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.
Number of continuing resolutions In congress per year
Executive Summary
Congress has enacted continuing resolutions (CRs) routinely: since FY1998 lawmakers passed roughly 138 CRs—about five per year on average—and CRs occurred in all but three of the past 47 fiscal years, with full-year CRs used 15 times since 1977 including FY2025 [1] [2]. Multiple official analyses confirm the pattern: CRs have become a recurring mechanism to keep agencies funded for extended periods, funding federal operations for months at a time and sometimes covering nearly half a year under temporary measures [3].
1. Why the Numbers Matter: The Simple Claims and Their Sources
The core factual claims are straightforward: how many CRs Congress enacts per year, the multi-decade averages, and the frequency of years using at least one CR. Congressional and independent analyses converge on the same headline figures: an average of about 4.8–5 CRs annually from FY1998–FY2025, totaling roughly 138 CRs in that span, and CRs were used in nearly every fiscal year except three over a 47-year window [2] [1]. Government Accountability Office data and Congressional Research Service overviews corroborate counts and durations of CRs, although reports vary on the exact averaging method and sample ranges [4] [2]. These figures are repeatedly cited in policy briefs and research articles that examine the budget process and funding stability [3].
2. What the Data Reveal About Trends: More Than Stopgaps, Often the Norm
Detailed breakdowns show a clear trend: CRs moved from exceptional stopgaps to a recurring funding mechanism, with the 21st century seeing agencies funded under CRs for an average of about four months per fiscal year and with some fiscal years requiring as many as 21 short-term measures [1]. Analysts note that from 2012 through 2025 temporary measures covered roughly 46 percent of the year on average, and Congress has increasingly resolved appropriations through omnibus packages or full-year CRs after deadlines [3] [5]. The Pew Research Center and other observers document long delays between fiscal year starts and final appropriations—averaging over 100 days—underscoring that late funding is now routine rather than exceptional [5].
3. How Researchers Count and Why Averages Differ
Different reports use slightly different windows and counting rules, which explains modest discrepancies in averages and totals. The GAO counted 47 CRs from FY2010–FY2022, yielding a 3–4 per year rate for that shorter window, while CRS and fiscal policy groups use the FY1998–FY2025 span to report an average near five per year [4] [2] [3]. Some analyses include very short stopgaps and intrayear rollover measures that others aggregate into omnibus enactments, producing variation in counts. Methodological choices—timeframe, inclusion of single-day CRs, and whether omnibus packages are treated as one or many measures—drive small differences in headline averages, but not the overall conclusion that CRs are frequent and growing in prominence [2] [1].
4. Practical Consequences: Agencies, Projects, and the Budget Process
Empirical studies and government audits document consistent operational impacts from repeated CR use: delayed contracting, hiring freezes, implementation slowdowns, and increased administrative burden for federal agencies forced to operate under prior-year funding levels and ad hoc exceptions [4] [3]. Longer or repeated CRs constrain agency planning, complicate multi-year projects, and can elevate costs through inefficiencies. Policymakers and budget analysts warn that treating CRs as routine undermines the annual appropriations process and hampers Congress’s strategic allocation of resources, a point emphasized in policy analyses calling for structural or procedural reforms [3].
5. Competing Narratives and Limitations to the Evidence
Two competing narratives appear in the sources: one frames CR frequency as a symptom of deeper partisan gridlock and institutional decline in regular order appropriations, and the other treats CRs as pragmatic, politically expedient tools to avoid shutdowns while more comprehensive omnibus negotiations proceed. Both perspectives draw on similar facts—counts, averages, and durations—but emphasize different consequences: systemic dysfunction versus short-term stability [5] [3]. Limitations of the evidence include variations in counting methodology, the evolving use of omnibus bills that can mask the number of distinct CR votes, and the fact that averages smooth substantial year-to-year volatility [2] [4]. These caveats matter when assessing policy remedies.