What is a continuing resolution in US Congress?

1. What advocates and documents actually claim about CRs — the central assertions pulled together

Analysts and official summaries converge on several clear claims: CRs are stopgap appropriations passed as joint resolutions to provide budget authority when the annual appropriations process is incomplete; they typically maintain funding at the “current rate of operations” or prior-year levels; they run for a fixed short period or sometimes the full year; and they commonly include restrictions on new program starts and obligations, which constrains agency flexibility ^{[2] [4] [3]}. The sources also assert that CRs are a routine but imperfect tool: Congress has used CRs repeatedly over decades, and they are often accompanied by policy riders or special provisions such as disaster relief or Farm Bill funding, reflecting their political use as leverage ^{[5] [2]}. These foundational points frame later debate about operational impact and democratic accountability ^{[1] [6]}.

2. How a CR functions in practice — the mechanics you need to understand

A CR functions as an appropriation in the form of a joint resolution that grants temporary budget authority so agencies can continue operations at a defined funding rate until Congress enacts regular appropriations or another CR expires. Mechanically, CRs either set funding at prior-year levels, a presidential request level, or the lowest Congressional mark, and they may include “anomalies” or targeted changes to address specific needs. CRs also frequently include legislative provisions limiting new activities or acquisitions, which constrains hiring, contracting, and multi-year projects. Official procedural descriptions and acquisition guidance emphasize that while CRs prevent immediate shutdowns, they do not establish new programmatic priorities or durable budget clarity, leaving agencies in a holding pattern ^{[4] [2] [3]}.

3. How often CRs happen and the historical pattern that matters

CRs are not rare emergency instruments; they have been used in the vast majority of recent fiscal years. Historic tallies differ by the period counted, but sources note long-term reliance: one dataset counts 207 CRs enacted since 1977, another reports 47 CRs between FY2010 and FY2022, while a more recent roundup lists 138 CRs from FY1998 through 2025. The empirical pattern shows CRs as a systemic feature of the appropriations process, not a sporadic fix, illustrating recurring legislative inability or choice to delay full-year budgeting ^{[2] [6] [7]}. This repeated usage shapes agency planning cycles and incentivizes Congress to use stopgaps for negotiation leverage, producing a governance rhythm in which short-term extensions become normalized ^{[1] [7]}.

4. What the evidence says about operational consequences for government agencies

Multiple analyses and government accountability reviews converge: CRs produce funding uncertainty, operational constraints, and administrative inefficiencies. Agencies face limits on initiating new programs, executing multi-year procurement, and committing to long-term contracts; hiring and training schedules often stall under CRs; and disaster response or emergent needs may require supplemental legislation rather than being addressed within a CR’s framework. These operational impacts are documented in GAO and policy overviews, which tie the restrictions embedded in CR language to measurable management challenges and reduced acquisition flexibility ^{[6] [1] [3]}. The practical consequence is less effective implementation of policy priorities until full appropriations provide clear, predictable funding.

5. Politics, riders, and the strategic uses that shape the narrative

CRs are political tools as much as budgetary stopgaps: they frequently carry policy riders and targeted funding fixes that reflect Congressional bargaining. Recent CRs have included provisions for disaster relief and Farm Bill funding, demonstrating how stopgaps become vehicles for policy priorities that otherwise might not pass on their own timetable ^[5]. Different sources highlight competing agendas: some actors frame CRs as necessary to prevent shutdowns and buy negotiation time, while critics argue CR reliance undermines full deliberation and accountability. The mix of routine use, strategic rider insertion, and operational constraint produces recurring debates about whether CRs should be reformed or phased out in favor of more predictable appropriations processes ^{[1] [8]}.