Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has Congress previously used continuing resolutions to avoid shutdowns?
Executive Summary
Congress has repeatedly used continuing resolutions (CRs) as stopgap funding measures to avoid government shutdowns; historical counts show dozens to hundreds of CRs enacted over recent decades, and CRs have been the default in many fiscal years when regular appropriations were not completed [1] [2]. Contemporary debates still pivot around CR use because CRs preserve operations short-term but shift costs and constraints onto agencies, prompting repeated reliance and political bargaining [3] [4].
1. Why CRs Became the Go-To Bandage for Budget Gaps
Continuing resolutions have become a routine legislative tool because they allow Congress and the president to keep federal programs operating when annual appropriations are delayed, rather than forcing an immediate lapse in funding that would trigger a shutdown [5]. The historical record compiled by multiple analyses shows that CRs have been used in nearly every recent fiscal cycle: one source counts 207 CRs enacted between FY1977 and FY2025, averaging 118 days of temporary funding per enactment, demonstrating that CRs routinely extend appropriations timelines instead of resolving long-term spending decisions [1]. Oversight reviews note that the federal government operated under CRs in most years—all but three of the past 46 fiscal years—underscoring that CRs function as the de facto contingency when Congress fails to pass full-year bills [2]. Policymakers favor CRs for their immediacy, but their adoption reflects recurring stalemates rather than a deliberate budgeting strategy.
2. How Often and How Long — The Data on CR Frequency
Empirical tallies show a pattern of frequent, short-term fixes: from FY1998 through FY2025 Congress enacted about 138 CRs—roughly five per year on average—and in some years multiple CRs covered continuing funding needs [3]. More narrowly, between FY2010 and FY2022, legislative action produced 47 CRs ranging from one to 176 days, a span that illustrates both brief stopgaps and extended multi-month patches when negotiations stalled [2]. Another long-run accounting registers 207 CRs from FY1977 to FY2025, pointing to sustained reliance over decades and supporting the claim that CRs are a recurring fiscal mechanism rather than a rare emergency tool [1]. These counts converge on the conclusion that CRs are frequent and variable in length, reflecting political dynamics rather than consistent budgeting practice.
3. What CRs Achieve—and What They Don’t—for Federal Agencies
Continuing resolutions achieve the immediate objective of preventing agency furloughs and service interruptions by maintaining baseline funding, but oversight analyses and GAO reporting emphasize the trade-offs: operating under CRs constrains programmatic flexibility, delays new initiatives, complicates contracting, and forces stop-and-start management that increases administrative inefficiency [2]. Because many CRs effectively extend prior-year funding levels, agencies cannot enact new priorities or adjust to changing needs without additional statutory authority, so the short-term success of avoiding a shutdown comes at the expense of longer-term planning and efficiency [2] [5]. Policymakers who favor CRs underline the immediate continuity benefits, while critics argue CR reliance masks deeper dysfunction in the appropriations process.
4. Political Uses, Pressure Campaigns, and Competing Agendas
CRs are as much political instruments as fiscal tools. Advocacy and committee actions often seek CRs that reflect partisan bargaining: one dataset notes that over 300 organizations publicly supported a “clean” CR to reopen government in a particular episode, signaling interest-group pressure for immediate funding without policy riders, an action promoted by a House appropriations faction [6]. Conversely, some lawmakers prefer CRs laden with policy changes or time-limited leverage, using temporary funding deadlines to force concessions. Both approaches illustrate that CRs become arenas for policy bargaining and strategic brinkmanship, where interest groups and parties attempt to shape outcomes during stopgap funding windows [6] [7].
5. Recent Context: Continued Reliance and Calls for Change
Recent commentary and analyses published in 2025 continue to document heavy reliance on CRs and call attention to the systemic consequences: one 2025 review summarizes that CRs now average five per year and sometimes fund entire fiscal years, pointing to an erosion of the regular appropriations rhythm [3]. A Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Q&A published in September 2025 outlined how CRs affect shutdown mechanics and agency management, framing CRs as a predictable fallback with predictable costs [4]. These recent sources collectively make clear that while CRs forestall shutdowns, they perpetuate a cycle of short-termism that many analysts and stakeholders see as unsustainable.
6. Bottom Line: Precedent Exists, But It’s a Compromise, Not a Cure
The assembled evidence is unequivocal: Congress has repeatedly used continuing resolutions to avoid shutdowns across many fiscal years, with hundreds of CRs enacted and a pattern of multi-year reliance [1] [2]. That precedent explains why CRs remain central to budget management. However, oversight findings and contemporary debates stress that CRs are an imperfect solution—they preserve operations but constrain agencies, complicate planning, and enable political brinkmanship—and calls for procedural reform persist among analysts who document these trade-offs [2] [3].