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.
What is a continuing resolution and how does it work in US Congress?
Executive Summary
A continuing resolution (CR) is a temporary appropriations law Congress uses to keep federal agencies funded at existing or specified levels when regular annual spending bills are not enacted by the start of the fiscal year; it prevents a government shutdown but creates funding uncertainty and limits agency flexibility [1] [2]. CRs are common: Congress has relied on them frequently in recent decades, averaging multiple CRs per year in some periods, and their recurring use has drawn criticism for undermining the regular budget process and complicating agency operations [3] [4].
1. How a Stopgap Became Routine: The Mechanics and Purpose That Keep the Lights On
A continuing resolution functions as temporary appropriations legislation that extends funding to federal departments, agencies, and programs when Congress fails to pass the twelve regular appropriations bills before the fiscal year begins. In practice, CRs typically maintain funding at prior-year levels or a specified funding rate, set a duration or multiple stop dates, and may include policy riders or restrictions that bar new programs or expansions; the measure covers either all discretionary accounts or selected portions of the budget. Congress uses CRs to avert partial or full shutdowns by authorizing continued operations, payroll, and contracted services until lawmakers pass final appropriations or a new CR; however, because a CR is inherently temporary, it imposes planning constraints on agencies that rely on predictable multi-year funding streams [1] [5] [6].
2. Frequency and Historical Patterns: Why CRs Are No Longer Exceptions
CRs are no longer rare procedural fixes but recurring features of the appropriations calendar. Data compiled across recent decades show that lawmakers have used dozens of CRs in the 21st century, with hundreds enacted across multi-year spans and multiple CRs sometimes required within a single fiscal year. Analysts note that Congress has passed all spending bills on time only a handful of times since the 1970s, and the average delay from fiscal-year start to final spending laws has been measured in months, not weeks. The routine reliance on CRs—averaging several per year in some periods—reflects growing partisan polarization over spending priorities and floor dynamics in both chambers, turning a tool meant to buy time into a structural feature of federal budgeting [4] [2] [7].
3. Administrative Consequences: Agencies Feeling the Pinch of Stopgap Funding
When a CR is in place, federal agencies operate under constrained authorities because funding is often pegged to prior-year levels and new initiatives or program expansions are limited. This produces operational inefficiencies: agencies delay hiring, postpone multiyear contracts, and struggle to implement grant programs or new policy priorities. A stopgap can also complicate long-term procurement and capital projects that require stable funding commitments. Government accountability offices and budget scholars highlight that repeated CRs generate uncertainty that raises costs, slows program rollout, and forces managers to adopt stopgap workarounds that reduce effectiveness; while CRs avoid immediate shutdown harms, they transfer economic and administrative costs onto agency operations [8] [3].
4. Political Dynamics and Strategic Uses: A Tool for Leverage or Governance Failure?
CRs are leveraged strategically by political actors for multiple purposes: to buy negotiation time, to force vote choices on high-conflict riders, or to maintain leverage over spending priorities during partisan standoffs. Advocates of stricter appropriations timetables argue that frequent CRs reflect a breakdown of regular order, undermining Congress’s deliberative role and oversight. Conversely, some lawmakers view CRs as pragmatic instruments that prevent the political and economic damage of shutdowns while preserving bargaining space. Observers note an inherent tension: CRs reduce immediate pain but incentivize delay, creating incentives for obstruction that perpetuate reliance on temporary funding [5] [7].
5. Variations and Exceptions: When CRs Are Narrow, Partial, or Hybrid
Continuing resolutions vary widely in scope and technical design: some cover the entire discretionary budget for an abbreviated period, while others are partial, funding only selected agencies or programs. CRs can include exceptions that allow limited adjustments—such as adjusted funding rates for programs with new statutory requirements—or carve-outs for emergent needs like disaster response. Lawmakers sometimes append targeted provisions to a CR to address urgent policy priorities, turning a stopgap into a vehicle for short-term policy changes. These hybrid CRs can reduce certain operational harms but complicate legislative transparency by mixing funding continuation with ad hoc policy decisions outside the regular appropriations process [3] [5].
6. The Big Picture: Trade-offs and Reform Debates That Follow Every CR
The recurring use of CRs frames a broader debate about congressional budgeting: whether to reform appropriations to reduce stopgap reliance, adopt multi-year funding frameworks, or preserve CRs as necessary fail-safes. Critics argue CRs undermine efficient governance and fiscal planning; defenders argue they are preferable to shutdowns and provide negotiating space. Empirical reviews and watchdog analyses emphasize that while CRs are effective at preventing immediate service interruptions, their cumulative effects—uncertainty, higher administrative costs, and weakened planning—create real governance trade-offs that Congress must weigh if it aims to restore regular order to the appropriations calendar [2] [7].