriations, such as funding for defense, education, and transportation programs; they do not affect mandatory spending programs authorized by permanent statutes, including Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt, which continue automatically without annual renewal.[8] The mechanism ensures operational continuity by referencing prior-year funding formulas, thereby avoiding the need for detailed line-item negotiations during the extension.[8]The duration of a CR is explicitly defined within the resolution, ranging from a single day to several months, with the intent to bridge the gap until full-year appropriations can be enacted, thereby exerting pressure on lawmakers to finalize regular bills.[8] While CRs generally prohibit the initiation of new projects or activities not funded in the previous year—"no appropriation or funds made available ... shall be used to initiate or resume any project or activity for which appropriations ... were not available during [the prior] fiscal year"—they may incorporate limited "anomaly" provisions to authorize adjustments for specific, urgent requirements that cannot await comprehensive appropriations.[8] These anomalies allow targeted deviations in amount, purpose, or duration but are employed sparingly to preserve congressional prerogatives over final funding decisions.[8]
Legal and Constitutional Basis
The legal foundation for continuing resolutions rests on the Appropriations Clause in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."[9] This provision grants Congress exclusive authority over federal spending, mandating that all expenditures require specific legislative appropriations rather than indefinite or executive discretion.[10] Continuing resolutions serve as a congressional exercise of this power, enacting temporary appropriations to fulfill the constitutional requirement for lawful funding.[11]The Antideficiency Act enforces these constitutional limits by prohibiting federal officers from making obligations or expenditures exceeding available appropriations or prior to appropriation enactment, as detailed in 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341–1342 and 1511–1519.[12][13] This statute, originally enacted in 1884 and amended over time, criminalizes violations and underscores the necessity of continuing resolutions to prevent lapses that would otherwise trigger agency shutdowns or illegal spending.[14] Without such interim appropriations, agencies lack authority to obligate funds, directly tying CRs to compliance with both constitutional and statutory prohibitions on unappropriated expenditures.[2]Continuing resolutions lack automatic statutory trigger; they demand explicit passage as joint resolutions, a practice emerging in the 19th century but shaped by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which formalized budget timelines without providing default funding mechanisms.[15] The Supreme Court's decision in Train v. City of New York (420 U.S. 35, 1975) affirmed Congress's dominant role in appropriations, rejecting broad executive impoundment and reinforcing that funding decisions, including interim CRs, remain a deliberate legislative prerogative to maintain control over the purse strings.[16] This precedent positions CRs as a targeted tool for averting constitutional crises while preserving congressional oversight, distinct from permanent appropriations.[17]
Integration with Federal Budgeting
The Appropriations Cycle and Timing
The United States federal fiscal year commences on October 1 and concludes on September 30 of the following calendar year.[18] Congress must enact 12 regular appropriations bills to provide funding for discretionary spending programs across various government agencies and departments, with enactment targeted for completion by October 1 to align with the start of the new fiscal year.[19] These bills cover distinct categories, including defense, non-defense discretionary items such as education, transportation, and foreign aid, collectively authorizing approximately one-third of total federal outlays.[20]The appropriations process initiates with the president's submission of a detailed budget request to Congress no later than the first Monday in February, outlining proposed spending levels, revenues, and policy priorities for the upcoming fiscal year.[21] Following this, the Congressional Budget Office delivers its economic and budget outlook report by February 15, informing congressional deliberations.[20]House and Senate Budget Committees then develop a concurrent budget resolution, typically by April 15, which establishes topline spending caps for defense and non-defense categories but does not carry the force of law.[20] Appropriations subcommittees in both chambers begin hearings and markups in spring, advancing through full committee consideration by early summer, with the House aiming to complete action on all bills by June 30.[20]Negotiations over the budget resolution's spending levels often extend into summer, as lawmakers reconcile differences between presidential proposals, prior-year baselines, and partisan priorities, frequently resulting in delays beyond statutory timelines.[22]Full House and Senate passage of individual appropriations bills, followed by conference reconciliation, typically occurs in late summer or early fall, though bicameral agreement proves challenging amid disputes over funding priorities and debt limits.[23] Failure to enact all bills by September 30 creates a funding lapse, as prior-year appropriations expire at midnight on that date.[24]Continuing resolutions serve as temporary measures to extend funding at prior-year levels or specified rates from the end of the previous fiscal year until the regular appropriations bills are signed into law, averting an immediate lapse while negotiations conclude.[21] This bridging mechanism allows operations to persist at controlled spending until full-year bills are finalized, often spanning weeks or months depending on congressional dynamics.[23]
Conditions Necessitating CRs
The enactment of a continuing resolution (CR) is primarily triggered by Congress's failure to complete and pass all 12 regular appropriations bills—or consolidate them into an omnibus package—prior to October 1, the start of the federal fiscal year, leaving federal agencies without new budget authority for operations.[3][25] This procedural lapse occurs when bicameral negotiations between the House and Senate stall, often exacerbated by partisan divisions over funding priorities or when divided government hinders consensus.[5] Presidential veto threats can further complicate passage, as the executive branch's approval is required for appropriations to become law, prompting lawmakers to opt for temporary extensions rather than risk confrontation.[26]Secondary factors intensifying these delays include holdouts during conference committees or floor debates over earmarks—congressionally directed spending for specific projects—and policy riders, which attach non-appropriations provisions like regulatory changes or program restrictions to funding bills.[5] Disputes also arise when proposed spending levels deviate significantly from the previous fiscal year's baseline, with one chamber or party advocating cuts to curb deficits while the other seeks increases for discretionary programs, leading to impasse.[26] In some instances, linkages to extraneous issues, such as debt ceiling adjustments, compound the deadlock by tying appropriations progress to broader fiscal negotiations.[7]Empirically, CRs have been necessary in 46 of the 49 fiscal years since the fiscal year shift to October 1 in FY1977, reflecting the routine challenge of timely appropriations enactment.[8] In years of extended delays, Congress often passes multiple short-term CRs—averaging around five annually across periods of frequent use—to bridge gaps until final bills are approved, underscoring the mechanism's role as a recurring response to legislative bottlenecks.[27]
Operational Advantages
Averting Immediate Shutdowns
Continuing resolutions avert government shutdowns by bridging funding gaps that would otherwise violate the Antideficiency Act, which bars federal agencies from incurring obligations or expenditures exceeding available appropriations or before they are enacted.[14] Without a CR, agencies must furlough non-essential personnel and halt discretionary spending, as seen in prior lapses where operations ceased to comply with constitutional spending controls.[2] By extending prior-year funding levels temporarily, CRs maintain legal authority for expenditures, preventing immediate operational halts across executive departments.[28]This preserves payroll and activities for roughly 2.1 million federal civilian employees, including those in the Department of Defense responsible for military readiness and procurement continuity.[29] For instance, CRs ensure DoD can sustain base operations, contractor payments, and training without lapse, avoiding risks to national defense postures during transitional periods.[25] In fiscal year 2013, a primary CR funded government operations for 178 days amid sequestration disputes, staving off an earlier shutdown until October negotiations faltered.[2]Empirically, CRs mitigate shutdown-induced economic drags, which the Congressional Budget Office has quantified at $11 billion in lost GDP from the 35-day 2018-2019 closure, equivalent to roughly $300 million daily in foregone output from furloughs and private-sector ripple effects. Shorter lapses amplify per-week costs in contracted services and delayed revenues, underscoring CRs' role in short-term stabilization despite deferred resolutions.[30]
Maintaining Continuity for Essential Services
Continuing resolutions sustain core federal functions by providing temporary appropriations at the rates established in the prior fiscal year's enacted levels, thereby funding ongoing salaries, contracts, grants, and operational expenses without interruption. This mechanism ensures that essential services, including defense operations and veteran support programs, persist during congressional delays in passing full-year appropriations bills. For example, the Department of Defense maintains military readiness through continued procurement and maintenance activities, while the Department of Veterans Affairs delivers healthcare and benefits to millions of beneficiaries at prior funding thresholds.[5][3][31]Border security operations under the Department of Homeland Security similarly remain operational, with funding for personnel, facilities, and enforcement activities held steady to avoid short-term vulnerabilities. Law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, continue investigative and protective duties, preserving public safety without procedural halts. These provisions collectively cover roughly $1.6 trillion in annual discretionary spending, encompassing nondefense programs that support veterans' services, federal law enforcement, and other indispensable government roles.[32][2]CRs incorporate limited adaptability through anomalies—targeted legislative adjustments that permit deviations from baseline funding for pressing requirements, such as supplemental disaster response. The executive branch routinely requests these to address immediate crises; for instance, anomalies have facilitated enhanced allocations for emergency aid, including post-hurricane recovery efforts where standard CR levels proved insufficient for rapid deployment. This approach maintains service delivery while enabling modest reallocations, as seen in provisions boosting veterans' healthcare funding by $6 billion in a recent CR to avert shortfalls.[33][34][35]
Drawbacks and Systemic Issues
Uncertainty and Planning Disruptions
Continuing resolutions (CRs) restrict federal agencies' ability to initiate new programs, reprogram funds, or adjust spending levels beyond those established in the prior fiscal year's appropriations, thereby introducing significant uncertainty into operational planning.[36] This lack of flexibility often freezes hiring, training, and contract awards, as agencies must adhere strictly to historical funding patterns without anticipating future needs or efficiencies.[37]Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyses indicate that such constraints complicate agency management, leading to administrative burdens and deferred activities across multiple sectors.[38]In the Department of Defense (DoD), CRs particularly disrupt procurement and acquisition processes by prohibiting new starts and limiting multiyear contracts, resulting in delays for weapon systems, maintenance, and supplier engagements.[39] A DoDInspector General audit found that these restrictions prevent effective management of acquisition programs, compounding delays in modernization and readiness efforts.[39]Heritage Foundation assessments highlight how repeated CRs erode the defense industrial base by stalling investments and forcing reactive rather than strategic planning.[40]Research and development agencies face similar challenges, with CRs deferring grant awards and new initiatives at bodies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF).[41] The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reports that prolonged CRs hinder strategic planning, delaying research grants and imposing hiring freezes that slow innovation pipelines.[41] Agencies across the board, including the Departments of Agriculture, Education, and Health and Human Services, have reported slowed hiring and increased administrative workloads during CR periods, contributing to overall operational inefficiencies.[42]
Inhibition of Fiscal Oversight and Reforms
Continuing resolutions (CRs) extend federal discretionary spending at prior-year levels or pro rata allocations, circumventing the detailed line-by-line scrutiny inherent in the regular appropriations process. This process, involving subcommittee markups, committee votes, and floor amendments, enables members of Congress to propose and debate specific cuts, program terminations, or efficiency reforms that might identify and eliminate waste or outdated expenditures. In contrast, CRs are typically drafted hastily to prevent government shutdowns, with provisions limiting new initiatives or significant adjustments, thereby reducing opportunities for fiscal oversight and perpetuating inefficient allocations without rigorous evaluation.[2][3]Full-year CRs exemplify this inhibition, as they codify previous spending baselines across all accounts without completing the 12 individual appropriations bills, locking in levels that resist proposed reductions. For instance, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, enacted as a full-year measure on March 26, 2013, provided approximately $1.043 trillion in discretionary budget authority, adhering to Budget Control Act caps but forgoing granular reviews that could have implemented Republican-proposed cuts to non-defense spending amid sequestration debates. Such mechanisms have historically prevented broader reforms, including sustained earmark moratoria or targeted waste eliminations, as the compressed timeline discourages amendments and favors status quo continuation over accountability measures.[43][44]By deferring contentious fiscal decisions, CRs foster a pattern of expenditure autopilot, contributing to cumulative debt accumulation as opportunities to constrain discretionary outlays—nominally growing from about $650 billion in FY2000 to over $1.7 trillion in recent years—are routinely bypassed. This avoidance of hard choices on reallocating resources or curbing bleed from mandatory programs intertwined with discretionary funding has paralleled the rise of federal debt to exceed $35 trillion by 2025, underscoring how CR reliance undermines long-term fiscal discipline without necessitating offsets or structural reforms.[27]
Historical Origins and Development
Early Precedents Before 1977
The practice of temporary funding measures in U.S. federal budgeting originated in the 19th century through "deficiency appropriations," which addressed overruns when executive departments exhausted annual allocations before the fiscal year concluded on June 30. Congress frequently responded by enacting supplemental deficiency acts to cover shortfalls, a pattern that began as early as 1840, with such measures approved nearly annually thereafter except in rare instances like 1846 and 1854. These acts provided additional funds post-expenditure rather than preventive interim authority, reflecting congressional efforts to maintain operations amid imprecise forecasting and expanding government responsibilities, but they often encouraged fiscal indiscipline by retroactively validating overspending.[45][46]By the early 20th century, delays in enacting regular appropriations bills past the July 1 fiscal year start prompted the use of ad hoc joint resolutions for temporary continuing appropriations, typically extending prior-year funding levels for affected agencies until full bills passed. Prior to the 1970s, these resolutions were generally short-term, covering gaps of days or weeks rather than months, as Congress prioritized completing the 13 annual bills despite chronic lateness—85% of appropriations acts from fiscal years 1962 to 1981 were enacted after the fiscal year began. Full-year reliance on such measures remained exceptional before 1977, employed only occasionally amid partisan disputes or procedural bottlenecks, underscoring their role as emergency bridges rather than routine practice.[47][6]The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, enacted on July 12, 1974, aimed to curb these patchwork solutions by establishing a formalized budget process with concurrent resolutions and new oversight committees, intending to synchronize appropriations with overall fiscal planning and reduce ad hoc extensions. However, the act's provision shifting the fiscal year to begin October 1 starting in FY1977 inadvertently amplified timing pressures, as the compressed post-election window for negotiations heightened the risk of delays, setting the stage for more frequent temporary funding despite reformist goals.[48][49]
Institutionalization After Fiscal Year Shift
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 shifted the federal fiscal year start from July 1 to October 1, effective for FY1977, compressing the appropriations timeline from 13 months to 10 months and contributing to delays in passing the 13 regular appropriations bills. This structural change prompted the enactment of the first modern continuing resolutions (CRs) in FY1977 to fund unauthorized programs and bridge gaps, as regular appropriations were not completed on time despite the inaugural October deadline.[50]By the 1980s, CRs had evolved into an annual fixture, with Congress enacting full-year CRs covering at least one regular appropriations bill for each of FY1978 through FY1988, amid escalating deficits under President Reagan that intensified partisan disputes over spending levels.[50] The practice normalized as lawmakers increasingly relied on CRs to extend prior-year funding rather than negotiate comprehensive bills within the shortened window, reflecting institutional adaptation to persistent timing pressures rather than isolated emergencies.[8]CR usage peaked in the 1990s following high-profile government shutdowns, such as the 1995-1996 closures lasting 5 and 21 days respectively, which stemmed from budget impasses between President Clinton and the Republican Congress and prompted greater dependence on CRs to avert future lapses.[28] These events underscored CRs' role in institutional risk aversion, with lawmakers favoring temporary extensions over shutdowns even as fiscal discipline efforts, like the balanced budget agreements, occasionally enabled on-time appropriations.[51]Post-2008 financial crisis, CRs proliferated into chained sequences, averaging about five per fiscal year from FY1998 to FY2025, as economic recovery demands and polarized negotiations extended reliance on stopgap measures across multiple bills.[5] In total, 207 CRs were enacted from FY1977 to FY2025, with no CRs required in only three fiscal years—FY1989, FY1995, and FY1997—coinciding with periods of relative budgetary consensus and on-time passage of all appropriations under deficit-reduction frameworks.[6] This scarcity highlights how institutional inertia post-FY shift entrenched CRs, except amid enforced fiscal restraint.[27]
Patterns of Usage
Frequency and Duration Trends
Since fiscal year 1977, when the U.S. fiscal year began aligning with the October 1 start date, Congress has enacted 207 continuing resolutions through fiscal year 2025, with annual totals varying from zero to a high of 21 in fiscal year 2001.[2] This equates to an average of approximately 4.6 continuing resolutions per fiscal year over the full period.[52] From fiscal years 1998 to 2025, the average rose to five per year, reflecting increased reliance on these measures amid persistent delays in regular appropriations.[5]Individual continuing resolutions typically provide funding for durations ranging from one day to 216 days, with historical averages around 29 days per resolution based on enactments from the late 1990s to early 2010s.[50][5] However, sequential chains of short-term resolutions often extend effective coverage, as seen in fiscal year 2011, which required eight such measures before a full-year continuing resolution was passed on April 15, 2011.[53] Across recent decades, these resolutions have collectively funded federal operations for an average of nearly 118 days—or about four months—per fiscal year in which they were used, prior to final appropriations bills.[2]Usage patterns show early sporadic application from 1977 through the 1990s, with fewer resolutions annually as Congress adjusted to the synchronized fiscal calendar, followed by heightened frequency post-2000.[2] Spikes occurred notably after the 2013 Budget Control Act sequester, contributing to years with multiple short extensions, such as fiscal years 2023 and 2024, where several one- to two-week resolutions were chained to avert lapses.[5] Enactment rates correlate with periods of divided government, including transitions under Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden, during which congressional control split from the executive branch, leading to elevated numbers compared to unified government years.[54]
Period
Average CRs per Fiscal Year
Notes on Duration/Coverage
FY1977–1997
~3–4
More isolated use; total coverage shorter on average
FY1998–2025
5
Increased chaining; average ~118 days funded via CRs when enacted[2][5]
Extended or Sequential CRs
Sequential continuing resolutions (CRs) occur when Congress enacts multiple short-term CRs in succession to extend funding beyond initial deadlines, often culminating in a full-year CR or prolonged interim funding that rigidly perpetuates prior fiscal year levels without substantive adjustments.[2] This chaining mechanism amplifies operational constraints, as each subsequent CR typically incorporates the restrictions of the previous one, prohibiting new program starts, fund reprogrammings, or policy riders unless explicitly authorized via anomalies.[6] Unlike standalone short-term CRs, sequential extensions embed escalating rigidity, foreclosing opportunities for mid-year recalibrations in response to economic shifts, sequestration mandates, or emergent priorities.In fiscal year 2013, Congress passed six short-term CRs between October 2012 and March 2013 before enacting a full-year CR on March 26, 2013, which funded operations through September 30 at fiscal year 2012 levels reduced by sequestration cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011. This sequence locked in across-the-board reductions without flexibility for targeted reallocations, compelling agencies to operate under frozen baselines that mismatched post-sequestration realities and barred initiation of congressionally directed initiatives.[43] The full-year measure, while averting shutdowns, effectively institutionalized the prior year's spending profile, overriding potential refinements from the regular appropriations process.[55]Sequential CRs severely impair multiyear planning by mandating adherence to outdated funding formulas, which disrupts procurement cycles, hiring, and resource allocation in agencies reliant on predictable appropriations.[3] For the Department of Defense, chained CRs exacerbate these issues by restricting new military construction, research and development starts, and equipment modernization, leading to misaligned expenditures where funds are rushed into lower-priority areas to prevent lapsing.[56] Defense officials have reported that such extensions distort operational readiness, with inefficiencies compounding over multiple CRs to hinder strategic adaptability against evolving threats.[57]A comparable dynamic unfolded in fiscal year 2024, where failures to advance minibus packages prompted at least four sequential CRs from October 2023 to March 2024, delaying the eventual passage of a six-bill minibus on March 23, 2024.[58] These extensions maintained fiscal year 2023 levels amid stalled negotiations, postponing reforms such as efficiency mandates or supplemental allocations and forcing agencies into protracted uncertainty that curtailed proactive budgeting.[59] Across eras, such patterns underscore how sequential CRs, while providing interim stability, entrench fiscal inertia, amplifying downstream disruptions in program execution and oversight.[5]
Recent Developments and Crises
2020s Instability Including 2025 Shutdown
In the early 2020s, Congress continued its heavy reliance on continuing resolutions amid partisan battles over pandemic-related relief, infrastructure investments, and baseline spending levels, resulting in multiple short-term CRs for fiscal years 2021 through 2024 to bridge funding gaps while full appropriations stalled.[2]This pattern culminated in fiscal year 2025 with the enactment of a full-year continuing resolution on March 15, 2025, which extended government funding at prior-year levels through September 30, 2025, after initial deadlines in January and March had been met with temporary stopgaps but ultimately deferred comprehensive budgeting.[60][61]Negotiations for fiscal year 2026 appropriations then broke down irreparably, triggering a partial federal government shutdown at 12:01 a.m. EDT on October 1, 2025, as no funding measure was passed by the prior fiscal year's end.[62]The House advanced several continuing resolution bills seeking to extend funding, often incorporating Republican priorities for spending restraint, but the Senate rejected these repeatedly, failing to achieve the 60 votes required for cloture on at least 12 occasions by October 22, 2025—including a 54-46 vote that day—prolonging the lapse into its third week.[63][64]Disagreements centered on Republican insistence for cuts to discretionary spending amid fiscal pressures, including a Congressional Budget Office-estimated $1.8 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2025, versus Democratic opposition to reductions that would deviate from prior bipartisan agreements on caps and baselines.[65][66]By October 23, 2025, the shutdown ranked as the second-longest in U.S. history, with over 670,000 federal workers furloughed or working without pay, essential services curtailed in agencies like the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and no resolution in sight as the Senate adjourned without further votes.[67][62]
Partisan Factors in Contemporary Gridlock
In recent years, House Republicans have frequently conditioned continuing resolutions (CRs) on provisions for spending reductions or rescissions, such as proposed cuts to non-defense discretionary funding by $15 billion and defense by $3 billion in a full-year CR draft, aiming to offset prior-year obligations and enforce fiscal restraint amid rising deficits.[68] These demands reflect intra-party pressures from fiscal conservatives seeking to leverage shutdown threats for concessions, as seen in repeated House-passed measures tying short-term funding extensions to targeted rescissions exceeding $9 billion from programs like foreign aid and public broadcasting.[69] Democrats, controlling the Senate in unified government periods or wielding filibuster power in divided ones, have consistently opposed such riders, prioritizing preservation of baseline appropriations levels from prior fiscal years to avoid disruptions to ongoing programs.[5]Negotiation breakdowns often intensify during divided government, where Republican insistence on policy changes clashes with Democratic resistance, resulting in higher incidences of shutdown brinkmanship—evident in the 35-day 2018-2019 lapse over border wall funding and multiple 2023 near-misses under President Biden tied to GOP demands for work requirements and cuts.[24] Data from the Committee for a Responsible FederalBudget (CRFB) highlights how Democratic-led Congresses have enacted fewer structural reforms to appropriations processes, such as automatic sequestrations or biennial budgeting, perpetuating ad hoc CR reliance and enabling baseline spending growth without offsets.[70] This dynamic underscores a causal divide: Republican fiscal hawks prioritize curbing entitlements and discretionary outlays to address long-term solvency, while Democratic majorities protect established spending trajectories, often framing GOP proposals as extreme despite empirical evidence of unchecked federal expansion.[71]CR passage rates notably decline in lame-duck sessions post-election, where unified partisan incentives wane and holdover majorities face pressure from incoming counterparts, leading to more protracted impasses or minimal "clean" extensions without reforms.[72] For instance, in 10 of the 12 lame-duck sessions since 2000, Congress resorted to CRs rather than full appropriations packages, reflecting heightened partisan posturing as lame-duck lawmakers avoid concessions that bind successors.[73] Such sessions amplify gridlock, as evidenced by recurring failures to resolve rescissions or riders, with CRFB analyses attributing persistence to entrenched partisan incentives favoring short-term stability over deficit reduction.[70]
Controversies and Broader Implications
Debates Over Fiscal Discipline vs. Stability
Supporters of continuing resolutions prioritize government operational stability, arguing that they avert the economic disruptions of shutdowns, which analyses estimate can reduce GDP growth by 0.1 percentage points per week and impose billions in lost output.[74][75] This perspective, often advanced by Democratic lawmakers, frames CRs as pragmatic tools to maintain essential services amid partisangridlock, allowing time for negotiated appropriations without immediate fiscal cliffs.[76] However, data indicate that CRs, by extending prior-year funding levels, reduce incentives for efficiency reforms, correlating with unchecked spending trajectories that exacerbate deficits rather than imposing spending restraint.[77][27]Critics advocating fiscal discipline, including conservative analysts, contend that CRs perpetuate budgetary inertia, locking in inflated baselines without the scrutiny of full appropriations debates that could yield cuts or reallocations.[78] Empirical trends support this view: real (inflation-adjusted) discretionary outlays have surged by $7.6 trillion cumulatively since 2001, reflecting expansions unoffset by productivity gains or mandatory-side reforms, as CRs sidestep the leverage of shutdown threats to enforce accountability.[77] Such mechanisms, proponents argue, entrench waste by normalizing stopgaps—now averaging five per year—over structured budgeting that historically curbed excesses through negotiation.[27][79]The ideological divide manifests in source interpretations: left-leaning outlets and policymakers emphasize shutdown "hysteria" as overstated to justify CRs, while fiscally conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget highlight how these resolutions enable irresponsibility by deferring painful but necessary trims, prioritizing short-term continuity over long-term solvency.[80][77] This tension underscores a causal reality: while CRs mitigate immediate chaos, their prevalence has coincided with discretionary bloat absent offsetting discipline, as evidenced by persistent deficit growth amid routine extensions rather than zero-based reviews.[77][27]
Economic and National Security Costs
Continuing resolutions (CRs) introduce fiscal uncertainty that delays federal investments in infrastructure and research and development (R&D), as agencies are restricted to prior-year spending levels without flexibility for new initiatives or adjustments to inflation and population growth.[27] Consecutive CRs exacerbate this by locking in outdated baselines, potentially enforcing deep involuntary spending cuts equivalent to 10% or more across programs if extended into a full fiscal year, as baselines fail to account for economic expansion.[81] This uncertainty correlates with reduced business investment and heightened economic volatility, with analyses of related funding disruptions estimating drags on gross domestic product (GDP) growth ranging from 0.1% to 0.35% in affected periods due to deferred projects and contracting hesitancy.[82][83]In the defense sector, CRs constrain the Department of Defense (DoD) from initiating or accelerating procurement and modernization efforts, leading to documented delays in critical capabilities such as weapons system development and production scaling.[56] For instance, under CR restrictions, DoD officials have reported impediments to starting new programs and maintaining readiness, with a 2025 audit confirming that such funding anomalies delayed acquisition timelines and thereby compromised national security objectives.[39] Full-year CRs pose particular risks, potentially forgoing $27 billion in planned defense enhancements and resulting in $7 billion less overall military funding compared to regular appropriations, without congressional debate on priorities.[84][85]These constraints undermine deterrence postures, particularly against peer competitors like China, by straining the defense industrial base through halted contracts and eroded contractor relationships, which amplify supply chain vulnerabilities.[86]DoD leadership, including Secretary Lloyd Austin, has testified that prolonged CR operations hinder troop pay adjustments, nuclear modernization, and aircraft acquisitions—such as F-35 sustainment—exacerbating readiness gaps in an era of escalating global threats.[87][88][89]
Reform Proposals and Alternatives
Proposals to mitigate reliance on continuing resolutions (CRs) include automatic funding extensions, which would maintain prior-year spending levels in the absence of new appropriations to avert shutdowns. Such mechanisms, as in the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act, aim to ensure continuity but face criticism for eroding congressional incentives to complete timely appropriations, thereby weakening oversight and fiscal discipline. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities contends that automatic CRs undermine sound budgeting by allowing lawmakers to defer hard choices indefinitely, potentially leading to unchecked spending growth without accountability.[90][91]Biennial budgeting represents an alternative to restructure the annual cycle, allocating one year for appropriations and the next for oversight and adjustments, which proponents argue could reduce end-of-year pressures contributing to CRs. This approach has been advanced in congressional proposals, such as those examined by the Congressional Research Service, to foster longer-term planning and curb reactive stopgaps. However, evaluations highlight feasibility challenges: projecting revenues and outlays over two years amplifies uncertainty from economic shifts, and it may spur more ad hoc supplemental appropriations rather than resolving underlying gridlock. Empirical reviews, including state-level implementations, show mixed outcomes, with added upfront effort often offset by diminished legislative control in year two.[92][93][94]Enforcement-oriented reforms seek to impose consequences for delays, such as linking CRs to automatic spending caps or rescission triggers that enforce cuts if deadlines pass. Building on 1990s mechanisms like sequestration under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, these would tie funding extensions to predefined reductions, compelling negotiation. Relatedly, revived line-item veto authority for the executive—previously enacted in 1996 but invalidated by the Supreme Court in 1998—could target wasteful provisions in omnibus bills, discouraging the bloated packages that precipitate CRs.[95][96][97]Linking debt ceiling increases to on-time appropriations offers another lever, conditioning borrowing authority on completed bills to synchronize fiscal deadlines and heighten stakes for inaction. The Government Accountability Office has recommended integrating debt limit decisions with budget resolutions to align spending and borrowing deliberations. Feasibility assessments grounded in past enforcement eras, such as the 1990s when Budget Enforcement Act caps and pay-as-you-go rules facilitated spending restraint from 21.85% to 18.22% of GDP, indicate that credible penalties reduce disruptions by incentivizing discipline over deferral. These periods demonstrated fewer extended funding gaps when automatic stabilizers enforced trade-offs, underscoring that reforms succeeding via binding constraints outperform those diluting congressional responsibility.[98][99][100]