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.
How do regular appropriations and continuing resolutions function to fund the government?
Executive Summary
Regular appropriations are the preferred, annual mechanism by which Congress funds discrete federal functions through twelve separate bills, while continuing resolutions (CRs) are short-term stopgaps that extend prior-year funding when those bills are not enacted by the October 1 fiscal deadline; both mechanisms, plus supplemental appropriations, operate within a Constitutional framework that vests spending power in Congress [1] [2]. Recent reporting and oversight work show that CRs have become routine — used in most fiscal years and numbering in the dozens since the late 1990s — producing operational uncertainty for agencies and driving calls for process reform [3] [4].
1. How the Annual Appropriations Engine Is Supposed to Run — And Where It Often Stalls
The statutory and procedural design calls for an annual cycle: the president submits a budget, Congress adopts a budget resolution that sets toplines, the Appropriations Committees allocate 302(b) subcommittee limits, and twelve regular appropriations bills are enacted to fund one fiscal year beginning October 1. Regular appropriations provide predictability, program-level direction, and fiscal control; discretionary spending subject to these bills represents roughly a quarter of federal outlays while mandatory programs take up the remainder, complicating overall fiscal choices [1] [5]. Oversight literature emphasizes that when this sequence is completed on time agencies can plan hiring, contracting, and multi-year programs with clarity; the procedural ideal contrasts sharply with reality, where Congress frequently misses the deadline and forces temporary measures [2].
2. Continuing Resolutions: A Political Band‑Aid That Became Routine
Continuing resolutions are temporary appropriations that typically carry forward prior-year funding levels and authorities with limited adjustments, and they can be narrow or omnibus in scope and short- or long-duration in design. CRs exist to prevent a lapse in appropriations and a government shutdown, but empirical records show heavy reliance: since FY1998 Congress enacted 138 CRs through FY2025 and used at least one CR in most of the past 47 fiscal years, with averages of multiple CRs per year in recent decades [3] [6]. The Government Accountability Office documented 47 CRs between FY2010–FY2022, describing a pattern that produces administrative burden and uncertainty for agencies when funding levels and policy directions remain frozen [4]. That routinization weakens the annual budgeting norm and shifts decision-making into ad hoc political negotiation.
3. Concrete Consequences for Federal Agencies and Services
Oversight reports and analyses from 2022–2025 document recurring operational impacts when CRs are used: hiring freezes, delayed grants and procurements, paused research and infrastructure starts, and complex stop‑start program management that wastes staff time and increases costs. Agencies such as HHS, USDA, and Education reported constraints on travel, training, and new awards under CRs, and long or multiple CRs leave programs stuck at previous-year levels even when needs change [4] [7]. These effects mean real-world service disruptions — from delayed disaster responses to constrained assistance programs — and complicate long-term planning even after final appropriations are enacted late in the fiscal year [6] [7].
4. Numbers, Patterns, and Political Drivers — What the Data Tell Us
Quantitative summaries through 2025 show that Congress rarely completes enactment of all twelve bills by October 1; the appropriations process has been fully on time only three times in the last 47 years, per oversight summaries, and continuing resolutions or omnibus packages have become the dominant practical method of funding in many years [4]. Political polarization, competing priorities, and calendar pressures explain much of this pattern: disagreements between House and Senate, intra‑party divisions, and executive-legislative conflicts often push negotiations past deadlines, making CRs the politically viable fallback to avert shutdowns [2] [3]. The fiscal consequence includes less precise control over discretionary spending and growing concern about mandatory spending’s share of the budget, which constrains discretionary room [5].
5. Competing Remedies and Unresolved Tradeoffs
Policy and congressional proposals as of 2025 range from procedural fixes — stricter deadlines, automatic continuing resolutions with caps, or biennial budgeting — to substantive reforms to address mandatory spending growth. Proponents of timely regular appropriations argue that full-year bills restore predictability and accountability, while defenders of temporary CR use point out CRs’ role in preventing shutdowns amid unresolved disputes [1] [3]. Oversight bodies flag that increasing CR frequency imposes management costs and risk to program outcomes, but any reform faces political headwinds because it reallocates leverage among stakeholders and requires compromise on priorities that historically eludes Congress [4] [6].