Which appropriations or continuing resolutions did House Democrats support to avert a shutdown in 2024?

1. How Democrats moved to avert a shutdown — the sequence that mattered

House Democrats voted for a string of short‑term continuing resolutions and negotiated full‑year bills that collectively averted a 2024 shutdown. According to the House Appropriations committee summary, Democrats backed a CR that maintained funding through March 8 and then a subsequent CR extending funding through March 22, 2024, while also supporting passage of six full‑year FY24 appropriations bills that were approved in early March ^[1]. Congressional summaries and later reporting identify that Democrats also voted for consolidated packages — often called minibuses — that bundled multiple appropriations bills into enactable legislation, providing final funding for the remaining departments and agencies ^[3]. Those votes combined stopgap and permanent measures to replace temporary coverage with full‑year appropriations.

2. Which appropriations Democrats explicitly supported — the six and the minibuses

House Democrats publicly and procedurally backed six named FY24 full‑year bills in the committee’s joint statement: Agriculture‑FDA, Commerce‑Justice‑Science, Energy and Water Development, Interior, Military Construction‑VA, and Transportation‑HUD. These six were advanced and enacted as part of the early March package that Democrats supported while other bills were still being finalized ^[1]. In addition to those six, Democrats voted for later consolidated appropriations packages referenced as the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 — the minibuses that together provided final year funding across the remaining appropriations, including defense and health‑related accounts ^{[2] [3]}. Those omnibus/minibus enactments rejected many Republican-proposed riders, a point emphasized in Democratic summaries of the legislation ^[2].

3. The stopgap votes: CRs and their dates that mattered

Reporting compiled afterward lists a string of CRs and short extensions Democrats supported or voted for to prevent lapses in funding. The chronology identified includes a September 2023 CR (H.R. 5860) that set 2023 levels while negotiations continued, a November CR extending several bills into January 2024, then a January extension shifting expirations into March, and a March short‑term CR that carried funding to March 22 while final bills were enacted ^[3]. Committee materials and aggregated accounts list Democratic votes for the March continuations and procedural votes needed to advance the packages, indicating an ongoing Democratic posture of backing temporary funding to buy time for full appropriations ^{[1] [3]}.

4. Where accounts diverge — Senate defections and party tensions

Public accounts and legislative summaries show variation within and between parties over the same period, creating some contradictory narratives. Some reports highlight a small number of Democratic defectors who joined Republicans on particular stopgap measures in 2025 or later, or on Senate votes for multi‑month funding, which drew criticism from House Democrats who insisted on different priorities ^[4]. Committee statements and House roll calls emphasize broad Democratic unity behind the March 2024 strategy of CRs followed by minibuses, while other outlets focused on cross‑chamber deals or individual defections that complicated the political messaging ^{[3] [4]}. These differences reflect distinct institutional incentives in the House and Senate and varying priorities among moderates and progressives.

5. What Democrats said they achieved and what critics noted

Democratic leaders framed their votes as preserving core programs and blocking harmful policy riders while securing full‑year appropriations through negotiated minibuses. Committee materials assert that the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 increased defense funding and struck nearly 30 “poison pill” riders proposed by House Republicans, a point emphasized to justify Democratic support ^[2]. Critics, including some progressive House members and outside advocates, argued that supporting stopgap CRs enabled Republican leverage or delayed more substantive programmatic gains; other critics pointed to isolated Democratic votes that crossed party lines on specific measures as evidence of mixed discipline ^{[2] [4]}. Both viewpoints are documented in contemporaneous committee statements and post‑hoc reporting.

6. Bottom line — Democrats’ practical role in keeping the government open

Factually, House Democrats played a practical, substantive role in averting a 2024 shutdown by supporting a combination of short‑term continuing resolutions and full‑year appropriations/minibus packages that together funded the government into FY24. The committee’s joint statement and legislative summaries list the specific six bills advanced and the consolidated acts that enacted final funding, while contemporaneous reporting documents the CRs and votes that bridged temporary gaps ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Political framing differs across outlets — Democrats emphasize program protections and rejection of riders, opponents emphasize concessions and defections — but the legislative record shows Democrats voted for the measures that averted lapses in funding.