Fact check: What are the differences between a continuing resolution and a budget appropriation bill?

1. Why a short-term stopgap becomes routine — the politics behind continuing resolutions

Continuing resolutions are used repeatedly because Congress and the President often fail to agree on full appropriations by October 1, turning CRs from emergency measures into a regular tool of governance. CRS and GAO data show CRs were enacted in all but three fiscal years since 1977, with hundreds of CRs providing temporary funding for an average of roughly 118 days per enactment period, reflecting persistent procedural or political gridlock and strategic use of temporary funding to manage partisan differences ^{[3] [4]}. Critics say this regularity imposes planning burdens on agencies; proponents argue CRs avert shutdowns and force fiscal discipline.

2. What a CR legally does — mechanics and limits on new activity

A continuing resolution typically extends funding by applying prior-year levels or a specified funding rate to covered programs and often prohibits initiation of new activities or significant changes unless specifically allowed by the CR’s anomalies or legislative provisions. CRS summaries identify six core components—coverage, duration, funding rate, prohibition on new activities, anomalies, and legislative provisions—that delimit both the scope and the exceptions of CRs, meaning many agencies operate under temporary, sometimes constrained rules that defer policy changes until full appropriations pass ^[4].

3. What an appropriations bill accomplishes — setting new priorities and oversight

An appropriations bill is designed to set new funding totals, attach policy riders, and provide detailed directives and reporting requirements for agencies for the fiscal year. Unlike CRs, which typically rely on prior-year baselines, appropriations bills implement budgetary choices, adjust program levels, and can reflect shifts in congressional priorities through 302(a) and 302(b) allocations that guide subcommittee spending ceilings. The appropriations process is also where regular order and substantive oversight are most visible, with House and Senate appropriations committees shaping programmatic detail ^[5].

4. Operational effects on agencies — uncertainty, administrative cost, and mission impacts

Operating under a CR creates funding uncertainty and administrative burdens for federal agencies: managers delay contracts, hiring, and program starts because budgets are temporary and often mismatched with program needs. Multiple explainers from 2025 note that CRs can waste taxpayer resources through stop-start management and complicate long-term planning; conversely, full appropriations provide stable year-long budgets, enabling multi-year programs, clearer procurement, and more predictable staffing decisions ^{[6] [1]}.

5. Fiscal control and strategic leverage — who wins under a CR vs. appropriations bill

CRs can serve as a political lever: lawmakers use them to maintain prior funding baselines, block or delay policy changes, or force compromises under time pressure, granting strategic advantage to actors seeking to freeze funding or prevent contested changes. Appropriations bills instead require substantive negotiation over new allocations and riders, offering opportunities for both majority and minority parties to advance policy goals. Congressional sources from 2025 show partisan framing of CRs—some Republicans framed the issue as restoring regular order, while other actors blamed opposing parties for shutdowns—highlighting political agendas embedded in funding debates ^{[7] [5]}.

6. Exceptions and “anomalies” — when CRs deviate from the status quo

Continuing resolutions often include anomalies—explicit exceptions that alter funding rates or permit specific new programs despite the general freeze—because some activities cannot function on last year’s rules or require immediate adjustments. CRS and other explainers emphasize that anomalies and legislative provisions are the principal levers by which a CR departs from strict continuation, and they are frequently negotiated to keep essential programs like disaster relief or new initiatives operational while broader appropriations remain unsettled ^{[4] [6]}.

7. Big-picture tradeoffs and what to watch during budget fights

The core tradeoff is between short-term continuity and long-term policy setting: CRs prevent shutdowns but delay policy choices, while appropriations bills enable targeted funding and oversight but require political agreement. Analysts in 2025 underscore that frequent reliance on CRs shifts administrative burden to agencies and reduces congressional opportunities for detailed oversight, while advocates for CRs point to their role in preventing disruptive government closures. Watch for duration language, funding rates, and anomalies in any CR, and for 302 allocations and riders during appropriations negotiations, as these determine real-world impacts ^{[2] [5]}.