Fact check: Which continuing resolutions in 2018–2024 were "clean" without policy riders?

1. What the user asked and what the sources actually claim — a clear mismatch

The original request seeks a roster of which CRs from 2018–2024 were clean, but none of the provided sources explicitly catalog CRs by “clean” versus “rider-containing” status. The materials supplied focus on major appropriations acts and negotiations — for example, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 and the FY2018 Omnibus — and discuss funding allocations and amendments rather than producing an affirmative, itemized list of rider-free CRs ^{[1] [4] [2]}. Because the dataset lacks a definitive inventory or a single authoritative summary on rider content across every CR in 2018–2024, the correct factual posture is that the supplied evidence is inconclusive on the original binary question ^[5].

2. Documentary evidence shows omnibus and negotiated deals, not tidy ‘clean/dirty’ labels

The sources supplied describe omnibus and consolidated appropriations and the mechanics of multiple CRs, especially in later years, but they emphasize negotiated trade-offs and program-specific provisions rather than labeling measures as “clean.” The FY2018 Omnibus and Consolidated Appropriations references demonstrate that appropriations bills frequently bundled many program-level provisions and amendments into single instruments ^{[2] [4]}. Similarly, FY2024 coverage highlights a sequence of short-term CRs that were “laddered” and tied to negotiation outcomes — a context that typically fosters inclusion of account- or policy-specific provisions rather than a uniform absence of riders ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Direct signals of riders and policy battles in the period covered

Several items in the record indicate explicit debate over policy riders and efforts to keep measures rider-free, which implies that riders were a recurring element in appropriations strategy. One source frames the importance of keeping appropriations free of controversial riders to maintain bipartisan support, signaling that the presence or removal of riders was a contentious, deliberate choice in negotiations ^[6]. The consolidated acts and omnibus packages referenced include amendments and policy-linked provisions, showing that at least some major funding vehicles carried substantive policy language beyond simple budget extensions ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Competing viewpoints and likely agendas in the record

Sources reflect different institutional perspectives: congressional negotiators and appropriations advocates emphasize bipartisan compromise and package deals, while interest-group materials push for “no rider” protections on specific issue areas ^{[6] [3]}. These divergent stances reveal an underlying agenda dynamic: lawmakers seeking leverage use riders to press policy goals, while program advocates and some appropriators push for clean CRs to avoid policy trade-offs. The supplied material demonstrates both incentives — but does not produce a neutral, item-by-item tally that would resolve which specific CRs were wholly rider-free.

5. What’s missing and the steps to get a definitive answer

To conclusively answer “which CRs were clean” for 2018–2024 requires a systematic review of the text of each CR, plus floor and conference amendments, across that seven-year span. The current dataset lacks that exhaustive text-by-text compilation. The necessary next steps are straightforward and documentary: compile the statutory text and amendment histories of each CR enacted between FY2018 and FY2024, then flag any provision that alters policy (non-spending riders). That approach produces an objective, verifiable list; absent that, claims about which CRs were “clean” remain unsupported by the provided materials ^{[7] [8]}.

6. Bottom line: evidence points to frequent riders, not a clean catalog

The assembled sources document omnibus appropriation acts, laddered CRs, and explicit debate over riders, establishing that policy riders were a recurring feature of the period’s appropriations landscape. However, because none of the provided items itemizes every continuing resolution and marks it rider-free, the dataset cannot substantiate a definitive list of clean CRs for 2018–2024. The correct, evidence-based conclusion is that the question cannot be fully answered from the supplied sources alone; confirming which CRs were clean requires a targeted statutory-text review for each CR in that timeframe ^{[1] [2] [3]}.