Fact check: How have clean CRs and continuing resolutions with amendments been used in recent years, such as in the 2024 budget process?

1. Why a “clean CR” became a rallying cry—and where it succeeded

Senators and House members advocating for a “clean CR” argue it prevents last-minute policy riders and unchecked spending from being attached to must-pass funding, and proponents used this framing to push for simple, full-year funding that preserves existing programs while avoiding controversial changes; Senator Rick Scott publicly pushed for a full-year clean CR in 2024 to block omnibus-style additions and force structural budget reforms ^[2]. The political appeal of a clean CR is its simplicity: it funds government at agreed levels and reduces leverage for procedural brinkmanship, yet history shows clean CRs are politically fragile because either party can later demand amendments or use floor procedure to attach priorities. The recent 2025 full-year act demonstrates that a clean or largely clean framework can pass when political conditions align, although it still contained targeted extensions and programmatic adjustments rather than being purely procedural ^[1].

2. How CRs with amendments have been used to reshape policy and spending

Legislators often employ CRs with amendments to advance substantive policy changes or temporary funding shifts, turning a stopgap into a vehicle for priorities that otherwise might not clear regular order; the 2025 full-year act included extensions of health programs and adjustments across agencies, illustrating how an ostensibly funding-focused bill can carry programmatic riders ^[1]. Opponents warn that attaching major policy or large spending increases to reopening bills can make enactment politically costly and fiscally unsound, a concern amplified by proposals in late 2025 that would have added significant health-care spending increases to reopening legislation without offsets, prompting criticism that such packages would be historically costly ^[3]. Supporters of amendment-bearing CRs counter that time-sensitive fixes—SNAP expirations, aviation staffing, or temporary subsidies—require immediate legislative action and that CR amendments can be pragmatic stopgaps for urgent needs ^{[4] [5]}.

3. The 2024 budget season: brinkmanship, block votes, and the role of CRs

The 2024 budget process featured repeated use of CRs and intense floor battles, with Senate Democrats blocking funding advances multiple times as part of strategic votes; one October 2024 episode saw Democrats block a bill that would have funded government through November 21, reflecting how party tactics turn CR votes into leverage over broader policy fights and shutdown risk ^[4]. That year reinforced a pattern identified in analyses showing the U.S. averaged several CRs annually since the late 1990s, undermining the notion that CRs are reserved for rare emergencies; instead, they have become a recurring feature that complicates multi-year planning and can delay substantive appropriations work ^{[6] [7]}. Critics argue this repeated reliance raises operational disruptions for agencies and recipients of federal funding, while defenders say CRs buy time for negotiation without immediate service interruptions ^{[6] [5]}.

4. Cost, offsets, and the politics of adding large measures to CRs

Adding major spending increases to CRs shifts fiscal debates into short, high-stakes windows and can produce packages described as historically costly; a reopening proposal in late 2025 seeking roughly $1.5 trillion in additional health-care spending to extend ACA subsidies exemplifies how amendment-laden CRs can become vehicles for large-scale policy expansions without offsets, drawing concern about fiscal discipline and transparency ^[3]. Advocates for such measures frame them as emergency responses to constituent needs—expiring subsidies, nutrition assistance gaps, or urgent infrastructure problems—and argue timing dictates combining them with CRs to avoid service interruptions. Critics, however, highlight the absence of offsets and the procedural circumvention of full appropriations debate, stressing that loading CRs with major fiscal changes undermines regular budgetary safeguards and reduces opportunities for detailed committee scrutiny ^{[3] [6]}.

5. The bigger picture: recurring stopgaps, institutional strain, and reform debates

The trend toward using multiple CRs each fiscal year points to deeper institutional strains in Congress: polarized floor dynamics, truncated committee work, and strategic use of procedural tactics have turned CRs into predictable instruments rather than emergency fixes, complicating agency planning and stakeholder certainty ^[6]. Proposals for reform range from recommitting to timely appropriations and process discipline to embracing targeted full-year CRs that preserve program stability while carving out narrowly tailored, transparent fixes; stakeholders’ agendas shape preferences—fiscal conservatives often push clean CRs to limit spending, while Democrats or program advocates favor using CR amendments to secure immediate benefits—so political incentives dictate whether CRs remain clean or become policy-laden vehicles ^{[2] [1]}. The 2024–2025 cycle shows both paths are viable: Congress can enact full-year measures resembling clean CRs, but political pressure and urgent policy needs continue to drive amendment-bearing CRs as pragmatic, if imperfect, solutions ^[1].